Talking Point - 27.02.06

'If a country is prehistoric enough to heap Eastertide adulation on a group of violent men who caused mayhem on the streets of Dublin in order to expunge a British presence, it is sickeningly hypocritical of that same country's great and good to castigate violent men who, on Saturday 25th February 2006, caused mayhem on the streets of Dublin in order to expunge a British presence.'  Discuss.

Comments

[Alan McDonald]

Governments born in rebellion always reject rebelliousness when they take power. One of the first things that Revolutionary War hero George Washington did when he became President of the newly free nation was to put down the Whiskey Rebellion fomented by Appalachian settlers of Scots-Irish descent.

[paul connor]

"todays revolutionary is tomorrows conservative"

[NRG]

The Irish justice minister Michael McDowell said: "We cannot have a situation where a group of thugs prevent some people from exercising their civil liberties, but insist that O'Connell Street and the GPO is always available for their macabre demonstrations whenever they want to have them."

Country is too broad a brush. Sniping at the entirity of Ireland will not help Unionists win friends. It is my oft stated contention that people in the south have more in common with their nieghbours, the Unionist population than the would be cuckoos of Nationalism.

[decent ulster unionist]

Well said Andrew

[smcgiff]

Andrew's definition of "violent Men" only makes sense if you include the likes of those that fought in the Somme.

'to expunge a British presence,'

1916 was hardly the only violent revolt to expunge a 'British presence' as you call it.

But you're doing unionists a disservice to equate one British presence (that of overlords) to the legitimate British Presence (the British in Ireland).

No, there is no hypocrisy in the stance of a government backed commemoration of those that fought for the Irish State and the castigation of looters, anarchists and drunks.

[Cunningham]

>> group of violent men <<

The 1916 leaders were honourable, intelligent, courageous, modest, self-sacrificing, and dignified. There were simply motivated by great love, not great hate.

In short, they couldn't have been more different from Saturday's thugs, who in their arrogance, sadism, ignorance and brutish hatred actually have much more in common with you, Andrew.

[Madradin Ruad]

The 1916 leaders were honourable, intelligent, courageous, modest, self-sacrificing, and dignified.

You must be kidding ?
The whole plot was based on deception - of their own people.

simply motivated by great love, not great hate.

You must be kidding ?

[Cunningham]

If a person's enemies say something positive about him, it's a pretty safe bet that it's true.

Some of the enemies of the 1916 men also said what I said.

They had no material greed or personal ambition, each would have willingly given his life to save the others, they fought honourably and went to their deaths with courage and dignity.

Just because these virtues are not so familiar in Unionist leaders - then or now - does't mean they don't exist.
The rebel leaders in any case had them in abundance.

[Madradin Ruad]

Vain zealots Noel. Pearse poncing about trilling that his rebellion lasted longer than Emmet's ?

they fought honourably

There was no honour in how they organised - and where was the honour in shooting unarmed policemen? To quote from the Kevin Myers article you send me ( Thanks again )

The proclamation declared: "The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens." It might more honestly have then added - "unless they are Dublin Metropolitan Policemen", as the unarmed Constable James O'Brien discovered when he was shot dead by Sean Connolly outside Dublin Castle minutes after Pearse had finished his GPO speech. The similarly unarmed Constable Michael Lahiff in St Stephen's Green made the same terminal discovery some time later when Countess Markievicz gunned him down. Constable William Frith perceived his rights in this new Republic when he was murdered in the bedroom of Store Street police station.
At Mount Street Bridge, the harmless, armless old buffers of the Georgius Rex ex-servicemen's association discovered how the new republic cherished them when they were massacred on their regular route march to Ticknock. Five were killed, and seven more were injured.

Very brave, very honourable.

They had no material greed or personal ambition

The same could be said for the Suicide bombers of 9/11 and July 2005 in London.

[Ultonian Scottis American]

I know that I'm walking into the lions' den here, but here goes.

If I'm ever too simplictic, I'm sure to be corrected.

The 1916 Easter rebellion was a romantic but cruel farce. The UK was at war.

The Free State was eventually formed from a part of Ireland that was fundamentally different than Ulster.

Then came the Irish Civil War. Michael Collins, the George Washington of the IFS was assassinated by the same folks that inherited the spirit of the 1916 uprising.

After the US Civil War, the southern rebels were pardoned, as it were, for the deaths that they caused. But they were never allowed to achieve national political prominence. There was later a US President Grant, but never a US President Lee.

But the same folks that murdered Collins formed the RoI. Has this polluted the Irish nationalist collective unconscious?

RoI is a sovereign state and will celebrate their national heroes as they so choose. But will these heroes be the ones that actually formed a stable country, or the ones that fomented internecine, and unecessary, slaughter?

[The Phantom]

The Easter Rising was a heroic act. It was largely a symbolic action by the brave men who participated in it, but it was a brave and a correct thing to do.

Irish independence from Britain was not achieved without violence, just as American independence from Britain was not achieved without violence.

George Washington was a great man who I greatly admire ; I also greatly admire James Connolly and the rest of those who struck a blow for liberty in their own land years ago.

It is beyond silly to compare the Easter Rising against the invader with the street thuggery of Saturday past, thuggery against a group of visitors from another part of the country, whose presence had been welcomed by the Dublin and national authorities.

[Cunningham]

Hey, not bad, USA, for an outsider !!

>>Easter rebellion was a romantic but cruel farce. The UK was at war.. <<

It was romantic, but ultimately successful struggle. It set a chain of events in motion that ultimately led to an independent Irish republic. It was the war that made the rising possible.

>>Free State was eventually formed from a part of Ireland that was fundamentally different than Ulster.<<

Let's say, fundamentally different from parts of Ulster.

>>Michael Collins .. was assassinated by the same folks that inherited the spirit of the 1916 uprising.<<

Collins had fought in Easter Week. Those who shot him had not.

>>but never a US President Lee<<

But has any state produced as many Presidents as the secessionist Texas?

>>But the same folks that murdered Collins formed the RoI. Has this polluted the Irish nationalist collective unconscious?<<

No. The English wouldn't leave without a fight, so the first generation of leaders (from all parties) had been involved in violence (or "had blood on their hands" to use the melodramatic phrase). The anti-treaty (i.e. anti-Collins) side came to power a decade later. But the reasons were generally economic.

>>or the ones that fomented internecine, and unnecessary, slaughter<<

The civil war was a British-sponsored conflict over a British-dictated document. It was unnecessary, as you say, because the English should have accepted the democratic will of the Irish people for a republic.

[Madradin Ruad]

It was romantic, but ultimately successful struggle.

Wrong- it ensured partition. 90 years on you still don't have the 32 county republic they tried to proclaim - and it's further away in 2006 than it was in 1996.

[Ultonian Scottis American]

Cunningham:

LOL, TY!

The killers of Collins, or their bosses, became the political leaders of RoI, no?

Tis true that US southerners eventually became presidents, but it took nearly a century after The War Between The States for that to happen.

[Cunningham]

>>ultimately successful struggle.

Wrong- it ensured partition.<<

It was still a great success.
The North was never high on the list of priorities of the 1916 leaders either way. They were in fact quite naive about the problem of Ulster. The North was also by no means the central point in the Treaty that led to the Civil War.

[Madradin Ruad]

It was still a great success.

It certainly got Pearse what he wanted - fame.
Beyond that ? There still isn't a sovereign 32 county Ireland after 90 years and we are still paying the price of their zealotry with hatred and criminality rampant on both sides of the border.

[pakman]

smcgiff

I trust you are not suggesting that the Dublin of Easter week 1916 was devoid of "looters, anarchists and drunks".

[Brian Boru]

As a constitutional republican let me start my condemning the tiny minority who brought destruction to the streets of Dublin yesterday. They in no way represent the vast majority of Southerners, nor how Southerners would treat Unionists in a United Ireland. The sad truth is that every society has its cranks.

On 1916, I support the military parade and the rebellion. The 1915 election had been cancelled thereby denuding the mandate of the Home Rulers, who were increasingly out of touch with their supporters and former supporters. Those who voted for them had not done so in the expectation that their tenure would be artificially extended in this way.

Had events worked out differently, the Rising could have been a UVF one in Belfast in opposition to Home Rule. Remember that the UVF had vowed to use force to resist Home Rule. They had imported 3 million rounds of ammunition and 24,000 rifles into Ulster and the British army did nothing to stop them, while firing on and killing some involved in the Howth gunrunning by the Irish Volunteers. Yet we do not hear the Unionists calling the UVF "fascists" unlike the 1916 rebels.

The former of devolution offered in the 1914 Home Rule Act was closer to Welsh Assembly-style powers than the Scottish parliament. It was also unclear where the North-South border would be drawn. Many Nationalists (rightly) feared that areas they were in a majority in (Fermanagh, Tyrone) would be handed to a Unionist state.

All of the civilians killed in the 1916 rising were killed by the British, including Frank Sheehy-Skeffington, who played no part in the Rising. He was killed for no other reason that he admitted sympathising with the rebels. A young boy was also murdered by the British in cold blood.

Where was the mandate for the UVF to bring in arms from Germany? Where was the mandate for the Act of Union and the Government of Ireland Act? Those who criticise the lack of 1916 mandate are sometimes hypocritical. Without 1916 and the British reaction to it, the South would not be independent today, and would have continued to be an impoverished backwater of the British Empire. Long live the memory of the patriot dead. They targeted no civilians.

[Madradin Ruad]

They targeted no civilians.

They just made sure they occupied places where civilian casualties were ensured.

[Cunningham]

Well said, Brian Boru.

Although it's not true that the Rebels in 1916 killed no civilians.
They did kill civilians who got in their way or obstructed them, in some cases in very harrowing circumstances. (read James Stephens' brilliant eye-witness account of Easter Week)
If they weren't prepared to do that, they may as well have stayed at home, I suppose.

[Pat]

Cunningham,

"Wrong- it ensured partition. 90 years on you still don't have the 32 county republic they tried to proclaim - and it's further away in 2006 than it was in 1996."

In response to your bizar comment above.

With every passing year we are getting closer to the goal with every Nationalist child that is born. Unionists have been in denial for years and now that we are getting closer to the end the pace is quickening.

For years upto and including the 70s the UUP told the Unionist people that the Nationalist population was only 25%, in later years we had Trimble telling everyone it was well under 40% and then more recently telling the Unionist people that 1/3 of Nationalists want to stay British and there is no need to worry - No United Ireland for 100s of years.

And now you Cunningham, telling us that we are further away than we were 10 years ago even though the increasing Nationalist birthrate and the decreasing Unionist population brings us closer to the 50+1 that is required.

Just to clarify that for you, the current Nationalist population of 44% is producing 50.03% of the yearly new borns. The year on year result showing that we have some 63% of the under 25s population being Nationalist. At the other end of the population scale - the over 55's which has a larger Unionist portion, well time calls on everyone and that larger portion is reducing each year.

The net affect has seen the Nationalist vote grow rapidly over the last 20 years and the next 15 will see the vote grow faster and bring about the 50%+1. Remain in denial all you want but that day is comming.

The vision of 1916 and the Democratic wish of the majority of the Irish people will become a reality. The British Empire, like a plate smashed at the very heart by the men of 1916, is gone. Get over it!

[David Vance]

Pat,

That's amusing. Nationalistsuberalles, eh? Hilarious stuff. Your day has come and gone pal. Get over it.

[Cunningham]

Pat,
That wasn't me you quoted. 'Twas Madradin Ruad who said that.
Bad enough drawing fire for the things I did write... :)

[pakman]

Pat

so "der Tag" is coming, eh?

Tell me, if you will, how the Irish state is proposing to accomodate 1.1 million British citizens, respecting their culture, nationality, language and heritage rights when the Irish capital couldn't accomodate a few hundred of the self same unionists?

The inability of any Irish state to accept within its' body politic a British community safeguards the Union more than any discussion of Protestant birth rates.

[Tom Tyler]

Look, I'm the first to admit that I know next to nothing about NI politics, which is why I normally steer clear of commenting on the ATW topics about it. But my mother (who was born and grew up in Eire) probably does know more than me about it, and talking to her last night, her first reaction echoed mine exactly: An Orange Order march in DUBLIN!?! How bloody stupid, thoughtless and downright provocative! I stop short of saying that the marchers deserved everything they got, but I can certainly understand if people felt angry about it. To my mind, it's roughly the same sort of thing as that initial Muslim demo in London following those cartoons, ie my gut reaction was "P*** off! This is OUR country, go and march on your OWN territory, not ours!"
Having said that, I am sad about the violence that the Loyalist Ulstermen were met with. No-one deserves that kind of reception. And I'm sure the riots were orchestrated by their hardline political opponents rather than just ordinary Dubliners, for the most part.
Nevertheless, as an outside observer, it seems to me that there is something just bloody mental about NI politics - it seems to turn you ALL (both sides) into raging screaming animals, filled with anger. I just cannot understand it. You're bloody POSSESSED, the lot of you! Sheeesh!
Everyone remembers the news on 11 Sep 2001 - well I also remember the headlines on 10th Sept 2001 - parents snarling and SPITTING at children who wanted to pass down a certain road to get to school. I don't remember who was on which side, but it made me so utterly ashamed, it brought home to me the LOWNESS of human nature. I thought, "can't those parents even try to behave with dignity where innocent little children are present?" By their disgraceful actions, those parents just reinforced the idea of bigotry and hatred into the minds of their offspring. Yet another generation who will grow up filled with anger and hatred, unable to FORGIVE and FORGET. Because that is the only way the "NI problem" will ever be resolved - through forgiveness on both sides. And that, I have to say, includes you, Andy McC. I'm sure you're a nice guy, but for example I find your continual use of the word "Oirish" - well, let's just say it's your blog and you can use whatever words you wish to, but I do wish you would reconsider your choice of word, and limit your outrage to terrorist groups alone. "OI-RA" would be more fitting? They are the real thugs, but the word "Oirish" seems to imply that you consider all the citizens of Eire as objects of derision. At least, that's how it comes over to me.
Anyway, as I said, I know very little about the underlying reasons for all this emotional angst, and I am ready to listen and be educated by commentators who know what they're talking about. So I'll bow out now, I just think that a spirit of bitterness and anger has infected the whole NI debate, and I wish people would just calm down, accept that the past is the past, and you can't turn the clock back, and try to move forward in a spirit of reconciliation. Catholic or Protestant, both sides are supposed to be Christians, and we've got much more in common than the differences between us.