Ireland's Glorious Dead?

[Myles Na G.]

Interesting tour round Dublin yesterday. Made me think about how history can turn on one decision. Walked round Kilmainham and stood in the courtyard listening to the guide describe the shooting of Pearse, Connolly and the rest. She threw out a few of the statistics around 1916 - 1,700 took part in the rising, 500 civilians killed in the fighting, etc. She also mentioned how the rebels were not viewed as heroes in the immediate aftermath, indeed they were spat on and jeered as they were marched through the streets of Dublin. For Ireland was not a seething cauldron of rebellion at this time. Over 200,000 Irishmen were off fighting in the trenches in the uniform of the British Army. Over 40,000 were to die in that slaughter, so the rebels' actions were viewed as a stab in the back by many whose sons and husbands and brothers were fighting a different war. Yet the brutality and stupidity of the British decision to execute the leaders changed all that. Irish opinion united behind the rebels as the inhumanity of their execution - particularly that of Connolly - became known. What would've happened if the rebels had simply been consigned to prison? The 1916 uprising would possibly have gone down as simply another failed rebellion by fanatics and fantasists. Those returning fron the trenches might have been viewed as Ireland's heroes instead. The shared experience of fighting together in a common cause might have softened unionists' objections to Home Rule. Ireland might have gone on to achieve Home Rule and - eventually - full independence, instead of being partitioned and hopelessly divided. Who knows. On a side note, the place where the rebels were executed is marked by a plaque on the wall, two crosses on the ground, and a huge Irish tricolour flying overhead. In contrast, the spot were 4 'diehard' republicans were executed by the Free State authorities is marked only by a plaque. No crosses, no Irish flag. It doesn't even get a mention by the guide as she leads you past it. Not all deaths in Ireland's cause are considered glorious, it seems.

[pintsofguinness]

On a side note, the place where the rebels were executed is marked by a plaque on the wall, two crosses on the ground, and a huge Irish tricolour flying overhead. In contrast, the spot were 4 'diehard' republicans were executed by the Free State authorities is marked only by a plaque. No crosses, no Irish flag. It doesn't even get a mention by the guide as she leads you past it. Not all deaths in Ireland's cause are considered glorious, it seems.

Must have changed the tour from when I went on it a couple of years ago as  it was part of it then.


We still dont believe you're a nationalist btw.

[magickingdom]

In fairness myles you make some very valid points there

[stibhan]

Interesting tour round Dublin yesterday. Made me think about how history can turn on one decision. Walked round Kilmainham and stood in the courtyard listening to the guide describe the shooting of Pearse, Connolly and the rest. She threw out a few of the statistics around 1916 - 1,700 took part in the rising, 500 civilians killed in the fighting, etc. She also mentioned how the rebels were not viewed as heroes in the immediate aftermath, indeed they were spat on and jeered as they were marched through the streets of Dublin. For Ireland was not a seething cauldron of rebellion at this time. Over 200,000 Irishmen were off fighting in the trenches in the uniform of the British Army. Over 40,000 were to die in that slaughter, so the rebels' actions were viewed as a stab in the back by many whose sons and husbands and brothers were fighting a different war. Yet the brutality and stupidity of the British decision to execute the leaders changed all that.

If you didn't know that the rising was initially considered in negative terms by the media and civilians then I would question the validity of your opinion. They teach that kind of shite in the lower reaches of secondary schools when you're about 13. John Dillon's speech in the commons is one of the most well-known in Irish history.

[Gnevin]

Ireland might have gone on to achieve Home Rule and - eventually - full independence, instead of being partitioned and hopelessly divided.

A partitioned home rule.

[BallyhaiseMan]

Interesting tour round Dublin yesterday. Made me think about how history can turn on one decision. Walked round Kilmainham and stood in the courtyard listening to the guide describe the shooting of Pearse, Connolly and the rest. She threw out a few of the statistics around 1916 - 1,700 took part in the rising, 500 civilians killed in the fighting, etc. She also mentioned how the rebels were not viewed as heroes in the immediate aftermath, indeed they were spat on and jeered as they were marched through the streets of Dublin. For Ireland was not a seething cauldron of rebellion at this time. Over 200,000 Irishmen were off fighting in the trenches in the uniform of the British Army. Over 40,000 were to die in that slaughter, so the rebels' actions were viewed as a stab in the back by many whose sons and husbands and brothers were fighting a different war. Yet the brutality and stupidity of the British decision to execute the leaders changed all that. Irish opinion united behind the rebels as the inhumanity of their execution - particularly that of Connolly - became known. What would've happened if the rebels had simply been consigned to prison? The 1916 uprising would possibly have gone down as simply another failed rebellion by fanatics and fantasists. Those returning fron the trenches might have been viewed as Ireland's heroes instead. The shared experience of fighting together in a common cause might have softened unionists' objections to Home Rule. Ireland might have gone on to achieve Home Rule and - eventually - full independence, instead of being partitioned and hopelessly divided. Who knows. On a side note, the place where the rebels were executed is marked by a plaque on the wall, two crosses on the ground, and a huge Irish tricolour flying overhead. In contrast, the spot were 4 'diehard' republicans were executed by the Free State authorities is marked only by a plaque. No crosses, no Irish flag. It doesn't even get a mention by the guide as she leads you past it. Not all deaths in Ireland's cause are considered glorious, it seems.

Thanks for the history lesson
i wonder how you're going to "equalise" in this thread. 

[Rossfan]

What if the democratic expression for a free Independent Republic as per the General Election of 1918 hadnt been overthrown by British terrorist violence?
I presume there would have been special arrangements for an "Ulster autonomous Region" with its own Home Rule under the overall umbrella of the Republic.

[Main Street]

 

Thanks for the history lesson
i wonder how you're going to "equalise" in this thread. 

He has already contributed his equalisation with his pop history clap trap.
As the words of a  tour guide  introduces the Unionist fantasies of Myles na G.
There is no history in that lesson.

At least Myles has shed the farcical acting out the pretense of being a nationalist,
with that piece of contrived readers digest drivel.

[Tony Baloney]

He's got a poor return on his shit stirring today. Maybe Evil Genius is doing tomorrows shift.

[GalwayBayBoy]

She also mentioned how the rebels were not viewed as heroes in the immediate aftermath, indeed they were spat on and jeered as they were marched through the streets of Dublin

That's pretty much common knowledge although it may not have been fully representative of the country at large. What turned the mood of the entire nation was the executions of their fellow Irishmen by crown forces which was met by utter outrage. Pearse was proved right all along in thinking it would take the deaths of Irishmen to stir national sentiment. End of the day the British completely fucked up their handling of the aftermath of 1916.

[deiseach]

She also mentioned how the rebels were not viewed as heroes in the immediate aftermath, indeed they were spat on and jeered as they were marched through the streets of Dublin. For Ireland was not a seething cauldron of rebellion at this time. Over 200,000 Irishmen were off fighting in the trenches in the uniform of the British Army. Over 40,000 were to die in that slaughter, so the rebels' actions were viewed as a stab in the back by many whose sons and husbands and brothers were fighting a different war. Yet the brutality and stupidity of the British decision to execute the leaders changed all that. Irish opinion united behind the rebels as the inhumanity of their execution - particularly that of Connolly - became known. What would've happened if the rebels had simply been consigned to prison? The 1916 uprising would possibly have gone down as simply another failed rebellion by fanatics and fantasists.

The first casualty of war is truth, and this canard about the contempt in which the rebels were held is exhibit A in that theory. There was (not unreasonably as far as the British were concerned) censorship in Dublin in the immediate aftermath of the Rising and the Indo of William Martin Murphy was the only paper allowed a free rein - mainly because it was so unremittingly hostile to Connolly and his ilk - and it didn't let the authorities down, publishing state propoganda that would make Fox News blush. Prof Joe Lee took the time to read the uncensored provincial newspapers where there was great sympathy for the rebels, the only negative feelings being at the futility of it because it was inevitable the British would crush it like an insect - the threat of overwhelming violence had always held Irish aspirations for independence in check. As for the crowds spitting and jeering the rebels, the words 'rent-a-mob' spring to mind. Here's a city heavily locked down, yet the British permitted spontaneous demonstrations? Pur-leese. The fact that the executions led to what it led to, i.e. the Irish people voting overwhelmingly for Sinn Féin in 1918, shows the latent desire for independence in the Irish people. Far from being "fanatics and fantasists", the rebels knew the Irish people very well indeed.

[The Watcher Pat]

Interesting tour round Dublin yesterday. Made me think about how history can turn on one decision. Walked round Kilmainham and stood in the courtyard listening to the guide describe the shooting of Pearse, Connolly and the rest. She threw out a few of the statistics around 1916 - 1,700 took part in the rising, 500 civilians killed in the fighting, etc. She also mentioned how the rebels were not viewed as heroes in the immediate aftermath, indeed they were spat on and jeered as they were marched through the streets of Dublin. For Ireland was not a seething cauldron of rebellion at this time. Over 200,000 Irishmen were off fighting in the trenches in the uniform of the British Army. Over 40,000 were to die in that slaughter, so the rebels' actions were viewed as a stab in the back by many whose sons and husbands and brothers were fighting a different war. Yet the brutality and stupidity of the British decision to execute the leaders changed all that. Irish opinion united behind the rebels as the inhumanity of their execution - particularly that of Connolly - became known. What would've happened if the rebels had simply been consigned to prison? The 1916 uprising would possibly have gone down as simply another failed rebellion by fanatics and fantasists. Those returning fron the trenches might have been viewed as Ireland's heroes instead. The shared experience of fighting together in a common cause might have softened unionists' objections to Home Rule. Ireland might have gone on to achieve Home Rule and - eventually - full independence, instead of being partitioned and hopelessly divided. Who knows. On a side note, the place where the rebels were executed is marked by a plaque on the wall, two crosses on the ground, and a huge Irish tricolour flying overhead. In contrast, the spot were 4 'diehard' republicans were executed by the Free State authorities is marked only by a plaque. No crosses, no Irish flag. It doesn't even get a mention by the guide as she leads you past it. Not all deaths in Ireland's cause are considered glorious, it seems.

WUM

[Myles Na G.]

The first casualty of war is truth, and this canard about the contempt in which the rebels were held is exhibit A in that theory. There was (not unreasonably as far as the British were concerned) censorship in Dublin in the immediate aftermath of the Rising and the Indo of William Martin Murphy was the only paper allowed a free rein - mainly because it was so unremittingly hostile to Connolly and his ilk - and it didn't let the authorities down, publishing state propoganda that would make Fox News blush. Prof Joe Lee took the time to read the uncensored provincial newspapers where there was great sympathy for the rebels, the only negative feelings being at the futility of it because it was inevitable the British would crush it like an insect - the threat of overwhelming violence had always held Irish aspirations for independence in check. As for the crowds spitting and jeering the rebels, the words 'rent-a-mob' spring to mind. Here's a city heavily locked down, yet the British permitted spontaneous demonstrations? Pur-leese. The fact that the executions led to what it led to, i.e. the Irish people voting overwhelmingly for Sinn Féin in 1918, shows the latent desire for independence in the Irish people. Far from being "fanatics and fantasists", the rebels knew the Irish people very well indeed
You make a reasonable point, but spoil it somewhat by overstating your case. While it served the interests of the British to exaggerate the extent of the hostility towards the rebels, it served - and continues to serve - the interests of republicans to underestimate it. The truth, as always, falls somewhere in the middle. What can't be denied is that tens of thousands of Irishmen were serving in British uniform when the uprising took place. It is hardly likely that they or their immediate families at home, or their extended familiy and friends, had any heart for fighting the British at that stage. Attitudes in Ireland only changed with the executions of the leaders. After that, the arguments of physical force republicanism won the day with disasterous consequences IMO, not just for the British, but for Ireland too, as the history of the last 90 years has shown.

[deiseach]

You make a reasonable point, but spoil it somewhat by overstating your case. While it served the interests of the British to exaggerate the extent of the hostility towards the rebels, it served - and continues to serve - the interests of republicans to underestimate it. The truth, as always, falls somewhere in the middle. What can't be denied is that tens of thousands of Irishmen were serving in British uniform when the uprising took place. It is hardly likely that they or their immediate families at home, or their extended familiy and friends, had any heart for fighting the British at that stage. Attitudes in Ireland only changed with the executions of the leaders. After that, the arguments of physical force republicanism won the day with disasterous consequences IMO, not just for the British, but for Ireland too, as the history of the last 90 years has shown.

A very confused post which basically ignores what I said. Republicans have not underestimated the hostility towards the rebels. You only have to look at other posts to see that the notion that the rebels were pilloried by all and sundry is still commonly held despite being plain wrong. The truth does not lie in the middle, the truth is there for anyone who bothers to look. I'd say it still appeals to modern day Provo worshippers to believe that the actions of a few men can galvanise the masses against the oppressors which is why they still cling to the myths about 1916. All these thousands of British troops that came back from the trenches and their dependents would have been a powerful political grouping had they been so inclined, but instead they seem to have vanished from the scene. In your mind they were probably ethnically cleased but the lack of mass graves would suggest they were absorbed into the mainstream of Free State society, one that was overwhelmingly enthusiastic for the nationalist project in their midst. As for the concept that "Attitudes in Ireland only changed with the executions of the leaders", the idea that we were all good Home Rulers until the beastly rebels turned us into bloodthirsty adherents to "physical force republicanism" is preposterous - funny how physical force unionism as expressed by Britain's willingness to use force to put down the democratic will of the nationalist Ireland (see: the breaking of Danel O'Connell's influence by threatening to kill anyone who attended the Clontarf rally), or its unwillingness to put down armed uprisings by those of a Unionst bent (see: the Curragh mutiny) never gets a mention. It might appeal to the likes of WB Yeats to think that all can be changed utterly by one act of sacrifice, but I didn't think you'd be so romantic