Some years ago, various Irish writers were invited for their considered judgement on the 1916 Rising. Fintan O’Toole’s point of depatrure and point of arrival was Fintan O’Toole and his recollection of its Silver Jubilee in 1966 when he was eight years old. A reader coming fresh to the supposed topic would have learned nothing about the Rising, and more than he might be bothered to know about Mr O’Toole.
The Centenary this year saw a Shitefest in the Irish Times masquerading as moral comment. A Jesuit Professor of Philosophy with arched eyebrow and curled lip, sneered at Patrick Pearse and James Connolly, comparing them, to their moral and political disadvantage with Daniel O’Connell, whom he asserted “had never shot a man.” In fact O’Connell shot John d’Esterre dead in a duel in Kildare in 1815 and in the same year was arrested on his way to Ostend to meet Robert Peel in a similar confrontation following a challenge by Peel. For all his many virtues O’Connell neither emancipated Ireland nor equipped her people to survive.One of his sons was reported as being proud to come from a nation where parents would sooner see their children starve than deny the landlords their rent, while another helped push driugs on the Chinese in an Opium War.All O’Connell’s four sons served in the Imperial Parliament, monuments to the failure of his Repeal campaign and a mockery of his reputation as the Emancipator.
By comparison within 3 years of the 1916 Rising a Parliament, mandated by the Irish electorate to make the Republic declared in 1916 an established fact, met in Dublin and within 4 years of the Rising local authorities throughout Ireland were elected to further confirm it. Despite a Berk& Hare-Brained attempt to resuscitate the Redmondite party, buried by the electorate in 1918 Redmondism remains dead, and good riddance.
Humbugs, other than the Jesuit quoted, threw garbage over the 1916 Insurgents’, their motives and their achievements, and their objections smelt of the flowers that bloom in the Spring, Tra La (Easter Lilies excepted).
A letter in The Irish Times condemning the Rising came from a retired Senior Civil Servant who, like Fintan O’Toole, focussed on the Silver Jubilee of 1966. He had been a schoolboy in 1966, at Colaiste Mhuire, a Christian Brothers’ School in Dublin’s Parnell Square. His beef was that corporal punishment twas administered there. What that fact had to do with the 1916 Rising he didn’t say. Had excessive corporal punishment been administered in St Enda’s where Pearse was Headmaster from 1909 to 1916 it would certainly have been remarked on by now, or if Eamon de Valera had later been an enthusiastic flogger when teaching we’d certainly have been so informed before now. I suspect that St Enda’s did not have corporal punishment and would be surprised if Eamon de Valera practised it.
At letter (in The Irish Post, London) by another ex-Brothers’ boy (Thurles CBS) also focussed on the 1966 Jubilee when he had been an 11 years old. He had suffered corporal punishment also and sought to palm off (pun intended) the blame on the 1916 insurgents. Like the ex-Civil Servant he was talking through his arse whilst grabbing the wrong end of the stick.Corporal punishment in schools in the Republic was prohibited by law over 20 years before it was finally banned in the United Kingdom. Aspirational parents paid Kings’ Ransoms at “Public” Schools to have their sons well flogged and assimilated (pun intended) into the Ruling Class.
Corporal Punishment in all Schools in the Irish Republic was banned by law in 1982.
Corporal Punishment in Publicly Funded Schools was banned In Britain in 1987
Corporal Punishment in Private Schools was banned in England in 1999, Scotland in 2000 and N.Ireland in 2003.
Politics post 1916 was working then?
For the Irish to be ashamed of 1916 is to be a worm.
Why would a Irish pacifist, Constitutional Nationalist or perhaps an Irish Unionist who disagrees with either the political goal or perhaps even agrees with the goal but rejects the methods used be a “worm” Jessica?
Is there not a perfectly legitimate view that violence isn’t justified to further a political goal?
It is indeed Scott.
But where decades of discrimination and casual murder of citizens gets to the point there are threats of civil war and partitioning of a country and its people then it is no longer a political goal and simply cowardice to do nothing.
Many freedoms were born out of violent revolution and Ireland was no different.
In my opinion, anyone ashamed of that, is a spineless worm.
“Many freedoms were born out of violent revolution”. Is that an excuse for murder Jessica
“Many freedoms were born out of violent revolution”. Is that an excuse for murder Jessica”
Is that how you see it Dominic?
Most freedoms lost also involved murder but I think Gandhi summed it up well.
Non violent revolution is best though violent revolution is better than acceptance which he equated to cowardice.
When does resistance turn into oppression?
When you blow up Ken Fletcher’s shop because the British paras murdered thirteen people in Derry
“When does resistance turn into oppression? When you blow up Ken Fletcher’s shop because the British paras murdered thirteen people in Derry”
resistance and oppression are two different things Dominic.
If you mean violence always leads to oppression, then yes it does and in most cases I would imagine pretty much immediately . Conflict is bloody oppression on all sides and starts a cycle of violence that swiftly gets out of control making it very difficult to end and yes the majority of people who lose the most in it are innocent civilians.
You sound more concerned for Ken Fletchers shop than you are for the thirteen people murdered in Derry.
Were the fletchers killed in this shop?
I think the point I’m trying to make is that when you seek to oppose injustice you cannot act in an unjust manner, otherwise you become an oppressor yourself. You cannot hide behind statements such as, “Many freedoms were born out of violent revolution”. The whole legacy issue debunks that myth. And how many repressive regimes started out as liberation movements of one kind or another?
I could not disagree with that any stronger Dominic.
The United States of America was born out of violent revolution which was to achieve freedom from the very same oppressor.
You can be sure there were many Ken Fletchers caught up in the violence then, and while I disagree with their foreign policy today, I would not claim that it was because they achieved their freedom through violent revolution that they became oppressors.
The Legacy issue also debunks nothing. In fact the issues with legacy is that that britain is refusing to acknowledge the truth of its actions and you cannot have a truth and reconciliation process where a leading combatant is allowed to have the truth of its actions covered up.
I also disagree that the conflict started over injustice. It started because unionism which totally controlled the state and its security forces and refused to end discrimination and abuse of that power. When they reacted violently in attacking the civil rights campaign, when the RUC began murdering and shooting hundreds of innocent Catholics, when unionist mobs were burning thousands of people out of their homes, it was only then that a violent response was unavoidable.
I fully support the IRA response and am grateful for them. I totally believe that if it weren’t for the IRA the pogroms would have continued and 10s of thousands of families would have been put out and we would not be here today to complain about it.
I do believe the conflict should have ended in the mid 70s, but the truth is, it was the british through Robert Nairac who prevented that as he wanted to escalate this conflict to bring in the SAS which he succeeded in through kingsmill and the british then decided to attempt to defeat the IRA which prolonged the conflict making it difficult to end.
Another example of the difficulties with legacy, this truth would also come out.
And a final point, it was republicans who sought peace for almost a decade before they got british buy in.
It is also very clear that it is still republicans today who are making the greatest efforts towards peace and reconciliation. Hardly in the effort of establishing a repressive regime.
The truth is, condemning violence is easy, supporting it is difficult. I am anti war and anti conflict, but as Gandhi says, there is a point when to not fight back becomes cowardice and Ireland is not known to be a land of cowards.
It depends what you mean by freedom. Look at Syria, that started with people seeking political freedoms but quickly spiraled out of control with all sides becoming oppressors and the ordinary people suffering. You hide behind your own rationale and the Brits will hid behind theirs. It will make no difference to the vast majority of ordinary citizens who groan under the burden of your self righteous excuses
Sure, its all my fault Dominic.
And is Syria really your example?
The problem was people seeking political freedom was it?
No interference from the west at all, I must have imagined all those billions of pounds worth of arms, missiles and weaponry piled into the area by the Brits, French, US, Russia etc…
No CIA involvement with the establishment of Al Qaeda or ISIS was there?
Why cant we all just get along, eh?
Just put up with whatever states may throw at us.
Might is right in your eyes then.
You take up a stone, a gun, a missile, Jet, you dam well take responsibility for the consequences to yourself and to others.
If only those responsible for these guns missiles and jets would indeed accept the responsibility for the consequences of them Dominic.
Unfortunately they rarely do.
Was blowing up Ken Fletchers shop a just act?
So you have gone from a SDLP viewpoint to full blown unionism, focussing now on one particular event to make no sensible argument other than point the finger of wrongdoing in the general direction of those you don’t agree with.
Personally, if only the blowing up of Ken Fletchers could be the only wrong doing of the conflict here, I would happily pay to build him a new one.
But the thing about conflict is, bad things happen to good people in it.
So who was responsible for starting this conflict do you think Dominic?
Must have been the shopkeepers since they bore the brunt of it
Sure, the graveyards are full of shopkeepers.
“Most freedoms lost also involved murder but I think Gandhi summed it up well.
Non violent revolution is best though violent revolution is better than acceptance which he equated to cowardice.”
Respecting democracy and seeking change peacefully is not cowardice.
Pacifists such as Gandhi and Francis Sheehy Skeffington and Martin Luther KIng command
respect.
So also do militant campaigners for justice when those employing force to impose or perpetuate injustice use force.
Connolly said that in normal times constitutional methods were appropriate but in abnormal
times revolutionary methods were necessary.
Pearse said that if England were to say to the Irish “you can have your freedom” and if the Irish were to answer “we’d rather fight you for it” the Irish would be daft.
Ireland was dragged into the First World war by a British Government with the cooperation of Irish parties with no mandate for it.
Redmond’s Irish Party was consigned to the dustbin of history in 1918 and most Irish parties since then owe their origin to Pearse, Connolly and their comrades.
Incidentally the Republic’s earlier abolition of corporal punishment in schools – 21 years before the UK can also be atributed to the Insurgents’ legacy. Also the earlier dropping of the practice of judicial capital punishment. And the absence of military conscription.
“So also do militant campaigners for justice when those employing force to impose or perpetuate injustice use force.”
Force was used in response to the violence of the 1916 rebels not the other way round.
“Pearse said that if England were to say to the Irish “you can have your freedom” and if the Irish were to answer “we’d rather fight you for it” the Irish would be daft.”
“England” had said to the Irish they can have their “freedom” and had legislated. So by Pearse’s own logic he was daft.
So unionism didn’t form a militia, smuggle in arms, threaten civil war and demand a partition of the country prior to 1916?
Pearse knew partition was on the cards and declared a 32 county Ireland first.
If it weren’t for the rebels in 1916 Ireland would be irreparably divided today.
“So unionism didn’t form a militia, smuggle in arms, threaten civil war and demand a partition of the country prior to 1916?”
Of course it did. What of it?
“Pearse knew partition was on the cards and declared a 32 county Ireland first.”
I’m afraid that doesn’t alter the facts of the matter, namely that force was used in response to the 1916 rebels and not the other way round, and “England” had already told the Irish it could have “freedom”.
“If it weren’t for the rebels in 1916 Ireland would be irreparably divided today.”
Given that you appear to oppose irreparable division in Ireland, why then do you speak in favour of the rebels?
“Given that you appear to oppose irreparable division in Ireland, why then do you speak in favour of the rebels?”
Because they are quite possibly the last thing we have left in common on this island MT.
An Ireland that cannot respect the rebels of 1916 is not worth saving.
“Because they are quite possibly the last thing we have left in common on this island MT.”
What is the last thing we have left in common?
“An Ireland that cannot respect the rebels of 1916 is not worth saving.”
That’s nonsense. We should have contempt for men with such disregard for democracy and such a cheap value on life.
But I still don’t understand why you revere them while at the same time blaming them for dividing Ireland, which I presume you oppose.
I did not say I blamed them for dividing Ireland, I said one of the reasons for the rising going ahead was to declare a 32 country republic before Ireland was divided. They knew the british were going to and made the move first.
“I did not say I blamed them for dividing Ireland”
Actually I misunderstood. You said “If it weren’t for the rebels in 1916 Ireland would be irreparably divided today.” Which is an odd thing to say, given that Ireland *is* irreparably divided today.
,”I said one of the reasons for the rising going ahead was to declare a 32 country republic before Ireland was divided.”
No it wasn’t, it was because of the war and the reduced garrison in Ireland. England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity etc.
Anyway the point is irrelevant. It does change what I said.
“They knew the british were going to and made the move first.:
They didn’t “know” what “the British” -were going to do.
“Because they are quite possibly the last thing we have left in common on this island MT.”
What is the last thing we have left in common? Why didn’t you answer?
“Ireland was dragged into the First World war by a British Government with the cooperation of Irish parties with no mandate for it.”
Eh? What greater mandate could there have been than every (or almost every) Irish MP supporting the war?
Donal has previously made the point that if one were to apply O’Toole’s and the Jesuit “philosopher”s’ reckoning,to France in the second world war, Laval and Clemenceau were democrats and De Gaulle a bloodthirty upstart. O’Connell while “achieving” emancipation (which was coming anyway) did so at the cost of reducing the Catholic electorate by (I think) sixty percent). While Davitt and Parnell’s efforts had aceived real gains for the peasantryThe electoral process had not obtaining any real measure of independence, the will of the Irish people for even a measure of Independence was stubbornly resisted by the English government. The quality of British democracy at that time is best illustrated by the fact that the British brought the leader of a German-colloborating rebellion into the war cabinet and gave the UVF its own regiment under the UVF flag, while snubbing the pathetic pleas of Redmond for similar recognition for the”nationalist” Irish recruits.When the Irish party dragged the Irish nation into a murderous internecine war between imperial plunderers., – war which would cost the lives of 35 million, including 7 nillion civilians and up to 40,000 Irishmen – then the Rising was inevitable.It undoubted, if indirectly,saved many Irish lives O’Toole pointed out that more civilians than rebels died in the Rising. He (and the Jo Duffy) omitted to mention that the vast majoriy of cicilians killed died as a result of the Aleppo-like shelling of Dublin by British forces, while others were simply massacred by British troops. Inconvenient truths.
That any Irish man or woman should be ashamed of the rising or Irelands revolutionary past, is a shame in itself.
“Donal has previously made the point that if one were to apply O’Toole’s and the Jesuit “philosopher”s’ reckoning,to France in the second world war, Laval and Clemenceau were democrats and De Gaulle a bloodthirty upstart.”
Except half of France was under German occupation and the Vichy republic was not democratic. So it’s a particularly poor and irrelevant comparison.
“The quality of British democracy at that time is best illustrated by the fact that the British brought the leader of a German-colloborating rebellion into the war cabinet and gave the UVF its own regiment under the UVF flag, while snubbing the pathetic pleas of Redmond for similar recognition for the”nationalist” Irish recruits.”
In fact, Redmond was also invited to join the Cabinet and the 16th Irish Division was formed from.the National Volunteers.
“When the Irish party dragged the Irish nation into a murderous internecine war between imperial plunderers., – war which would cost the lives of 35 million, including 7 nillion civilians and up to 40,000 Irishmen – then the Rising was inevitable.”
Nothing is inevitable. The ‘Rising’ happened because Pearse and his unrepresentative and unaccountable clique decided it would happen. They could have decided otherwise.
“O’Toole pointed out that more civilians than rebels died in the Rising. He (and the Jo Duffy) omitted to mention that the vast majoriy of cicilians killed died as a result of the Aleppo-like shelling of Dublin by British forces, while others were simply massacred by British troops. Inconvenient truths.”
None of which would have occurred if the anti-democratic rebels had decided not to start a violent rebellion.
“That any Irish man or woman should be ashamed of the rising or Irelands revolutionary past, is a shame in itself.”
It’s not. It’s shameful that do many continue to review them and their dreadful legacy.