From the RTE archives -for Easter Week

[Wasp]

Is she not??

[bearhunter]

No, she just thinks she is.

[Blue Angel]

It's hilarious - there are plenty of things to criticise about the rising, the bungled military planning -the lack of clear lines of communication been two that spring to mind But this is just histrionic shouting - while I consider the men and women who took part brave people I am far from subscribing to the idea that the leaders were flawless and where they with us still I don't think they would even wish us to. They all had faults, Pearse's comments mentioned in the article were silly (although not much different than what you would find emanating from Britain in an effort to drum up recrutment ot the army there) and Connolly's well publicised bit of stupidity about armies never using artillery on their own cities are two major and well known examples of how imperfect those leading the rising were.

But attempts to shoehorn Hitler in at some odd and bizarre angle are just ludicrous -the situations of the Nazis rise to power and the events that led to the Free State and the republic have such a vastly different historical background that to try and make a marriage of convenience between the two by invoking the the Nazis as bogeymen is just inherently absurd.

[Blue Angel]

From the BBC's own website - news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/uk_easter_rising_commemorations/img/1.jpg

I notice that's a reserve defence force officer reading the proclamation and that's he also got a fainne on. Rather a toned down commeration but still glad to see they are actually carrying on doing it.

[Bilk]

jim said:

Very surprised to read such a shit article from the Guardian, usually they have a bit of political knowledge. Funny that, a newspaper that prides itself on its anti-imperialist stance writing an article like that. Plebs.

Infact, his whole article he could probably try and argue that that Empire was democratic since the insurgencies against it were "undemocratic". Absolute piss. Shit article that uses "Democracy" as a yay word without realising the impact the Easter Rising had to installing real democracy in one part of Ireland.

Oh so democracy flowed from an undemocratic act hmmmmm. Good thinking makes the war in Iraq more plauseable. The end justifies the means? maybe we should all change the way we think about that cliche.
The real democracy you speak of is what the provos spouted in the late 50's early 60's before setting off on their murder campaign in the late 60's. They too had very little support. It reads "we can't get what we want through the ballot box, so that is undemocratic, lets get the real democracy of the bomb and bullet, and see what comes out the other side" What happened? They got themselves elected on the promise if you vote for us and we'll stop killing people. Somehow I think I got this whole democracy thing all wrong all these years.

[collina]

[glow=red,2,300]"The problem is quite simple. If the Irish want to celebrate the Easter Rising they may, but they must realise that they are in no moral position whatever to condemn any other violent insurrection against another lawful government[/glow]"

What lawfull government? What law did the Irish people enact Circa 1916) that made the British their "lawfull Government"?

"Violent Insurrection"?What other type of insurrection was going to work? More than thirty years later the passive resistance of Ghandi was shot to pieces by the British Empire


[glow=red,2,300]Looking around the world today, the Easter rebels have a good deal to answer for.'"[/glow]

Rather rich, from the nation whose empire is a the root of much of the worlds strife. "by Jingo" Eh?

[Bilk]

setanta said:

bilk said:

Oh so democracy flowed from an undemocratic act hmmmmm. Good thinking makes the war in Iraq more plauseable. The end justifies the means? maybe we should all change the way we think about that cliche.
The real democracy you speak of is what the provos spouted in the late 50's early 60's before setting off on their murder campaign in the late 60's. They too had very little support. It reads "we can't get what we want through the ballot box, so that is undemocratic, lets get the real democracy of the bomb and bullet, and see what comes out the other side" What happened? They got themselves elected on the promise if you vote for us and we'll stop killing people. Somehow I think I got this whole democracy thing all wrong all these years.

bilk you know as well as I do that NI wasn't a free democracy then. Otherwise you wouldn't have joined the Civil Rights Movement.

But you're about 45 years off topic!

True but we in the NICRA were doing it democratically and were winning. That was the problem republicans were facing. The ordrinary man on the street had learned that whatever our religeon (or none) and their politics, we were all in the same boat that was sinking we stood together for the greater good. Unforuneately some in the republican movement did what the brits could never do at that time, they drove a wedge between the working classes. It was in the interests of the big house unionists to keep us at each others throats. We had found a new way, but then the republicans, who also had their own agenda which had little or nothing to do with the rights of the working classes, done what the big house unionists could not do alone. More is the pity. But you are right I'm off topic and I aapologise, normally I hate people who do that

[Bilk]

collina said:

[glow=red,2,300]"The problem is quite simple. If the Irish want to celebrate the Easter Rising they may, but they must realise that they are in no moral position whatever to condemn any other violent insurrection against another lawful government[/glow]"

What lawfull government? What law did the Irish people enact Circa 1916) that made the British their "lawfull Government"?

"Violent Insurrection"?What other type of insurrection was going to work? More than thirty years later the passive resistance of Ghandi was shot to pieces by the British Empire


[glow=red,2,300]Looking around the world today, the Easter rebels have a good deal to answer for.'"[/glow]

Rather rich, from the nation whose empire is a the root of much of the worlds strife. "by Jingo" Eh?

It may be rich but it don't make it any less true

[Jim]

bilk said:

jim said:

Very surprised to read such a shit article from the Guardian, usually they have a bit of political knowledge. Funny that, a newspaper that prides itself on its anti-imperialist stance writing an article like that. Plebs.

Infact, his whole article he could probably try and argue that that Empire was democratic since the insurgencies against it were "undemocratic". Absolute piss. Shit article that uses "Democracy" as a yay word without realising the impact the Easter Rising had to installing real democracy in one part of Ireland.

Oh so democracy flowed from an undemocratic act hmmmmm. Good thinking makes the war in Iraq more plauseable. The end justifies the means? maybe we should all change the way we think about that cliche.
The real democracy you speak of is what the provos spouted in the late 50's early 60's before setting off on their murder campaign in the late 60's. They too had very little support. It reads "we can't get what we want through the ballot box, so that is undemocratic, lets get the real democracy of the bomb and bullet, and see what comes out the other side" What happened? They got themselves elected on the promise if you vote for us and we'll stop killing people. Somehow I think I got this whole democracy thing all wrong all these years.

Not really. You assume that the Easter rising was an undemocratic act and therefore wrong, that "undemocratic" is a boo word and anything undemocratic is not right. Or at least thats the jist I've gotten from your post. The difference with the Easter Rising and the Iraq War is that one was started by Irishmen, in Ireland, and the other was a foreign invasion.

The Provos didnt exist in the early 50's, that branch of the IRA after the border campaign was against going back to guns and was more concerned with working class unity. Again, technically its undemocratic, but it doesnt mean anything. Besides, no IRA would have gotten anything in the ballot box because even the moderate nationalists parties couldnt get anything in the ballot box, you should know that.

[Bilk]

jim said:

bilk said:

Oh so democracy flowed from an undemocratic act hmmmmm. Good thinking makes the war in Iraq more plauseable. The end justifies the means? maybe we should all change the way we think about that cliche.
The real democracy you speak of is what the provos spouted in the late 50's early 60's before setting off on their murder campaign in the late 60's. They too had very little support. It reads "we can't get what we want through the ballot box, so that is undemocratic, lets get the real democracy of the bomb and bullet, and see what comes out the other side" What happened? They got themselves elected on the promise if you vote for us and we'll stop killing people. Somehow I think I got this whole democracy thing all wrong all these years.

Not really. You assume that the Easter rising was an undemocratic act and therefore wrong, that "undemocratic" is a boo word and anything undemocratic is not right. Or at least thats the jist I've gotten from your post. The difference with the Easter Rising and the Iraq War is that one was started by Irishmen, in Ireland, and the other was a foreign invasion.

The Provos didnt exist in the early 50's, that branch of the IRA after the border campaign was against going back to guns and was more concerned with working class unity. Again, technically its undemocratic, but it doesnt mean anything. Besides, no IRA would have gotten anything in the ballot box because even the moderate nationalists parties couldnt get anything in the ballot box, you should know that.

As in the easter rising (Trying my best to stay on topic) that was because there wasn't enough of them. Had there been there would have been power enough in their hands to get what they wanted. Where does democracy begin and end? I think what you are trying to say is that only those directly affected at the time i.e. the Irish in the south had a say in the matter. A true democratic vote would be taken in the whole of the UK because Ireland as a whole was then an integeral part of that country. Taken to it's ultimate conclusion (ridiculous I know) your argument suggests that if I can get the majority in my street to vote for independence should they be allowed it. No one anywhere else should have a say? And if they did have a say, and I didn't like the outcome, would I be justified then in killing people in the name of democracy?

[Jim]

There would never have been enough to pull off what some people think the goal was, the British Army was just too large and Dublin is in direct route of Merseyside to bring in many more troops. The aim was never to win and every leader that went in knew they would eventually be overthrown but it was a statement that went through the entire island. It lead to votes meaning a lot more than they did and for support for a party that wasnt worried about deals in Westminster to keep Liberals in power.

A true democratic vote would not have and never will involve the entire UK because the population just doesnt reflect that to be fair. Thre are 60 million people in England and only 7 million on this entire island, and geographically we are a different island anyway. Perfect democracy doesn't exist, true democracy doesnt even exist in my opinion and I'm finding it increasingly unimportant to bang on about democracy because it eventually comes down to regionalism being more effective.

Your example isnt realistic, your street is not a political entity in its own right, Ireland was historically and still is, and the British Government sought to use that in the Home Rule bills.

[He_Who_Walks_in_The_Wilderness]

It was so well supported that when pearse read out his procalmation he was hissed and booed and had rotten fruit and vegetables thrown at him, good job the british executed most of those invloved in the easter rising otherwise you republicans would have been really screwed since it was only after the executions that support swung behind the republican movement, but then i think pearse knew this when he staged his great drama the easter rising, of course its not the only example of the republicans movementbeing happy to let people sacrifice themselves in the name of a few votes, bet bobby sands is wishing he had that sausage supper after all

[Jim]

How many points did you try and score with that, two, three?

[Bilk]

jim said:

There would never have been enough to pull off what some people think the goal was, the British Army was just too large and Dublin is in direct route of Merseyside to bring in many more troops. The aim was never to win and every leader that went in knew they would eventually be overthrown but it was a statement that went through the entire island. It lead to votes meaning a lot more than they did and for support for a party that wasnt worried about deals in Westminster to keep Liberals in power.

A true democratic vote would not have and never will involve the entire UK because the population just doesnt reflect that to be fair. Thre are 60 million people in England and only 7 million on this entire island, and geographically we are a different island anyway. Perfect democracy doesn't exist, true democracy doesnt even exist in my opinion and I'm finding it increasingly unimportant to bang on about democracy because it eventually comes down to regionalism being more effective.

Your example isnt realistic, your street is not a political entity in its own right, Ireland was historically and still is, and the British Government sought to use that in the Home Rule bills.

Jim No1, I was talking votes and not fighting armies. The point I was trying to make was that the easter rising is remembered as a rising supported by the people, it wasn't. In that respect it was not democratic. And I adamitted that my argument about my street was "ridiculous" but I was merely making a point. You then go on to argue that the numbers game was in itself undemocratic because at the time of the easter rising republicans could not win, because of the number of people living in the UK. Democracy was then and still is about numbers, if not why have a vote at all and count the votes?

[Jim]

I've never been to a commemoration where it was said it was supported by the people, during it at least. But there is no doubt that there was a lot of sympathy for the leaders when arrested and executed and it did spawn an entire new movement of people who saw it as the last straw.

Democracy is not just about numbers, its about representation and about being proportional to the interests of those numbers. Numbers by themselves dont mean a lot on their own.