| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1052.1 | 1916: An Alternative View | MACNAS::TJOYCE | | Fri May 08 1992 13:02 | 67 |
|
Before I get to the point of why 1916 is not celebrated, I would
question if some of your points are historically accurate:
"[The Rising] kicked people out of the long sleep and into action"
Firstly, the "Anglo-Irish War" began in 1919, three years after 1916.
It is doubtful if 1916 OF ITSELF started the war. For example, the
Conscription Crisis of 1917 did as much to arouse the Irish as 1916
did - some say even more. The sweeping Sinn Fein victory in 1918
was another step in the process, and the meeting of the First Dail
in 1919. Note: this was not today's Sinn Fein but a Sinn Fein
pledged to peaceful means. The war was started by Breen and Treacy
as a conscious effort at Soloheadbeg to assert the military wing
of the movement against the political - it is no coincidence that
the Dail met on the same day as the Soloheadbeg shooting occurred.
This was followed by a systematic assassination campaign against
rural policemen, which led to the introduction of the Black and
Tans, and things spiralled down from there ...
I can't leave out the incompetent way the British Government
handled the various Irish crises from 1912 onwards as a major
contributory factor to the Rising and the war.
Breen and Treacy were supported by the militarists like Collins
who wished to see greater British repression knowing it would
bring the mass of people over to their side. Collins, incidentally,
fought in the GPO in 1916, and was not impressed. "Greek tragedy"
was his description, a tragedy he did not intend to repeat.
De Valera also fought in 1916, and was against violence for the
rest of his life, though that secretive man having acceded to
leadership of the Nationalists was not about to split the movement
at this stage. As soon as he could, he went to America and
avoided the worst of the Troubles.
Secondly, the Irish nationalists had been struggling for a generation
for a thing called "Home Rule", and were in sight of their goal
when war intervened. But for the fortuitous irruption of
World War I, Nationalist Ireland would have received a measure
of self-determination to satisfy itself at least for a while.
With the way the world has gone since then, it is definite that
this freedom would have been expanded. What 1916 and the
Anglo-Irish War achieved was the difference between Home Rule
and the Irish Free State.
So 1916 was just one of a whole series of events that occurred
between 1912 to 1921 that led to the Irish Free State. True, it
was one of the most important events but if the British had
boxed a bit smarter, if they had not tried to introduce
conscription, if there was not a revolutionary genius
like Collins prepared to use violent means.... the "ifs" go on.
Nationalist Ireland would probably have achieved as much
WITHOUT 1916, and without the Anglo-Irish War, though it might have
taken a bit longer. But it might have been achieved without the
innocent bloodshed and the deep bitterness that still persists.
If I was to choose a single decisive moment that led to Irish
independence, I would choose the 1918 election. People concentrate
too much on the militarism and bloodshed of 1916 and 1921, but the
1918 election is the day the ordinary people got their say.
Without the moral authority of that election victory, Collins'
movement would have been reduced to the status of today's IRA -
men practising violence without any sanction.
The sad thing of course is that the solid majority for the
Unionists in Ulster also made partition inevitable.
Toby
|
| 1052.2 | Why 1916 is no longer celebrated ... | MACNAS::TJOYCE | | Fri May 08 1992 13:50 | 60 |
|
Now to the question of why 1916 is not celebrated in Ireland
with the same enthusiasm as before.
I would ascribe it to a phenomenon called "dissonance". This
occurs when a cherished idea seems violated by reality and
gets constantly called into question. The current classic
example is the Soviet Union where the cherished ideal that
the country had the most successful and advanced social
system in the world finally collapsed in the face of reality.
Dissonance always causes discomfort and stress so that people
try to cope with it in various ways. For example, they grudgingly
modify their ideals in line with reality, they incorporate excuses
in their ideals or they blot out reality and refuse to confront it.
For example, the Soviets for years escaped from reality by
saying that their socialism was not "fully developed", blaming
the West, captialist sabotage etc. However, they were in no
doubt that socialism would one day triumph. This went on
until even this comforting fiction was no longer sustainable
and the system collapsed.
We in Nationalist Ireland were always taught to admire and glorify
the blood sacrifice of 1916. However when we are confronted with
the reality of the savagery of Northern Ireland today, it cannot
but set up a profound dissonance. For here are men who espouse
the ideals of 1916 (indeed use it a justification) yet they
are behaving in a fashion repugnant to the beliefs of the vast
majority of Irish people. Television (which was not around in
1916) has played its part - we see the bloody remains, we see the
hearse, coffins, grieving widows, the weeping children, and we can
only ask: "Is this what 1916 was all about?"
We all know that Pearse, Connolly and the men of 1916 would
have also been apalled at the deeds being done in their name,
but it is difficult to cleave to their ideals when you know
that the men who murder innocent workers and children are
acting out the same ideals.
It is no accident that it is since the Northern Troubles broke
out that the glorification of 1916 has declined.
Irish people are coping with this dissonance simply by blotting
out 1916, and searching around for other ideals with which to
cope with the 20th century. Allied to that is a perception that
the Irish have not used their freedom well - we are economically
worse off than we were in 1920, and emigration has persisted
right to the present day. It is no wonder that a profound
disillusion has set in, with only the ideal of becoming
part of an European entity to offset the failed ideals of
yesteryear.
The aggressive Nationalism of 1916 is ill suited to the
modern day and age, and is incapable of modification while
it seems to lead inevitably to bloodshed. A more moderate
and pragmatic nationalism is taking its place - which
ironically is probably closer to the ideals of John Redmond
than to those of Patrick Pearse.
Toby
|
| 1052.3 | Confusion | MACNAS::TJOYCE | | Thu May 28 1992 08:57 | 25 |
|
I feel quite disappointed in this topic, from which I expected
a livelier discussion. No one even used those comic epithets
"shoneen" or "West-Brit"!
I would like a discussion because the base note has put its
finger on a real phenomenon - Ireland (at least the Republic)
is in a tremendous flux, and I believe Irish people are more
confused than even about what it means to be Irish. 1916
is just one part of it.
For example, a recent survey found that a majority favoured
maintaining Irish neutrality. But a majority also favoured
joining a Western European Defense Union! Another issue
is the liberalisation of laws regulating sexual morality
- for example, polls favour divorce but (as in the last
referendum) could swing the other way at the last moment.
It seems that the old Gods of Catholicism and Nationalism
are dying a slow death, but they have a strong kick in
them yet, and could still give us some surprises. And
will be new Gods of Liberalism and "Europe" be an
improvement?
Toby
|
| 1052.4 | | MACNAS::JDOOLEY | Do not take anything for granted | Thu May 28 1992 14:10 | 48 |
| 1052.5 | Lets look South... | ESSB::CAHALAN | | Thu May 28 1992 15:34 | 21 |
| One point which struck me in last 2 replies, was that Irelands economy
was alot better in the 1916-1922 era. It probably was, and the point
being that there was no partition issue as there is today. What I am
getting at is the Border and all its ills are bleeding this country
dry, economically. I read somewhere some time ago that we in the
Republic spend more per head on security than the British taxpayers do.
Apart from the simple money side, the energy of politicians has been
given in large measures to the N.I. 'problem'. Just think what could be
done with the time and money that the Border costs us. How many
politicians can avoid the hard questions with a good old Brit bashing
speech.
My solution? The British own the problem, only they can fix it. We are
suffering the spillover in many ways,(jails, court cases, more
guards/soldiers etc..), not to mention a poor world image.
Lets put our money and energy to work here.
Patsy.
|
| 1052.6 | Stella's bogeymen need a new job... | TALLIS::DARCY | | Fri May 29 1992 03:19 | 30 |
| RE: .-1
Well said.
The British government are the key to any peace process in the north.
If the MI5 people have their way, then Northern Ireland will be their
roosting ground and new employer. If however reasonable British
politicians have any influence, then the British will withdraw
completely from Ireland and in the words of John Lennon "leave Ireland
to the Irish".
The Northern Irish don't need British tanks and guns and military
borders. It's a spark waiting to ignite - like what happened recently
in Coalisland. At least David Andrews showed some guts by calling that
the 3rd parachute regiment be withdrawn completely from Ireland. It's
about time that other faceless Irish politicians get interested in what's
happening in the North.
And no Toby, my pashioned plea for British military withdrawal in
Ireland does not translate into support for the IRA. I just think that
throwing 17 year old unemployed lads from Liverpool into a completely
different country with a fully loaded machine gun is not the answer
for peace at all.
The whole Coalisland affair is disgusting and Britain should be
ashamed of herself. How much is every Irish resident (north and south)
paying in taxes for Northern security - for this military farce - for
what - who is the real enemy? is there an enemy?
|
| 1052.7 | Where I stand | MACNAS::TJOYCE | | Fri May 29 1992 09:36 | 109 |
|
I'm glad I tried to expand this note .. got a few stimulating
replies.
Its simplistic and wrong to blame all our problems on the
British, and on the border. That's what we did prior to "the
Troubles". Granted, I have little of good to say about the
British government in Ireland, "benign neglect" would be the
kindest description, particularly prior to 1969.
Given that, I must affirm my own belief in the
intrinsic decency of the British people. Since independence
and before, Ireland has exported tens of thousands of
emigrants to that country. Despite the false accusations of
racism levelled at the British people, Irish people have
not come up against any organised prejudice, the majority
have prospered, just as they have in the US. No British
politician has yet come to power on a ticket of "Exclude
the Irish". This in spite of a wave of IRA terror-bombing.
There are no British Le Pens.
While "benign neglect" might be the British attitude,
the Republic of Ireland also ignored the North for years
except for public whingeing sessions, usually at
election time. No effort was made to hold out a hand
to the Unionists - until it was already too late. And
the Unionists can take no credits for running a
secarian state, riven by petty bigotry and prejudice.
Irishmen of both creeds could solve the problem in
the morning if they wished. But I also believe that the
British Government must be closely involved in arriving at
a solution. And it must also hold the line for Law and Order
until a stable solution can be agreed, at which point it
can disengage. There is no one else who can do the job,
not the UN, not the EC, certainly not the Irish Republic.
Of course, excessive and illegal action by the security
MUST be rooted out, this goes without saying in Northern
Ireland, just as it should go without saying in Los Angeles
or any city, town or rural area in the world.
We must constantly remember that the "British garrison" is
the 1-million people who live here and are fiecely proud
of their British identity. We must convince them that this
identity will be treasured in a United Ireland. This is a
difficult task and only great statesmanship on the part of the
Nationalists, and leadership on the part of the British,
will bring this about. And it will be a LONG process,
the results may not even come in our lifetime, but we
will have to accept that.
Britain has now got no strategic or economic reason for
staying in the North. There are no key military, naval
or surveillance installations of any significance. With
the Cold War over and the Republic seeming set to join a
European Defence Union, the North has no military value.
I suggest (and of course I will be attacked for saying
it) that the reason Britain is still in Northern Ireland
is a moral reason - it is there because it has promised
it will stay until a majority decides otherwise. For
the moment, there are no signs of a weakened resolve
on their part.
Measuring the length of the process required to get a
peaceful United Ireland against the savagery we see today
in Bosnia, which would you choose? Because I believe those are
the alternatives. Premature disengagement by the British would
bring that about because it would be immediately followed by
a "grab" on both sides to hold territory for a visualised
bargaining position.
Like most Irish people, the IRA and its activities, as
well as those of Loyalist paramilitaries, are abhorrent to me.
These men seek to continually destabilise and excerbate
the problem by driving a wedge between the Irish and
British, and between Protestant and Catholic. Power is
their abiding aim, not "freedom". Terrorism
must be pursued by the full rigour of the law, North
and South, but I also believe that the IRA cannot
ultimately be defeated until political stability of some
sort is achieved. By this I mean agreed institiutions on
this island and/or in the North.
In general, I believe that the SDLP, the Irish Government
and the British Governments are moving on the right lines.
It is the Unionists whose main fears must be assuaged.
However, I think also ordinary people (like you and me)
must make ourselves available to work for Peace. This
may mean joining Amnesty International, New Consensus
or even Fine Gael. Whatever you like, as long as you
oppose and hinder the application of illegal violence
by anyone at every opportunity.
My main objective in the short term would be to gain
a decent life for ordinary people with no fear of Army
searches, random sectarian murder or IRA bomb. The
second objective is to bring people together. When
Parnell was asked about excluding the North-East from
Home Rule, he replied (referring to the Protestants)
"Ireland needs every one of them". The same is true
today. Sadly, that spirit of generosity did not long
survive into this century.
Toby
|
| 1052.8 | 1916 will live on, despite you | RUTILE::AUNGIER | | Tue Jun 09 1992 22:53 | 18 |
| 1052.9 | Proclamation of 1916 | RUTILE::AUNGIER | | Tue Jun 09 1992 23:00 | 58 |
| POBLACHT NA H-EIREANN
The Provisional Government of the
IRISH REPUBLIC
To the People of Ireland
IRISHMEN and IRISHWOMEN: In the name of God and of the dead generations
from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, throug us, summons
her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.
Having organised and trained her manhood through her secret revolutionary
organisations, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and through her open military
organisations, the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army, having
patiently perfected her discipline, having resolutely waited for the right
moment to reveal itself, she now seizes that moment, and, supported by her
exiled children in America and by gallant allies in Europe, but relying
in the first on her strength, she strikes in full confidence of victory.
We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland,
and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be soverign and
indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and
government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished
except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish
people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six
times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms.
Standing on the fundamental right and again asserting it in arms on the
face of the world, we herby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign
Independent State, and we pledge out lives and the lives of our
comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of it
exaltation among the nations.
The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance
of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The tepublic guarantees religious and
civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportiunities to all its citizens,
and declares its resolve to persue the happiness and prosperity of the whole
nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally,
and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government,
which have divided a minorit from the majority in the past.
Until our arms have brought the opportune moment for the establishment
of a permanent National Government, representative of the whole people of
Ireland and elected by the suffrages of all her men and women, the Provisional
Government, herby constituted, will administer the civil and military affairs
of the Republic in trust of the people.
We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the
Most High God, Whose blessing we invoke upon our arms, and we pray that
no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, inhumanity,
or rapine. In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and
discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves
for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which
it is called.
Signed on Behalf of the Provisional Government,
THOMAS J. CLARKE
SEAN MacDIARMADA THOMAS MacDONAGH
P. H. PEARSE EAMONN CEANNT
JAMES CONNOLLY JOSEPH PLUNKETT
Rene (FNYFS::AUNGIER)
|
| 1052.10 | Easter, 1916. | MACNAS::JDOOLEY | Do not take anything for granted | Wed Jun 10 1992 08:49 | 22 |
| Six times in the past three centuries, so the documents says, there
were revolutions in Ireland against British rule. Taking it as the
period from 1616 to 1915 lets see if I can recall them all.
1857 Fenian Rising.
1848 Young Ireland Rising.
1803 Emmetts Rising.
1798 "The Year of the French", Battles in Mayo and Wexford.
1690-1691 The Battle of the two Kings, Jacobites v's Williamites.
1641 Cromwellian campaigns.
Yep, it looks like there were six occasions at
least in those three centuries when Ireland said "no" in the most
emphatic way possible.
Anyone who examines the Proclamation of 1916 closely will notice that
different styles and sizes of print are used at random throughout the
page. This is because it was printed secretly in Liberty Hall by
Connolly's union men and they didn't have enough type of the same kind
for such a big document so, rather than alert the British with a fresh
purchase of sufficient type, they improvised with other kinds to
maintain secrecy.
|
| 1052.11 | The Proclamation | ESSB::CAHALAN | | Fri Jun 12 1992 10:44 | 12 |
| Its quite a long time since I read the Proclamation, and having read
Rene's note, its well written. It contains many laudable aspirations,
and as a model for a constituation or ethos of a society it would be
quite acceptable. Its a pity we let some many of them slip from our
constitution and society.
On a lighter note, Brendan Behan used to say he knew someone who went
into the GPO on Easter Monday 1916 to buy a stamp. He was rewarded with
a cabinet post in the Free State!
Patsy.
|
| 1052.12 | Physical Force vs Parliamentarians | MACNAS::TJOYCE | | Tue Jun 16 1992 11:04 | 37 |
|
I'm afraid when Pearse claimed that "Six times in the last 3
centuries, Ireland has struck for her freedom....... " he was being
very free and easy in defining his precursors.
Two of those rebellions were on behalf of Kings of England. The
1690 War was on behalf of James II of England. The 1641 rebels
fought under the motto "Pro Deo, Pro Rege, Hibernia Unaminis"
- Ireland United for God and King.
The 19th century "rebellions" were tragic, but over-glorified by
Pearse and his men. Emmet's rebellion was little more than a riot
on the streets of Dublin, the 1848 rising was a semi-facicial episode
(sometimes known as the "Battle of Widow McCormack's Cabbage Patch"),
a historian described the Fenian rising as "a few pistol shots in the
night". Hardly the stuff of heroism, though the rebels had courage
if little else.
More people were killed in sectarian riots in Belfast during the 19th
century than in all the nationalist "risings" put together.
Pearse was here trying to build up the "physical force" side of
Nationalism at the expense of the democratic, Parliamentary side.
It has to be said that through his death, and through the genius
of Collins, he succeeded for a time in seizing the leadership
of Nationalism from the Parliamentarians.
However the counter-argument is that since Daniel O'Connell, the
democratic wing of Nationalism has generally held the majority
support of the Irish people. Only on two occasions, under Parnell in
the 1880s and under Collins and De Valera in the period 1919-21,
did the two wings act in something like a united front. These
were also the periods in which maximum concessions were forced
from Britain - undoubtedly the unity of the Nationalists was
a major contributory factor to this.
Toby
|
| 1052.13 | A story about Major John McBride | MACNAS::TJOYCE | | Tue Jun 16 1992 11:14 | 31 |
|
A person I will describe as "a leading Belfast Republican" since
retired from public life, told me a story about the 1916 Rising
concerning Major John McBride, father of Sean McBride.
Now, we know that Major John was found of the gargle. Yeats
called him
"....a drunken, vainglorious lout.
He has done great wrong to one
who is near my heart,
but I number him in my song."
(Easter 1916)
Yeats was referring to McBride's estranged wife, Maud Gonne,
whom he (Yeats) loved passionately.
According to my acquaintance, McBride because of his weakness
for the jar, was not party to the plans for a Rising. Hearing
of the cancellation of the "manoeuvres" planned for Easter
Sunday, he went on a bender for the day. The following morning
he was standing on O'Connell Bridge with a sore head, hoping
to get a lift out to the Fairyhouse Races, when he saw the
volunteers come marching along.
Realising something was afoot, he fell in with his comrades,
signed the proclamation, and got shot for his pains.
I can't vouch for the truth of this, and doubt if its all
true. However, its a good story .....
Toby
|
| 1052.14 | The Magnificent Seven | AYOV18::FSPAIN | Sending out a SOS | Tue Jun 16 1992 12:39 | 11 |
| re .13
Did McBride sign the proclamation ?
I thought it was only signed by the seven people listed on the bottom
and they signed it `for and on behalf of' .
Were there other's who signed over and above the seven, can you list
them .
Feargal.
|
| 1052.15 | | DELNI::CULBERT | Free Michael Culbert | Tue Jun 16 1992 14:05 | 13 |
|
re -1
On my copy it reads
Signed on Behalf of the Provisional Government
Thomas J. Clarke
Sean MacDiarmada
P.H. Pearse
James Connolly
Thomas MacDonagh
Eamomn Ceannt
Joseph Plunkett
|
| 1052.16 | McBride | MACNAS::TJOYCE | | Thu Jun 18 1992 09:44 | 13 |
|
Hey, you're right, McBride didn't sign the proclamation.
I shoved in that bit myself, I'm bad at dates and lists of
names anyway.
I was hoping someone would confirm or deny the story. Nothing
I've read contradicts it, but no one has corroborated it
either. Its so plausible in its detail, that it rings with
an element of truth. It may have happened to SOMEONE, if
not to McBride.
Toby
|
| 1052.17 | Pearse's statement to the British Diplock, sorry I mean Kangaroo Court. -mark | EPIK::HOLOHAN | | Fri Aug 28 1992 16:48 | 27 |
|
Pearse's statement before the British Military Court. 1916
From my earliest youth I have regarded the connection between Ireland
and Great Britain as the curse of the Irish nation, and felt convinced
that while it lasted, this country could never be free or happy.
When I was a child of ten I went down on my bare knees by my bedside one
night and promised God that I should devote my life to an effort to free
my country.
I have kept that promise.
We seem to have lost. We have not lost. To refuse to fight would have
been to lose; to fight is to win. We have kept faith with the past, and
handed on a tradition to the future.
I repudiate the assertion that I sought to aid and abet England's enemy.
Germany is no more to me than England is. My aim was to win Irish
freedom; we struck the first blow ourselves but should have been glad of
an ally's aid.
I assume that I am speaking to Englishmen who value their freedom and
who profess to be fighting for the freedom of Belgium and Serbia.
Believe that we, too, love freedom and desire it. To us it is more
desirable than anything in the world. If you strike us down now, we
shall rise again and renew the fight.
You can not conquer Ireland. You cannot extinguish the Irish passion
for freedom. If our deed has not been sufficient to win freedom, then
our children will win it by a better deed.
|
| 1052.18 | Pearse a great man | RUTILE::AUNGIER | | Thu Sep 03 1992 10:41 | 5 |
| Pearse was a great speaker. Everything is has written is very profound
and yet simple. I like the poems he has written both in English and
Irish.
Ireland needs more people like him.
|
| 1052.19 | | CSLALL::KSULLIVAN | | Thu Sep 03 1992 13:31 | 3 |
| Ireland needs more dead heroes??? I don't think so.
More people living for Ireland perhaps.
|
| 1052.20 | | RUTILE::AUNGIER | | Fri Sep 04 1992 00:09 | 8 |
| 1052.21 | The Mother - another Pearse poem. | EPIK::HOLOHAN | | Thu Sep 10 1992 20:43 | 20 |
|
The Mother - by Patrick Pearse 1916
I do not grudge them: Lord, I do not grudge
My two strong sons that I have seen go out
To break their strength and die, they and a few
In bloody protest for a glorious thing.
They shall be spoken of amoung their people,
The generations shall remember them,
And call them blessed;
But I will speak their names to my own heart
In the long nights;
The little names that were familiar once
Round my dead hearth.
Lord, thou art hard on mothers:
We suffer in their coming and their going;
And tho' I grudge them not, I weary, weary
Of the long sorrow - And yet I have my joy:
My sons were faithful and they fought.
|
| 1052.22 | | RUTILE::AUNGIER | | Fri Sep 11 1992 12:41 | 4
|