I know Patsy McGarry, the Religious Affairs Correspondent for the Irish Times. That is to say, I met him once when he was in Belfast, and a more pleasant and sunny-dispositioned man you couldn’t meet. Alas, he’s recently taken to speaking out about the morality of the Easter Rising. Is mor an trua sin – more’s the pity.
On TV and in print, Patsy is agin the Rising. He figures it was a violent Rising (right there) and that political means would have been just as successful or more so than violence. On that he may be right also, but equally he may be wrong. Alternative history is made of gossamer thread and fairy dust : it didn’t happen so we’ll never know.
In an article in today’s Irish Times, he takes umbrage at those who’ve taken to asking him if he is British, because he rejects the “myth” of “the broth of a boy with a gun”. Ah, here, Patsy. None of those I’ve met who were involved in the armed conflict on either side ever talked about it in those playful terms.
Anyway as I say, Patsy’s upset that people might think he didn’t love his country because he was opposed to the Rising. A bit harsh indeed, but when you insist that the Rising was “utterly wrong”, you have to take the feedback, Patsy.
In hia article he goes on to blame the Rising for giving a “violent legacy” to the people of Ireland. Perhaps Patsy should go back a wee bit further in Irish history and he’d see that armed rebellion against Britain on this island was a tradition long before Patrick Pearse told the printer to run off those copies of the Proclamation.
The other complaint I have is that Patsy keeps shifting his moral ground. One minute it’s the violence of the Rising that’s the object of his moral judgement, the next it’s that the Rising brought about partition. Well, partition certainly followed the Rising, but that doesn’t mean it was caused by the Rising, any more than a cock crowing causes the sun to rise. Post hoc propter hoc and all that, Patsy.
In a final leap Patsy notes how many Irishmen joined the British army and helped impose “militaristic imperialism” throughout the British Empire. He’s right there; but if he checked he’d probably find that a lot of them joined to put bread on the table for their families, rather than from any eagerness to inflict violence on their fellow-countrymen or any other races squirming under the imperial boot.
Anyway, you’re entitled to your central thesis, Patsy, that the violence of the Rising was unnecessary and had negative effects. But the rest of us are entitled to tell you that you should, at the first opportunity, visit the historical equivalent of Specsavers.
“In hia article hw goes on to blame the Rising for giving a “violent legacy” to the people of Ireland. Perhaps Patsy should go back a wee bit further in Irish history and he’d see that armed rebellion against Britain on this island was a tradition long before Patrick Pearse told the printer to run off those copies of the Proclamation.”
But it was 1916 in particular that crested the terrible legacy of subsequent violence. It was with reference to 1916 that subsequent nationalist violence took place. If a peaceful route to independence had been allowed to work it seems unlikely that as much nationalist violence would have ensued.
“Anyway, you’re entitled to your central thesis, Patsy, that the violence of the Rising was unnecessary and had negative effects. But the rest of us are entitled to tell you that you should, at the first opportunity, visit the historical equivalent of Specsavers.”
Though it’s noted that you’re unable to articulate what of the historical record Patsy has failed to see.
“But it was 1916 in particular that crested the terrible legacy of subsequent violence”
Really MT? Unionism had no part to play in the North before 1916 and after? I mustve imagined it when Unionists armed themselves with guns from Germany in 1914 and threatened Civil War if Home Rule was introduced, aka Democracy. Nationalists didn’t arm themselves till a year after this, where, I think, Pearse said: “The only thing more ridiculous than an Ulsterman with a rifle is a Nationalist without one”. That’s when the Irish Volunteers were formed.
Indeed General Maxwell wrote to his wife after the 1916 Easter Rising: “I have no doubt whatsoever if the Government had have dealt with the uprising in Ulster in 1912 this rising in Dublin would never have occurred”.
Unionism brought the gun into Irish politics.
Indeed even from the 1950’s Paisley and others, many of which later formed the UDA, were part of a group called “Ulster Protestant Action”. This group was armed and opposed any sort of equality and civil rights for Catholics. Indeed they got very radical when NI Prime Minister O’Neill started raproachement with the South. They especially opposed the end of Gerrymandering of electoral boundaries (again, that opposition to democracy from Unionism). There should be an investigation into the DUP’s past activities with these groups, especially Ulster Resistance, whose weapons ended up in the hands of Loyalist terrorists and killed over 100 people.
“Though it’s noted that you’re unable to articulate what of the historical record Patsy has failed to see.”
Its not exactly rocket science MT, just a glimpse of Irish history will enlighten you (and Patsy). As I stated in another comment the Universe didn’t begin in 1916, there’s a whole history before this and I think that’s what Jude is pointing to. From the 1880’s, Nationalists had a massive mandate from the Irish people, far more seats than what Unionists had, and yet Home Rule, by hook or by crook, was denied to them. Of course Irish Independence, which was what all Irish people wanted, wasn’t on the agenda of the British government, it was being denied. Again obstruction of democracy by an Imperialist, tyrant power. We previously had the utter genocide that was the Irish “famine” (even though there wasn’t even a famine) where 4 times as much food was shipped to England from Ireland than years previously. If that happened today that would be genocide by the UN’s definition. Even comments from Government ministers at the time proved this was the case. I could go on but this is the History Patsy is turning a blind eye to.
“Really MT?”
Yes.
“Unionism had no part to play in the North before 1916 and after?”
The men of violence were and are responsible for their own actions.
“I mustve imagined it when Unionists armed themselves with guns from Germany in 1914 and threatened Civil War if Home Rule was introduced, aka Democracy. Nationalists didn’t arm themselves till a year after this, where, I think, Pearse said: “The only thing more ridiculous than an Ulsterman with a rifle is a Nationalist without one”. That’s when the Irish Volunteers were formed.”
But, like the Ulster Volunteers, the original Irish Volunteers, didn’t engage in any violence. It was only the breakaway Volunteers and IRB who did.
“Unionism brought the gun into Irish politics.”
But a minority band of ultra-nationalsts used the gun.
“Indeed even from the 1950’s Paisley and others, many of which later formed the UDA, were part of a group called “Ulster Protestant Action”. This group was armed and opposed any sort of equality and civil rights for Catholics. Indeed they got very radical when NI Prime Minister O’Neill started raproachement with the South. They especially opposed the end of Gerrymandering of electoral boundaries (again, that opposition to democracy from Unionism). There should be an investigation into the DUP’s past activities with these groups, especially Ulster Resistance, whose weapons ended up in the hands of Loyalist terrorists and killed over 100 people.”
That doesn’t alter the fact that 1916 left a terrible legacy of violence that encouraged ultra-nationalism to kill.
“Its not exactly rocket science MT, just a glimpse of Irish history will enlighten you (and Patsy).”
Yet you also are unable to articulate what of the historical record isn’t being seen!
“As I stated in another comment the Universe didn’t begin in 1916, there’s a whole history before this and I think that’s what Jude is pointing to. From the 1880’s, Nationalists had a massive mandate from the Irish people, far more seats than what Unionists had, and yet Home Rule, by hook or by crook, was denied to them. Of course Irish Independence, which was what all Irish people wanted, wasn’t on the agenda of the British government, it was being denied. Again obstruction of democracy by an Imperialist, tyrant power. We previously had the utter genocide that was the Irish “famine” (even though there wasn’t even a famine) where 4 times as much food was shipped to England from Ireland than years previously. If that happened today that would be genocide by the UN’s definition. Even comments from Government ministers at the time proved this was the case. I could go on but this is the History Patsy is turning a blind eye to.”
I’m sure Patsy is well aware of Irish history before 1916. As am I. Probably more so than you are.
“Unionism brought the gun into Irish politics.”
But a minority band of ultra-nationalsts used the gun.”
So how come no one was shot at in the larne gun running yet 3 were killed when nationalist brought similar guns in?
Britain brought its own violence to Ireland, there has been division ever since with that violence used to oppress those opposed to british rule in Ireland. Violence therefore to remove british rule will be perfectly understandable forever, because of that history which cannot be unwritten.
Not because of the actions of anyone before or since.
The Daily Telegraph in March 1914 said the British Army (they meant its Officer Class) had killed Home Rule.
Lenin said that Britain’s Ruling Class had killed British constitutionalism.
McGarry may be an affable fellow. But his various contributions to and those by others in
“Rhyme and Reason” column in the Tara Street-Walker suggest that he has all the character and integrity of a hotelier who rents out his rooms by the half-hour.
Soooo, Donal – how do you really feel about him??….;)
Patsy McGarry, BA, OBE
Wonder now did Kim Philby, OBE
Sport the tell-tale sign, no earlobe?
As a spy he saw double
Caused the UK trouble
Kimperialism in an academic robe.
Well, we all know that the Catholic church was against the Rising because it has always been for the status quo in Ireland. When it was given de facto control of the Free State it could not believe it’s luck. Individual clergy were not afraid to stand up. Not too sure about a 32 county republic either in case it was socialist or even worse godless and they might lose control of the schools with their ‘catholic’ ethos. Hah!
“Well, we all know that the Catholic church was against the Rising”
According to RTE many of Ireland’s Priests/Cardinals refused to condemn the Easter Rising, some did though but quickly changed tact when the Irish public sided with the Leaders after their execution. Talk about opportunism…..
But the Catholic Church doesn’t exactly have a history of doing the right thing (there again, name one Church/Faith that has), I’ve lost count of how many things Pope John Paul II apologized for…..the Catholic Church is meant to be the shepherd looking after its flock but unfortunately on many occasions, not just in Ireland but worldwide too, the Catholic Church has turned a blind eye to the wolf or worse actually refused to defend their flock, we even seen this amongst a minority of Priests during the troubles. Indeed I once read British intelligence tried using Catholicism against the IRA, trying to make normal Catholics fear the likes of excommunication, etc and hence not support the IRA. Psychology Warfare, basically. It obviously didn’t work.
Doing the right thing is never a sin.
The vast majority of the Irish Nation whole-heartedly supported our President’s endorsement of the Rising and the brave men and women who fought for Irish independence – and made it happen. THE north is a work- in- progress as a Re-United Ireland is inevitable.
Our President made it clear that John Redmond was never going to deliver an independent state – complete nonsense to suggest Redmond could or would.
Our President also challenged people like Patsy McGarry to examine British Imperialism, militarism and triumphalism – but I do not notice any takers.
Why so shy, I wonder ?
“The vast majority of the Irish Nation whole-heartedly supported our President’s endorsement of the Rising ”
How do you know this?
“THE north is a work- in- progress as a Re-United Ireland is inevitable.”
I used to think that too Kiinvara.
But really, other than Sinn Fein, who is working on it or even wants to talk about it?
Believe me when I say, I would not support joining with the state known as the republic of Ireland as it is today. From what I can see, Dublin rule would be worse than London rule.
Is another war of independence inevitable?
Is another civil war inevitable?
Why do you think a Re-United Ireland is inevitable?
Patsy must be like many Unionists, hes of the belief the Universe of Irish history began in 1916 or like at the recent troubles in the North, Unionist logic is the Universe began when the IRA first planted a bomb or fired a bullet, lets just ignore all the stuff that happened before.
Its disturbing that a man like Patsy has such a confused moral compass and he reports on religious matters too…..
Lets look at Irish History in this way:
Imagine if me and Patsy lived next door to each other. And I want Patsy’s house, it has nice fields, plenty of farm land and its positioned very nicely next to the Atlantic Ocean for easy access. So I boot in Patsy’s front door, beat the crap out of him and keep beating him despite his resistance and I take over his house. I raid and steal his valuables and insist that this house is mine. In order to make sure it remains mine I invite over my Scottish and English cousins to help farm the land and they can own one of the bedrooms for their troubles, plus get profits from the farming. This goes on for many years and I force Patsy to know his place, repeatedly demand Patsy to talk my language and even demand Patsy hold my beliefs in religion.
Then one day Patsy has enough. Patsy along with some help from his Irish American cousins and German friends stages a great uprising and delivers a shocking blow. This resistance continues despite me and my Scottish/English cousins fighting Patsy. Then suddenly I cant take anymore and I make an agreement with Patsy: I’ll leave the house but one of the bedrooms must stay with my cousin and part of the farm too.
Now, if I put that little story to Patsy in real life and asked him who is in the wrong and who is in the right, what would he say? Anyone with a simple, decent moral compass and an ounce of common sense would say the imaginary Patsy is in the right and the imaginary me is in the wrong. He had the right to resist my attacks, he had the right to drive me from his house and I was wrong to claim any part of his house as mine or for my cousin.
Its exactly the same with the history between Britain and Ireland. The Irish were legitimate and right in every single uprising against British rule, including 1916.
These people like John Bruton, Patsy McGarry, etc they are of a cowardly, pathetic sort. They would be what I call “Peace at any costs” types. Now I’m not against peace, I’m 100% for it but I’m not going to let anyone infringe on my rights or my country, no American or Russian would, why should I?
Again, not once have I heard the question asked: “What right had Britain to be in Ireland?” They have no mandate to be here, they have no right to be here and still don’t.
Jude
I don’t see how anyone can praise the participants in the rising for bringing about independence for the 26 counties but baulk at saying they also brought about partition.
If they brought about one then they brought about the other.
I also fail to see why the response to opinions like McGarry’s is ridicule and insult rather than reasoned debate.
None of us know if we would have had a better result without a violent rising so why must it be treated as a sacred cow?
Why do those who question the rising become subject to abuse as, for example, traitors and west Brits? Or turds even!
The mythology is like a comforting blanket I suppose.and no child likes to have its comforter taken away
“Print the legend.”
“I don’t see how anyone can praise the participants in the rising for bringing about independence for the 26 counties but baulk at saying they also brought about partition.”
They did not bring about independence, they declared a 32 county Irish nation, gave it a flag and an aspiration based on fairness and equality and fought for and died that others may achieve it.
It was those that followed that brought about the 26 county state and partition, and as many have said if you could listen, the 26 county state is not the republic they envisaged – not even close, what they died for has not yet been achieved.
The 26 county state have sullied their memory and hijacked their dream.
“Why do those who question the rising become subject to abuse as, for example, traitors and west Brits? Or turds even!”
Because you are questioning a positive aspiration that many hold dear.
“The mythology is like a comforting blanket I suppose.and no child likes to have its comforter taken away”
It is this sort of insult which divides you and me further gio.
If you think you are taking a stand for a better and more peaceful future, you are in fact doing the opposite.
One thing that is as true today as it could well be in 100 years, Ireland unfree will never be at peace.
jessica
The point is questioning the rising is not questioning the aspiration for a united Ireland. Rather it is questioning the methods used to achieve it
Surely it is legitimate to question; it is legitimate to hold a different view, without being subject to name calling?
Many people,including Jude have suggested the rising was fundamental in bringing about the independence of the 26 counties. Therefore it was also fundamental to bringing about partition.
Don’t be afraid to question the rising or anything else.
“The point is questioning the rising is not questioning the aspiration for a united Ireland. Rather it is questioning the methods used to achieve it”
We haven’t achieved it yet gio.
If you want to question anything, question why are Britain still here.
They have refused to accept the democratic will of the people of Ireland to leave Ireland to the Irish since the 1880s.
A more pertinent question don’t you think?
Questioning the rising is no more than a distraction and another effort to instil divisions.
You have succumbed. We will never agree as I will never see Britain as having a legitimate right to rule in Ireland.
“Many people,including Jude have suggested the rising was fundamental in bringing about the independence of the 26 counties. Therefore it was also fundamental to bringing about partition.”
And why was that gio?
That is the question that you need to ask yourself and it will explain why so many support their actions with the benefit of hindsight.
They were right to do what they did.
They were visionaries.
“If you want to question anything, question why are Britain still here.”
If you mean why is Northern Ireland still part of the UK it’s quite simply because the people.living there want it to be.
“They have refused to accept the democratic will of the people of Ireland to leave Ireland to the Irish since the 1880s.”
That’s untrue. Legislation was passed in the 1920s and subsequently to facilitate the democratic will of the Irish people.
“If you mean why is Northern Ireland still part of the UK it’s quite simply because the people.living there want it to be.”
I didn’t MT, I mean that a majority of the people in Ireland consider Britain’s presence in Ireland as having no legitimacy whatsoever.
“I mean that a majority of the people in Ireland consider Britain’s presence in Ireland as having no legitimacy whatsoever.”
How do you know this?
The biggest mistake we can ever make is to try and justify violence, assuming the violence we are talking about is the killing of fellow human beings.
It is always wrong and should never be called justified. Not in war, not in vengeance, not ever.
That is because justification is a Christian term, a civilised term whereas violence is a primitive act, a brutal act, a life altering act for everyone involved.
Was the rising justified? I would have to say no.
What do I think of those involved? They were heroic, they were inspirational, they were proud Irish men and women who were passionate about their nation and who dedicated their lives for the betterment of others.
Do I think they were right to do what they did?
Wholeheartedly. The signatories of the proclamation are Irish Nation that I feel that I belong to’s founding fathers and when we achieve our independence, whether is freedom from London rule or freedom from Dublin rule, whether it is a unitied Ireland or two independent Irelands, they will be celebrated annually on La Saoirse, just as the Americans do on the 4th of July.
Do I think their actions inspired further violence?
Only where there was an oppressive force engaged in misrule.
Do I still think that it was right?
Yes, sometimes a wrong thing is the right thing to do.
The question is not was it justified, but can you live with it?
There are people I would happily kill without ever feeling bad about it or losing a moments sleep. Margaret Thatcher for one.
Billy Wright for another. I would not have hesitated for a second about killing either.
Yet I believe killing is wrong.
Unless people have confronted their own limitations, they should really try to refrain from passing judgement on the limitations of others.
As with all nations that have been slaves, who have experienced the emancipation of their people, the Irish in the generations that followed now lack the assertiveness to accept the greatness that our race has already earned from the blood of passionate men and women who have chosen to fight and die in the cause of our nations freedom.
We should never be ashamed to toast the great men and women of 1916 or the risings that preceded them.