Originally posted by FMFI lived in London for a couple of years. The Evening Standard made my skin itch at a distance. They pollute public places with a freesheet now, you know.
Exposure to the Evening Standard is not always direct. Deliberately living in London for 24 years may negate all protestations of innocence.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't see how any of the facts in your summary have any bearing on whether Easter 1916 was morally justified or not.
Given the facts above, was the Dublin Rising morally justified? Why or why not? For the purposes of this discussion, I'll concede that before the Rising the majority of Irishmen would not have supported the idea that armed rebellion to achieve Irish independence was, at the time, necessary.
Was there a causal relationship between the uprising and the swing to Sinn Fein? Yes, but primarily because of the disproportionate British response to the uprising and the planned introduction of conscription in Ireland. Did the leaders of the rebellion prophetically foresee these reactions? Anything's possible, I suppose.
In any case it is undoubtedly true that Easter 1916 attained massive symbolic significance; WB Yeats captured this in his famous poem 'Easter 1916'. You know the line: 'a terrible beauty is born'. The leaders of the rebellion were transfigured in the popular imagination. In this way their personal shortcomings were forgotten and they became heroes. That, if I recall correctly, is what the poster you mention was talking about: that the leaders of the rebellion were flawed human beings, not heroes, before they died and attained their apotheosis.
So perhaps your question should be whether Pearse, Connolly, McDonagh and McBride were heroes. To which I'd answer, sure, and so was Finn McCool.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf the "vast majority of Irish were loyal to the Crown" in 1916 (as British historian Robert Kee and many others claim), why was the response "disproportionate"? A group of "subjects" conspired with the enemy during war time (the most bloody war in British history) to obtain weapons and kill British troops. Why shouldn't they be shot for treason in the eyes of "loyal subjects"?
I don't see how any of the facts in your summary have any bearing on whether Easter 1916 was morally justified or not.
Was there a causal relationship between the uprising and the swing to Sinn Fein? Yes, but primarily because of the disproportionate British response to the uprising and the planned introduction of conscription in Ireland. Did the l Donagh and McBride were heroes. To which I'd answer, sure, and so was Finn McCool.
And assuming Irish loyalty, why would conscription have been a big deal? It had already been extended to England, Wales and Scotland. Surely the "loyal" Irish should have accepted this burden with good graces like their fellow subjects did.
Something seems a bit odd here, doesn't it?
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's a good question.
If the "vast majority of Irish were loyal to the Crown" in 1916 (as British historian Robert Kee and many others claim), why was the response "disproportionate"? A group of "subjects" conspired with the enemy during war time (the most bloody war in British history) to obtain weapons and kill British troops. Why shouldn't they be shot for treason in the e ...[text shortened]... heir fellow subjects did.
Something seems a bit odd here, doesn't it?
As I gather it, though, the Irish had been signing up enthusiastically to serve in the British army. The Irish Volunteers probably best represented mainstream Nationalism, and were split with the vast majority siding with Britain.
I think to look back at the response as 'disproportionate' is anachronistic; it was, rather, inevitable.
Indeed, as I said above, it was probably the intention of the conspirators in the Easter Rising to provoke the vicious response that, right enough, ensued, in the hope it was harden 'soft' support in favour of militancy. If so, the tactic worked, based on fairly rapid shifts in public opinion.
Originally posted by DrKFRegarding Irish participation in WWI, the bbc site gives an interesting summary:
That's a good question.
As I gather it, though, the Irish had been signing up enthusiastically to serve in the British army. The Irish Volunteers probably best represented mainstream Nationalism, and were split with the vast majority siding with Britain.
I think to look back at the response as 'disproportionate' is anachronistic; it was, rather, inevitab ...[text shortened]... our of militancy. If so, the tactic worked, based on fairly rapid shifts in public opinion.
The pattern of Irish recruitment was erratic. There was an initial surge but then the level declined sharply. Roughly as many enlisted in the first year of the war as in the remaining three years; just 12,000 volunteered in the eight months before the Easter Rising. The geographical distribution of enlistment and the religious make-up of the recruits were similarly uneven. Protestants came forward in greater numbers proportionately than Catholics. In Ulster, men of both faiths were more likely to join up than those from the rest of Ireland. Generally, urban areas returned more soldiers than rural.
For unionists and moderate nationalists, war provided an opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty, so earning Britain’s gratitude and hopefully influencing the terms of its post-war settlement of the Irish question. A further motivation for enlistment was economic necessity. That 16,000 had joined up in Dublin between August 1914 – December 1915, was related to the disruptive impact of war on the city’s industry.
The fall in recruitment began in 1915, which indicates that it was not solely due to the anti-English sentiment generated by the Rising. The slaughter on the Western Front was certainly a factor. Two of the Irish Divisions, the 36th and 16th, saw action at the Somme, whilst the 10th suffered heavy losses in Gallipoli in August 1915. Moreover, Irish troops in the British Army appear to have been treated with particular harshness in World War One. They constituted just two per cent of the membership of the force, yet they were the recipients of eight per cent (271) of all death sentences imposed by its courts-martial.
Enlistment levels were also influenced by the increasing prosperity of war-time Ireland – particularly its agriculture. Farmers were as well off by 1918-19 as at any time before the 1950s. But in any case, enthusiasm for the war was never as widespread in nationalist Ireland as the media, dominated by pro-war elements, suggested. There was a common perception that it was not Ireland’s affair.
In total, about 206,000 men from Ireland served in the conflict, of whom some 30,000 died. These figures dwarfed the numbers who had fought and lost their lives at home, in the Rising and in the Anglo-Irish War. But the percentage of those of conscription age who served (10.7 per cent) was well below both the Scottish (26.9 per cent) and the English and Welsh figures (24.2 per cent). In mid-1916, Westminster therefore considered imposing conscription on Ireland, out of concern at the depleted Irish divisions and the growing resentment in England at the slackness of recruiting there. The acute shortage of troops on the Western Front prompted it to reconsider the issue in April-May 1918.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/aftermath/af02.shtml
Originally posted by DrKFWell, then, the Easter Rebellion was a transcendent act of sacrifice beyond good and evil.
I think to look back at the response as 'disproportionate' is anachronistic; it was, rather, inevitable.
Indeed, as I said above, it was probably the intention of the conspirators in the Easter Rising to provoke the vicious response that, right enough, ensued, in the hope it was harden 'soft' support in favour of militancy. If so, the tactic worked, based on fairly rapid shifts in public opinion.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe Scots never wanted british rule. as a Scotsman if Scotland went to war with England over independance then i would be first to sign up for the military struggle.
I'm not sure. Were the Irish being exploited or discriminated against by the Brits, or was the main cause of the uprising mere nationalism? In the latter case, I don't think an armed rebellion would have been justified. In the former case, it may have been. The Scots seem to be doing quite alright under British rule (at least currently), and I don't see why the Irish would not be able to prosper under British rule.