Wars and Conflicts permalink
Queen commemorates heroic IRA dead
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Tuesday, 17th May 2011
Today the Queen will lay a wreath to those who fought for Irish freedom at the Garden of Remembrance in Dublin.
This is being seen as a sign of maturity of the relationship between the two Islands and an underlining of the fact that the conflict is in the past, and is part of our shared history. -
Message 2
Posted by rooster (U14062359) on Tuesday, 17th May 2011
Well said Shane!
Perhaps we can now move away from the bloody past and build a new and trusting relationship.
Rooster -
Message 3
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 17th May 2011
Shane O'Neal
Compelling watching.. a Moment of history. And I tried sending mental force to that old lady determined to "stand to".. with the eyes of the world upon her..
But then is that not something about truly significant symbolism? It is not the "doing of it" out of any context that is hard. Much of the merit comes from the fact that even the mighty come to do something that should be physically possible for anyone..
And I was reflecting with my [French] wife that it is (to my mind) typical of the Queen that she has accepted to make sure that this step is taken during her lifetime - "on her watch"- rather than leave it to her successors - with all the attendant dangers.
As for those who complain about the expense.. Either Ireland/Eire is a free State or it is something else. Those men who died did so for an Irish State and States put on state visits, or else try to live in some limbo land. As the TV commentators have stressed in recent decades especially Ireland has travelled a path towards finding its own identity within the wider world.
It will be interesting to see what the Queen says when she has the opportunity to say something.. I think that we can expect some selections from the brilliant things that Irish people have said in English to make that strand of English literature in all its aspects one of the most illustrious.
What happens to "things well begun"?
Cass -
Message 4
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 17th May 2011
PS
I think Fergal Keane starts his new five part TV History of Ireland this evening trying to bring out the History behind this Present of Hope, rather than the sad and often tragic past.. He seemed to be bringing out some of those themes just now.
Cass -
Message 5
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 17th May 2011
With all the talk of 'two Islands' no-one in the media seems to have picked up on the concept of 'two Irelands'. This is after all the first state visit by the head of state of Northern Ireland to southern Ireland.
-
Message 6
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 17th May 2011
Vizzer
Good point... It will be interesting to see whether the Queen makes any references to Irish hospitality "in the other place".
I have just talked briefly to my neighbour, a young man who grew up in Northern Ireland and who was not sure that the visit had any major import historically speaking. .. Makes me think of Enoch Powell again- except my neighbour's roots are in the Portuguese Indian-sub-continent
But I think that the thrust is less for "abandonning the Loyalists" and more for greater development of common and mutually advantageous areas for all parties, rather than a greater divide..
Much of the recent Irish economic boom seems to have been based upon tourism and the necessary infrastructure, and as travel gets more expensive the logic of making Ireland more attractive to British tourists just gets stronger.
Cass -
Message 7
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
PS
I think Fergal Keane starts his new five part TV History of Ireland this evening trying to bring out the History behind this Present of Hope, rather than the sad and often tragic past.. He seemed to be bringing out some of those themes just now.
䲹 I watched the first programme, and I found it very informative....
I must confess, I knew nothing of Ireland prior to Brian Boru.
It's not surprising that the Queen's visit to Ireland is such a contentious issue, given the history of Britain's rule in that island. And, of course, the existence of Northern Ireland as a separate entity will always be an issue.
Interesting to see the president shaking the Queen's hand, and not bowing or curtseying....
I hope that we Brits will eventually reach that stage of egality with this so-called Royal Family one day. -
Message 8
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
shivfan
Yes I looked out for the absence of curtsey's .. All those people who say how little some of this pageantry means would no doubt have read tremendous significance into any such relics of Ireland's past..
Actually I missed the Keane programme in the end.. We will be off again shortly and I would have to miss the rest.. So I am hoping to catch up with the series later on IPlayer.
As for Future conditions of egality.. I am afraid that I have inherited such an egalitarian tradition that I readily bow to the superior authority that English society has placed on those people who have to "carry the can" when things go wrong..
A number of colleagues have felt the uncomfortable position of having me as a "back-seat driver" putting forward my "two-penniesworth" over future policy, but then saying but you are in charge and you have that burden and responsibility to actually get it right. English people are the inheritors of a that power without responsibility that has now been appropriated by the Press and Media.
Sometimes it has been suggested that I might like to take over certain things and do them. But there are advantages in "knowing your place" when it suits you, and pointing out that this particular burden is not yours but theirs- and the "music" that may have to be faced as well.
Cass -
Message 9
Posted by Priscilla (U14315550) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
All splendid, faultless and properly bland stuff and why Royalty are so useful - no interviews or press conferences - or opinion either, to further the quicksand of foot putting.
Let us not forget also that there must have been poigant memory for her and the Duke re Lord Louis Mountbattan's death.
Regards, P. -
Message 10
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
posted by ShaneONeal
Queen commemorates heroic IRA dead
Those IRA men who fought against their own people in the Irish civil war, are they "heroic" as well?
All for the sake of an Irish Republic which has been proclaimed in 1916 but not achieved until 1949, thanks to Dev and his fellows.
I wonder where these other IRA men who died in the civil war, are buried. Is it the Garden of Remembrance as well? Who thinks about the Irish who died on the side of the Irish Free State, like Michael Collins? -
Message 11
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
posted by ShaneONeal
Queen commemorates heroic IRA dead
Those IRA men who fought against their own people in the Irish civil war, are they "heroic" as well?
All for the sake of an Irish Republic which has been proclaimed in 1916 but not achieved until 1949, thanks to Dev and his fellows.
I wonder where these other IRA men who died in the civil war, are buried. Is it the Garden of Remembrance as well? Who thinks about the Irish who died on the side of the Irish Free State, like Michael Collins?
I'm sure some were heroic... -
Message 12
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
Thomas
Of course heroism is a quality of conduct... There was a time when victors recognised the heroism of those whose cause was lost.
Cass -
Message 13
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
Interesting to see the president shaking the Queen's hand, and not bowing or curtseying....
Why would the president of an independent nation, not in the commonwealth, curtsy to the queen, particularly on home turf and as one woman to the an other? Did Obama bow? Well he inclined his head slightly but if it was at all deferential it might be out of respect for a very much older woman. Mrs O certainly neither bowed nor curtsied but none of this was commented on. So what does the focus on this say about some attitudes on this side of the Irish sea?
Hmmmmmmmm -
Message 14
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
With all the talk of 'two Islands' no-one in the media seems to have picked up on the concept of 'two Irelands'. This is after all the first state visit by the head of state of Northern Ireland to southern Ireland. That would have been undiplomatic; the Irish got their position across by employing 32 outriders with the flags of each of the 32 counties flying from them. On the other hand several Assembly members from NI were present and several members of the UDA - Britains allies in the 30 year war - were present at the Memorial Gardens today.
-
Message 15
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
ferval
As far as I can see only Shivfan and me have commented on curtseys- both approving of the appropriateness of their absence.
Cass -
Message 16
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
Cass,
Heroism might be a "quality of conduct", but it is moreover a matter of consideration depending from which side it is viewed.
Once some people fought bravely for the cause of freedom of their nation, so the IRA did in the war for Irish independence, a short time later, they splitt and one part was then branded as terrorists.
Heroism ends imo there, where they start to slaughter their own people just for they "didn´t brought back the Republic". This is a matter for the Irish themselves to get over it. It´s worse than the attrocities the English did to them, because it has divided families just for the cause of an Republic which hadn´t been achieved in the 1920s, for the British Government wasn´t prepared and had not could afford to give the Irish full independence and the Republic they´d demanded. This had meant to set an example which other countries within the British Empire soon had liked to follow. Just to mention British India.
Collins and Griffith realised that when they were in London to negotiate the Anglo-Irish-Treaty, and I´m convinced - may it historically be proved or not - that this might has been clear to Dev as well.
It´s not enough to be a hero in fighting, for it demands to act as such in negotiation a treaty to live in peace. The Irish lost one of its political heros by natural death, this was Arthur Griffith, and they lost soon afterwards their last hero, murdered by themselves, and this was Michael Collins.
It is remarkable, that it was De Valera who banned the IRA in Ireland in the 1930s and it is as well remarkable that he wasn´t scared by this act about his own life. I´ll have to try to find out something more in reading when I get back to the Irish topic which is currently put to rest.
Thomas -
Message 17
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
Thomas
For me there is a difference between showing heroism and doing things in an heroic way, and being a hero.
It is not unlike someone who considers themselves a Christian hoping to show some Christ-like qualities without actually being Christ.
Cass -
Message 18
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Wednesday, 18th May 2011
I suppose Her Majesty could always adapt a quotation from Oscar Fingal O' Flaherty Wilde, of Tite Street Chelsea, SW-
" To be forced to grant independence to one half of the Isle of Erin is unfortunate. To be forced to grant independence to both halves...."
"Oh pleasure, pleasure! What else should bring one anywhere?" -
Message 19
Posted by GrandFalconRailroad (U14802912) on Thursday, 19th May 2011
Personally I think HMQ has apologised for far too much and shown far too much deference - I'll grant you Croke Park at a push but to honour IRA dead at the cenotaph I think is just a bit too much - especially given (a) the demonstrations in RoI and (b) the fact the IRA in one form or another still exists and you can't tll me that the arms that RIRA, CIRA have did not come from in some way PIRA or even OIRA.
I'm all for reconciliation and honouring those volunteers from RoI that fought in Kings/Queen's colours during WW2 etc. but to honour the IRA even the 1916 variant of it is just I think too much - especially given the rising went on during WW1.
Just my 2 penneth..... -
Message 20
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 19th May 2011
I'm not sure I agree with you there....
The British monarchy subjected Ireland to centuries of brutal colonisation, so her gesture may seem to be an attempt to move on from atrocities on both sides. I'm not going to get into a debate as to whose 'atrocities' were the worse....
As for the 1916 rising, there is evidence to suggest that a large percentage of the Irish were in favour of the Union, but the brutality the British used in suppressing it served to lose the PR battle, and swing Irish public opinion in favour of the nationalists.
And where is it written that those in colonial oppression should observe the existence of a war and not press their claims for an independence campaign that they feel is their right to demand? -
Message 21
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 19th May 2011
GrandFalcon
I think that we all have to see this in State and not personal/emotional terms: and few people have more experience than the Queen at respecting the conventions that weigh upon both hosts and guests in this kind of formal event..
A friend/ colleague whose Hindu daughter was sent to a local RC Convent School because it was the best academic option asked him what she should do about the daily trip to the Chapel, and he told her to just attend and join in while focussing her own devotions on her own deity.
The Queen did what every visiting Head of State does when visiting Ireland and most of those probably have very little knowledge of, of have had involvement in, the actions that are so revered by the Irish.. When you accept to visit a country, you acknowledge and accept their right to their own ideas and judgements, and their own sense of tragic experience. And we must acknowledge that the Irish Hosts formally representing the State have done their part in trying to focus on thebroader picture. In this respect I thought that the Chairman of the Gaelic Sports Association struck exactly the right note in focussing on the great weight of positive work that the organisation has done and is doing. After the Queen's recent Xmas message she must think it a great loss that we do not have anything like this in the UK.
I notice that Mr Adams has come out with something almost like the "not black enough" comment of Jesse Jackson when African-Americans saw a day that many had thought would never arrive in their life time- a half-black man standing for the Presidency of the USA.. History advances more securely when it proceeds by steps and not by "great leaps forward".
I do not think that there can be much argument that over several centuries events in Ireland have been characterised by attrocity and counter-attrocity. But as a schoolteacher dealing with ongoing feuds and "well! he started it", it was often necessary to listen to try to get to the roots of the problem, but refuse to get drawn into problems that were insoluble at that moment..
Usually both parties needed to grow up and face up to the main challenge in life which was/is to profitably use the Present in order to shape a better Future.
One hesitates to draw parallels too extensively, but at the school-boy level it was very common that the two boys you found scrapping on the floor in the first weeks at Secondary School ended up becoming best of friends. Laws of human nature do not exist, but it does seem that the people who irritate and anger us, are very often the people with whom we have a great deal in common.
Cass -
Message 22
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Thursday, 19th May 2011
"Once some people fought bravely for the cause of freedom of their nation, so the IRA did in the war for Irish independence, a short time later, they splitt and one part was then branded as terrorists."
Who branded them as "terrorists" and why?
"they lost soon afterwards their last hero, murdered by themselves, and this was Michael Collins."
Collins wasn't "murdered", he was killed in a fair fight he insisted on halting for and which his subordinates had advised him against.
Using phrases such as "terrorism" and "murder" are mere propaganda terms... -
Message 23
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Thursday, 19th May 2011
GrandFalcon
I think that we all have to see this in State and not personal/emotional terms: and few people have more experience than the Queen at respecting the conventions that weigh upon both hosts and guests in this kind of formal event..
A friend/ colleague whose Hindu daughter was sent to a local RC Convent School because it was the best academic option asked him what she should do about the daily trip to the Chapel, and he told her to just attend and join in while focussing her own devotions on her own deity.
The Queen did what every visiting Head of State does when visiting Ireland and most of those probably have very little knowledge of, of have had involvement in, the actions that are so revered by the Irish.. When you accept to visit a country, you acknowledge and accept their right to their own ideas and judgements, and their own sense of tragic experience. And we must acknowledge that the Irish Hosts formally representing the State have done their part in trying to focus on thebroader picture. In this respect I thought that the Chairman of the Gaelic Sports Association struck exactly the right note in focussing on the great weight of positive work that the organisation has done and is doing. After the Queen's recent Xmas message she must think it a great loss that we do not have anything like this in the UK.
I notice that Mr Adams has come out with something almost like the "not black enough" comment of Jesse Jackson when African-Americans saw a day that many had thought would never arrive in their life time- a half-black man standing for the Presidency of the USA.. History advances more securely when it proceeds by steps and not by "great leaps forward".
I do not think that there can be much argument that over several centuries events in Ireland have been characterised by attrocity and counter-attrocity. But as a schoolteacher dealing with ongoing feuds and "well! he started it", it was often necessary to listen to try to get to the roots of the problem, but refuse to get drawn into problems that were insoluble at that moment..
Usually both parties needed to grow up and face up to the main challenge in life which was/is to profitably use the Present in order to shape a better Future.
One hesitates to draw parallels too extensively, but at the school-boy level it was very common that the two boys you found scrapping on the floor in the first weeks at Secondary School ended up becoming best of friends. Laws of human nature do not exist, but it does seem that the people who irritate and anger us, are very often the people with whom we have a great deal in common.
䲹 Good post. -
Message 24
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 19th May 2011
Shane O'Neal
Thanks. It is always pleasant to find someone in agreement..
The whole affair is not unlike those royal marriages by proxy.. As for example when one of Henry VIII's courtiers (I think it was- mind you VII would make more sense) had to go to meet Katherine of Aragon, and, before witnesses, attend her in her bedchamber, bare his leg, and place in in between the sheets in token of her future husband's intentions... Of course if it was someone doing it on behalf of Arthur, there was no "carry through"... And in the same way these four days will only be truly historic if the Irish and British people make it so.
Cass -
Message 25
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Thursday, 19th May 2011
I'm curious. When you talk of "centuries of brutal colonisation" - what do you mean precisely? Clearly, there was oppression and neglect by an Anglo-Irish landowning establishment characterised by religious bigotry and condescension, and the Irish phase of the Civil War in the C17th was brutal and bloody as were the rebellions and risings of the late C16th and C17th.
At what point did the ebb and flow between warlords both native and incoming (a difficult distinction to define as each wave- Scandinavian, Anglo-Norman, English-merged into the community of Irish chieftains. Was Ireland ever a colony, in fact or in law?
Was the assumption of a right to dominate the second largest of the British Isles by the largest anything more than that?
What intrigues me is that, apart from strategic concerns during the contests with Spain, France and Germany, most of Ireland cannot have delivered much economically over the years (hence much of the neglect in the18th &19th). Even the most prosperous corner, the six counties of the north, has been costing the British state a fortune for the last forty years. -
Message 26
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 19th May 2011
artymacclench
I seem to remember from my old school History that Ireland during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century was run as a Crown Colony, and that, especially in the Northern Counties- the centre of the Gaelic resistance in the last years of Elizabeth and first years of James VI/I- were then deliberately "Planted" by Protestant Loyalists, with Roman Catholics- and other Irish people being banned from applying for the land allocations.. Moreover those loyalists only wanted the land and tended to treat the Irish as "vermin" to be cleared off into other parts of the island.
Of course there was also the region down near Dublin which had been taken over by Anglo-Norman adventurers in an extension of the Anglo-Norman and Angevin's military supervision and temporal rule in England and Wales- and Lowland Scotland too. And there was also the Munster Plantation founded by Henry VIII when Irish people rebelled over the break with Rome and the Tudor Crown making Church property its own, this was also a time when certain elements of English law were introduced- particularly the whole question of inheritance- English primogentiture/ Irish tanistry.
The Civil Wars, rebellions and risings in the British mainland had their repercussions in Ireland, with the Northern Loyalists holding out against Irish forces in support of King James II after the Revolution of 1688-9.
It was after the victory of William of Orange at the Battle of the Boyne that a really punitive regime was imposed upon the RC Irish . Was it not Swift who said that the Catholic Irish were condemned to be no more than hewers of wood and drawers of water? In these circumstances the economic development of Ireland was never going to equal that of England. But in the 1690's Fletcher of Saltoun argued that 20% of all the people of Scotland were wandering around as "sourners"- sturdy beggars. An educational revolution and the chance of better paid work in England, and more business with England eventually changed the situation for the Scots.
But the majority of the Irish not only had no real opportunities for self-improvement, but were in no position to do very much to generate the kind of economic dynamism that was beginning to be such a feature of England.. Whereas Lowland England had been cultivated and developed already for a thousand years, the plantations had treated Ireland as Virgin lands- not unlike the plantations in the Americas. These were new nursery ventures initially aimed at achieving subsistence and paying meagre wages to hired hands, who adapted to the new possibilities offered by the potato plots that they were allocated as "wages in kind" -like farm workers in England.
But the underdevelopment of Ireland was compounded by two things. (a) In the North there arose a great Linen industry: but it just could not compete with "King Cotton" as it grew in Paisley and Lancashire. It seems likely that Irish linen weavers were among those who moved to Preston the great cotton weaving town- a flght of skilled workers from Ireland. (B) As the economic revolution got under way in Britain there was plenty of work for "hewers of wood and drawers of water"- and at better pay than they would get in Ireland- and moreover not working for the Protestants with whom the RC lived already often in bitter antagonism and resentment over past history. And why should RC's have prefered to work to make Loyalist Protestants and English absentee landlords wealthy?
Cass -
Message 27
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 20th May 2011
Just perhaps putting some of my posts in the wider context of the road that still has to be travelled:
(a) Is that the Queen's actual shape these days? Or was it agreed between all parties that- as there is no such thing as 100% security- she should wear some bullet proof protective gear?
(b) Was anyone else struck by the different military comportment and style on show- accentuated perhaps by the fact that the most recent British military display was in the very different circumstances of the Royal Wedding? Perhaps inevitably, when soldiers were in the presence of the honoured dead of an earlier and more militaristic age, they took on some of the spirit of that time. But for an historian it made manifest the fact that the Irish Nationalism that created this State was a product of the age that also saw German and Italian nationalism. And for me this was brought out by the use of the straight-arm salute further extended and pronounced by the ceremonial sword.
May the men of violent struggle rest in peace.. They were part of a Lost Generation, taught that life is all struggle for the survival of some and the extermination of others..
And may we in this generation, and these times, all take up the struggle to make a world that includes us all.
Cass -
Message 28
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Friday, 20th May 2011
In reply to ShaneONeal:
Who branded them as "terrorists" and why?
As an Irish Republican, which I suppose you´re, you may know it yourself.
Collins wasn't "murdered", he was killed in a fair fight he insisted on halting for and which his subordinates had advised him against.
An ambush is hardly a "fair fight" and so imo the killing of Michael Collins was plain murder.
Using phrases such as "terrorism" and "murder" are mere propaganda terms...
If you say so. Praising all dead IRA Volunteers as heros is as well using "propaganda terms". I would - to be fair - accept that term for those who died during the Easter Rising 1916 and the War of Independence 1919 to 1921, but I see it very different when it comes to the civil war 1922 to 1923. I can´t see anything heroic in a civil war, because it´s the worst thing a society can face. -
Message 29
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Friday, 20th May 2011
People should learn some Irish history before they expose their obvious ignorance on these boards. Ireland was run by a Protestant ascendency that generally reviled the Catholic majority and enacted Penal Laws against them. There is still an element of this about today. Ireland, like India, was thoroughly exploited for the benefit of an alien ruling class "If two thirds of any kingdom's revenue be exported to another country, without one farthing of value in return and if the said kingdom be forbidden the most profitable branches of trade wherein to employ the other third, and only allowed to traffic in importing those commodities which are most ruinous to itself, how shall that kingdom stand? [Johnathan Swift (1729)] One tenth of every Irish peasant’s income had to be paid to a minister of an alien religion. One quarter of all Irish revenue was sent to absentee landlords in Britain. Britain legislated against our competing on equal terms. We were banned from exporting cattle to Britain. We were prevented from selling our manufactured goods in Britain. We could not export our wool abroad. All those goods which we could export had to go on English ships and through English ports. The historical facts are there for you to see. They are irrefutable. Go and learn something.
PS (and most importantly) the Queen’s visit was a resounding success on every level and long overdue. 93% of the people of the Irish Republic voted in the 1998 Good Friday referendum to settle the Irish Question and bury the past. I did myself. Our Heads of State are merely gift-wrapping that political reality.
What is a vanity state? It seems to me that Ireland is paying its own way – or have we been getting money for nothing from somewhere? Interest rates = someone makes money. Other, more economically successful, states are making money from us right now. It seems their success is at our expense!
The outcry, small as it is, about the expense of the Queen’s visit to the RoI is a storm in a teacup compared to the hullaballoo raised against the Pope’s visit in Britain. It is a pity that such a small minority of diehard ‘republican’ anarchists ( they ignore the democratic will of the Irish people) can force the Irish state to shell out 30 million on security when it would have been so much better to see her passing through crowds of welcoming people. Those protesting the visit had every right to do so and they had their point of view. Those causing civil unrest were no advertisement for their cause.
On the whole issue of Ireland’s independence, it seems to me that some think we have no right to it. Of course we have. The proof is in the fact that Britain had to give us our independence. She had no moral, ethical, or any other basis for denying it to us when she could easily have done so militarily.
The Queen’s visit is more a case of the British state finally coming to terms with the past vis-avis Ireland, a reconciliation with those ‘things which we would wish had been done differently – or not at all.” We can all have our past, but let’s not continually live it! Or, as Mary McAleese said: “We cannot change the past but we choose to change our future.” I think we have – now.
The Minstrel Boy will return, we pray.
When we hear the news we shall cheer it,
…Ħ
Then may he play on his harp in peace,
In a world such as heaven intended,
For all the bitterness of man must cease,
And ev'ry battle must be ended.
[Thomas Moore: The Minstrel Boy] -
Message 30
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Friday, 20th May 2011
In reply to Harpo:
I wonder to whom you´ve addressed your post, because what you´ve written was nothing new about Irish history which I didn´t know already.
I´ve learned not too less about Irish history because it was and still is one of my favourite interests in history.
Instead to track your post right behind my own, it would be appreciated to address your critics to the person you think is concerned.
There you "Go and learn something".
Thank you. -
Message 31
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Friday, 20th May 2011
Thomas,
Yours was the last message (Message 28) in the thread and I just used 'reply to this message' to insert my Message 29 into the thread. I have only now seen that my message was headed "in reply to message 28". I honestly did not know that there was tracking from one post to the next. I was not actually talking to you at all! I had read a few messages by other contributors and was responding to them all in general.
I did read your post but was not responding to it at all. -
Message 32
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 20th May 2011
Harpo
I see nothing in what you have written that is inconsistent with what I had time to write to reply to arty before the midnight hour..
And I have looked back at whether I used the term "vanity state" on this thread.. I thought that just about all my my posts have treated this whole "historic" few days as evidence of the very real nature of the Irish State.. which- as many people have said- has shown that it is very much aware of its position as a responsible partner in the community of States.
I suspect I used the term "vanity state" on the Scottish thread- having in mind the idea of "vanity publishing"- adverts for which keep popping up on my computer screen.. There is a market for people who just love the thought of seeing their writings produced in book form, whether or not they are actually really published and put out into the public domain because hard-headed and wordly wise publishers see that they stand some chance of actually becoming "books" in the true sense of having a life of their own within the rough and competitive community of books and readers thereof.
What I have said is that those who resent the expense of a State visit- perhaps one of the most significant that the Irish Republic is ever going to host- should accept that this is what States do..
Cass -
Message 33
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Friday, 20th May 2011
PS : Your use of the word 'murder' in reference to the tragic killing of Michael Collins in West Cork is not appropriate. It occurred in the context of a war and Collins, owing to his reckless behaviour, was at least partly responsible for his own demise. Besides the foolhardiness of driving in an open top vehicle through enemy territory which offered perfect ambush conditions, all eye-witness accounts agree that when he was shot he was standing or moving in an erect manner in the open road and offered himself as a clear target.
Shane is right when he picks you up on your use of words like 'terrorist' and 'murder'. They say much more about your view of historical matters than they can ever say about the people to whom they are applied.
Are the Arab revolutionaries in Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, etc., 'terrorists'? Were the revolutionaries of the American War of Independence 'terrorists' and 'murderers? Were the Boers 'terrorists'? Was the ordinary soldier in the German Wehrmacht committing 'murder' every time he killed an enemy? I could go on.
Was Michael Collins a 'terrorist' and a 'murderer'? -
Message 34
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Friday, 20th May 2011
Cass,
Yes, it was probably you who used the term 'vanity state'' elsewhere. I don't frequent the boards consistently and tend to read the most recent thread if I am interested. More often than not I will not compose a post but if I do I could very well be responding in one particular thread to ideas posted on other threads. Sorry to be so confusing and inconsistent.
Harpo -
Message 35
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Friday, 20th May 2011
PS : For me the past three days have been an uplifting human experience. Relations between our two countries will, can, never be the same again. What took us all so long? All the energy that was wasted , both directly and more so indirectly, trying to bring us to this point.
The honesty that lies at the heart of these events is totaly disarming and wonderfully healing. -
Message 36
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 20th May 2011
Harpo
I totally concur with that..
I have to say that, perhaps somewhat ridiculously I have found myself standing solemnly alone in my study several times in acknowedgement of the efforts of various people to move us all forwards over reec.. Before this "day" there was that moment when Ian Paisley and Messers Adams and McGuiness accepted that there was a common task to which they could all bend their energies..
And then there was that day when the Irish RFU had invited the English team to play at Croke Park.. There was a massive dignity in the silence with which the English National anthem was heard, a strength in silence that in itself honoured the dead, to be followed by a thunderous rendition of the Irish Anthem and a determination by the Irish team to be worthy of the hour. Short hair cuts made some of them almost unrecognisable.
And with this visit perhaps it is possible to see the common ground.. So perhaps I might point out that lots of people in Britain also felt that it was unfair that they were paying tithes to a church that rendered them no service. In fact William Cobbett, who perhaps through his friendship with Daniel O'Connell read a RC History of the Reformation, was incensed when he discovered that the tithe was originally in Medieval Times not the personal income of the clergy, but a kind of social fund - including all of the food stored in the tithe barns that was guarded by monks and made available to the populace in times of food scarcity.
Reform of the tithes was taken in hand during the 1830's but the principle of a tithe to support the Established Church stayed for a long time, and probably helped to make disestablishmentarianism one of the issues most likely to fill a meeting thoughout the Nineteenth Century.
Regards
Cass -
Message 37
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Friday, 20th May 2011
A small point but in defence of Collins' judgement, presumably he and his colleagues, apart from those manning the armoured car, were in open-topped vehicles so that they could observe the surrounding country and if, when, the ambush came, they could all 'debus' to engage the opposition or seek cover, whichever seemed best. Clearly Collins, following time-honoured principles of leadership did the former. He was not hit in the vehicle but moving to get a better shot at the retreating ambushers.
Also there was presumably an element of showing the opposition that he was not cowed which was borne out by his choice to stay and fight it out rather than "Drive like hell!"- Reckless? Resolute?
Dead either way, true enough. -
Message 38
Posted by MB (U177470) on Saturday, 21st May 2011
I thought the commemoration was for those who died before independence, not the terrorists who were killed in later years.
You do not normally get heads of state bowing and curtseying to each other except perhaps Royalty who have rules of precedence between themselves. Many people greeting the Queen seemed to give a small bow as they would anyone in her position and I did notice a few women who curtseyed. -
Message 39
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 21st May 2011
MB
Well I think that it is open to Shane O'Neal to say as he did in the OP:
"Today the Queen will lay a wreath to those who fought for Irish freedom at the Garden of Remembrance in Dublin."
One is reminded of those famous words of Nehru in 1947 when the Indian nation emerged into independence "not wholly or in full measure"..
An Irish Free State was something that people fought for. It was created and now exists. Some insist that the struggle should go on and must go on still. But since the Good Friday Agreement the Irish Republic has taken the view that the "armed struggle" is now over. And- to go back to what I have said earlier- it is for those who honour their dead to fix their own roll of honour.
The case of Udhum Singh came up recently.. I am not aware that the subsequent repatriation of his body to India and his elevation to the status of a national hero has caused any major repercussions between India and the UK, though it was perhaps meant as a gesture of India's growing post-imperial stature as a leading country in "The Third World", as it was briefly called.
PS. I did notice that some people who met the Queen in more private, personal and local surroundings did observe normal courtesies, as did the Queen and Prince Philip, who acknowledged them in due form with smiles and inclinations of the head, as is quite conventional when people are being introduced.
It was interesting to note a few weeks ago Prince William's repeated salute in acknowledgement of the salutes he was receiving, and Kate's carefully choreographed dropping of her eyes into her lap, while William held the pose.
Cass -
Message 40
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Tuesday, 24th May 2011
On the evening when the Queen gave her speech in Ireland, I'm sure I heard the reporter state that the Irish State has quietly dropped its claim to the Six Counties. Since then I have been using it as a test to see how closely other folks have kept their ear to the political ground as opposed to all the razzamatazz, and so far nobody has passed the test; I am on my own.
Did my ears serve me correctly that evening? -
Message 41
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 24th May 2011
There was nothing quiet about the dropping of the claim. It needed a change the to Constitution of the Republic which followed a public debate and referendum following the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.
-
Message 42
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Tuesday, 24th May 2011
Thanks for this. I don't know where I was when the public debate and the referendum was in the news!
-
Message 43
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Tuesday, 24th May 2011
On the evening when the Queen gave her speech in Ireland, I'm sure I heard the reporter state that the Irish State has quietly dropped its claim to the Six Counties. Since then I have been using it as a test to see how closely other folks have kept their ear to the political ground as opposed to all the razzamatazz, and so far nobody has passed the test; I am on my own.
Did my ears serve me correctly that evening? The Articles of the constitution, A2+ A3 were changed, and as a quid pro quo Britain deleated Section 20 of the Government of Ireland act.
When the Queen visited Ireland, the Irish employed 32 motorcycle soldiers with the flags of the 32 counties displayed from the Bikes. To Irish minds the whole of Ireland is one.
The notion of a "claim" is mistaken in this sense, rather like the English "claiming" that Lancashire and Yorkshire are part of England -
Message 44
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Tuesday, 24th May 2011
LOL - more Oirish Nationalist BS from wee Shaney.
The reason there were 32 outriders is that there are only 32 motorbikes in the whole of that tinpot little, 26-county potato-republic - the Oirish were showing off their full strength.
The notion of a "claim" is mistaken in this sense, rather like the English "claiming" that Lancashire and Yorkshire are part of England
LOL - that would be true if England had never, ever existed as a united, independent entity in the whole of history, but England minus Yorks and Lancs had been a state since 1922. The partition of the western part of these British Isles of ours is the historical norm, there being nom precedent whatsoever for the independent, 32-county state of which some deluded fools still dream... -
Message 45
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 25th May 2011
... there being nom precedent whatsoever for the independent, 32-county state of which some deluded fools still dream...
nom?
The Crown of Ireland Act 1542 seems a fairly concrete precedent to me. As does the 1782 Constitution. Both of these defined a country called Ireland corresponding to the entire island and existing apart from its neighbours and in the latter case apart from the "United Kingdom". In 1542 the counties were numbered at 33. By 1782 this had been revised to 32.
The earlier Laudabiliter issued by the pope in 1185 also defined the country as the entire island and John's title, based on this papal bull, applied nominally therefore to the entire entity, even if in practical terms his authority could only be exercised in certain areas.
So it would appear that the notion of a 32 county Ireland is not only well represented by precedent, but also by precedents recognised, utilised and even devised by the English crown when it suited. In the prosecution of a claim for independence therefore it was eminently logical to base the claim on the traditional (and legal) definition of the country as it stood. -
Message 46
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 25th May 2011
In reply to Catigern
... for the independent, 32-county state of which some deluded fools still dream...
Let them dream about it, sometimes this dream will become true. If not in our lifetime, then probably in some decades to come.
Considering the plans of the SNP to bring Scotland forward to its own independence via a public referendum, who knows if they succeed and the majority of the Scottish vote in favour of their independence, what´s left of the UK and what about Wales in this context?
I think that it might be out of question that in such a case, NI would remain as an "exterritorial" part of England. They´d be left with just to choose between being a state on their own, apart from England or, for the better or the worse apply to unite with the Republic of Ireland. The latter has developed within the last decades faster into an modern state in which some fears and prejudices from the NI Unionists might not be sustainable anymore. Their bound towards the British Monarchy might become questionable when the UK falls apart, after Scotland becoming independent.
Nothing lasts for ever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nordmann,
It´s still interesting to read your posts. -
Message 47
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 25th May 2011
When the Queen visited Ireland, the Irish employed 32 motorcycle soldiers with the flags of the 32 counties displayed from the Bikes. To Irish minds the whole of Ireland is one.
I wouldn't get too carried away with the symbolism of the bikes, ShaneONeal. There were in fact 33 outriders - one bike displaying the Union Jack. Another "Irish" mindset (admittedly not yours) might well acknowledge this as a symbol of the pragmatic truth that a portion of the island is British. -
Message 48
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 25th May 2011
I’m not sure what the relevance of Section 20 is in particular, but following the Good Friday Agreement, it was the Government of Ireland Act (1920) which was repealed in its entirety. This being the UK then there was no public debate or referendum on this significant constitutional change. And so, if there was a case of a claim being ‘quietly dropped’ at the time, then it was this and it was the UK which did it. The Government of Ireland Act (1920) was the last vestige of any form of claim of sovereignty over southern Ireland by the UK, albeit an extremely thin and academic claim.
Whether there were 32 motorcycles with flags on or not is also an academic point. It’s no different to the UK continuing to fly the 1801 Union Flag (which contains the so-called ‘Cross of St Patrick’ representing the Kingdom of Ireland) even though the UK has renounced sovereign claim to that kingdom as a whole.
And as Nordmann rightly points out there is a contradiction right at the heart of UK unionism. If the whole of Ireland was recognised as being one country and one kingdom by Great Britain in 1800 and if Great Britain then proceeded to form a union with the whole of Ireland then surely, when it came time to dissolve that union in 1922, then it should have the whole of Ireland which should have left. This is in fact what happened. But Northern Ireland’s secession from Ireland after 1 day and its subsequent union with Great Britain after a further 1 day of being an independent Northern Ireland totally undermines the case of unionism. How can one be a partitionist and a secessionist and a unionist all at the same time? And yet the UK unionists are now moaning that the Scottish nationalists wish to partition Great Britain and secede from the Union. But isn’t that precisely how the UK unionists treated Ireland and Ulster 90 years ago?
The use of the term ‘these British Isles of ours’ is also revealing. The fact is that the Act of Union 1800 did not create the ‘Kingdom of the British Isles’. It created the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland’ - therein maintaining the distinction between ‘Great Britain’ and ‘Ireland’ as united but separate entities.
If the Kingdom of the British Isles had been indeed been created in 1800 and if the distinction between English, Scottish and Irish law had been abolished and formally replaced with ‘British Isles law’ and a ‘British Isles legal system’ and if, as William Pitt had suggested, Catholic emancipation had accompanied the creation of this new state, then it might all have been very different over the last 200 years. And Unionism might actually make sense. But as Her Majesty said the other day "with the benefit of historical hindsight we can all see things which we would wish had been done differently or not at all". -
Message 49
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 25th May 2011
The Crown of Ireland Act 1542 seems a fairly concrete precedent to me. As does the 1782 Constitution. Both of these defined a country called Ireland corresponding to the entire island and existing apart from its neighbours
Precedents for a united Ireland, certainly, but I deliberately spoke of a hypothetical entity that was both united AND independent, by which I meant independent of English/British crown control.
and in the latter case apart from the "United Kingdom".
Only to be expected, given that the UK (as distinct from the post-1707 Kingdom of Great Britain) didn't exist in 1782...
Let them dream about it,
I don't mind them dreaming about it, or campaigning for it in a civilised and peaceful way. I just object to them claiming that the unity of any part of the island of Ireland with any part of the mainland is a deviation from some hypothetical (non-existant) historical norm, particularly when they also attempt to glorify cowardly, bigoted terrorists who, as I've pointed out before, wre in the habit of murdering 'undesirables' such as homeless people and random Protestants.
If the whole of Ireland was recognised as being one country and one kingdom by Great Britain in 1800 and if Great Britain then proceeded to form a union with the whole of Ireland then surely, when it came time to dissolve that union in 1922, then it should have the whole of Ireland which should have left.
'Should have' only if we are slaves to history, rather than students of it.
This is in fact what happened. But Northern Ireland’s secession from Ireland after 1 day and its subsequent union with Great Britain after a further 1 day of being an independent Northern Ireland totally undermines the case of unionism.
The case for unionism is not dependent upon legal niceties, but on the will of the people of Northern Ireland. Anyone who had tried, during that 1-day transitory phase, to impose the agenda of the new Dublin government on the people of the six counties that were to become Northern Ireland would have got what they deserved.
The use of the term ‘these British Isles of ours’ is also revealing. The fact is that the Act of Union 1800 did not create the ‘Kingdom of the British Isles’.
I was not referring to any particular political arrangement, but to the existence of the British Isles as a geographical entity, which has a rather longer history than any of the kingdoms, republics etc that have come and gone within that geographical entity.
-
Message 50
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 25th May 2011
Previous reports of a 32-/33-strong motorcycle escort have been revealed to be mistaken.
In fact, only one of the escort was riding an actual motorbike (and that had been pinched from over the border, in Northern Ireland).
The remainder were riding the second-hand Raleigh Choppers with which Eire's elite, high-mobility forces are equipped as standard.
The confusion is believed to have arisen because some of the Irish 'soldiers' had tied sticks to the frames of their bikes in such a way as to rattle against the spokes of the back wheels as they turned.
It may not sound like a very convincing ploy to most members of this board, but it was enough to fool the Irish media and the people of Dublin...
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.