1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFYou'll forgive if I'm not impressed with your Appeal to Authority esp. an "authority" who was born 10 years after the Rising. Of what possible relevance is that the "authority" served as Prime Minister of Ireland some 60 years after the Rising? I wouldn't uncritically accept GW Bush's take on D-Day; would you?
Um, OK. You'll forgive me if I tend, not knowing you beyond these discussions, to attach considerably more weight than do you to the twice-served Taoiseach.
I personally think he's a perfectly reasonable authority, and quite probably in possession of considerably more facts than either of us have now or will ever have on this matter:
"up to 1914 there wa ternal Affairs of the nascent Irish state. The man himself served as prime minister. Twice.
I'm not surprised to see you resort to such clearly fallacious argument rather than bother to use any facts; it's a lot easier, isn't it?
That "Home Rule" was acceptable to most Irishmen in 1914 was a given, but that hardly means there was "little support for Irish independence". The latter was always the ultimate goal and Home Rule would have been only a stepping stone. By 1916, what most Irishmen were willing to accept in the near future and what the UK was willing to grant had changed dramatically as I already pointed out. The Rising was a catalyst that solidified said sentiments.
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks for that - I actually went to bed chuckling to myself, because it seems to be your firm belief that you are in possession of more, and more salient facts, than Garret FitzGerald concerning Irish history and politics.
That "Home Rule" was acceptable to most Irishmen in 1914 was a given, but that hardly means there was "little support for Irish independence". The latter was always the ultimate goal and Home Rule would have been only a stepping stone. By 1916, what most Irishmen were willing to accept in the near future and what the UK was willing to grant had changed d ...[text shortened]... tically as I already pointed out. The Rising was a catalyst that solidified said sentiments.
But if we look back, there's actually precious little by way of facts in your postings, and what seems like an awful lot of speculation on your part. The few facts you have gathered in any event don't seem to me to invalidate what FitzGerald has to say. Remember that FitzGerald said that "It was the massive rush by Irish men to join the British Army in 1914 that seemed to him and to like-minded others to portend an imminent demise of Irish nationalism." Then from the BBC site you quoted from, we find that "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." Seems to me that when FitzGerald writes of a 'massive rush' in 1914, he could well be discussing exactly the same 'initial surge' as in your post. The dates match up quite well, after all.
When you write "With all due respect to Mr. FitzGerald, his impressions are at variance with the facts. The "massive rush" to join the British Army was considerably less in Ireland than in the rest of the UK and had dropped to a relative trickle long before the Rising", I don't think anything in the piece I quoted by him is at any point and in any way at variance with the facts as presented on the BBC site. Yet in two postings you seem to claim that the figures you have quoted damn FitzGerald as being at variance with the facts. How, exactly?
Worse still, you seem to have drawn speculative conclusions from the evidence where no such conclusions are warranted. You say you've only drawn the conclusions the evidence, but armed with a few lines from a BBC microsite on levels of signing up for the army in WWI, you feel placed to comment yourself on the internal thoughts of the participants in the Easter Rising. I'll try to find some facts for you, if you like, but here are some speculative theories you have presented as fact yourself. Maybe you could do the same for me:
"there was no fundamental change in overall Irish feeling toward the desirability of separation from the Empire; that was always majority sentiment in Ireland." - I have seen nothing above that evidences this claim. Perhaps you can show me some? Why is your interpretation better than FitzGerald's?
- "So the Rising by showing that Irishman could fight effectively for freedom raised the expectations of the majority of Irish that true independence could be obtained if they desired it. Once that realization sank in, half measures like "Home Rule" were no longer acceptable." - I have seen nothing above that evidences this claim. Perhaps you could show me some? Why is your interpretation better than FitzGerald's?
"That "Home Rule" was acceptable to most Irishmen in 1914 was a given, but that hardly means there was "little support for Irish independence". The latter was always the ultimate goal and Home Rule would have been only a stepping stone. " - I have seen nothing above that evidences this claim. Perhaps you can show me some? Why is your interpretation better than FitzGeralds?
"By 1916, what most Irishmen were willing to accept in the near future and what the UK was willing to grant had changed dramatically as I already pointed out. The Rising was a catalyst that solidified said sentiments." - I have seen nothing above that evidences this claim. Perhaps you can show me some? Why is your interpretation better than FitzGeralds?
Given that, barring a couple of stats from a BBC site on relative levels of sign up and a pair of quotes from Pearce (none of which contradicts FitzGerald), all you have are bald assertions about nationalist sentiment, motiviation and expectations. I don't mind your revisionary bombast and I don't resent your need to mythologise Irish history independent of corroborative evidence. It's difficult not to object to double standards, though.
And I hope you'll forgive me if I still consider FitzGerald actually to be, relative to you or I, an actual authority on the subject at hand.
Originally posted by DrKFI suggest you read some books rather than rely on off-hand comments of out of work politicians. If you really want to know what Desmond Fitzgerald thought, you could read his memoirs. If you want evidence to support my statements, I suggest two books with diametrically opposed sentiments towards the Rising: Peter De Rosa's Rebels: The Irish Rising of 1916 and Robert Kee's The Green Flag: A History of Irish Nationalism.
Thanks for that - I actually went to bed chuckling to myself, because it seems to be your firm belief that you are in possession of more, and more salient facts, than Garret FitzGerald concerning Irish history and politics.
But if we look back, there's actually precious little by way of facts in your postings, and what seems like an awful lot of speculation ...[text shortened]... ve to you or I, an actual authority on the subject at hand.
As it is, you are both woefully ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Fitzgerald's claim that Irish nationalism was about to suffer an "imminent demise" prior to the Rising is without any support whatsoever. And has to the dates "matching up" let's look at the quote:
It was the massive rush by Irish men to join the British Army in 1914 that seemed to him and to like-minded others to portend an imminent demise of Irish nationalism. In their view, this made an early attempt to end British rule necessary.
If that was their motivation, it's rather strange they waited approximately a year and half to stage the Rising during a period when recruitment was so weak that the British were considering conscription!
Now do you see now "how exactly" his claims are at variance with the facts?
Since you seem to insist on making this into some petty personal argument, I'll stop there. Hopefully, you'll bother to do some research and then have something besides a pathetic Appeal to Authority esp. when that "authority" is so obviously incorrect.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat are you talking about? The Conscription Crisis of 1918, which caused a big swing to Sinn Fein, took place in 1918.
As it is, you are both woefully ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Fitzgerald's claim that Irish nationalism was about to suffer an "imminent demise" prior to the Rising is without any support whatsoever. And has to the dates "matching up" let's look at the quote:
It was the massive rush by Irish men to join the British Army in 1914 ...[text shortened]... ing a period when recruitment was so weak that the British were considering conscription!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1918
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI've read the de Rosa book (amongst others), but not Kee's. Thanks for the tip. I've read a reasonable amount about the subject, in fact. I don't think I've exhibited any real ignorance concerning Irish history and politics, and nor do I think Fitzgerald has, based on my reading and understanding. You obviously think differently, but let's not turn this in to a 'who's read more books on Ireland' slanging match. I'm not sure it will get us anywhere, other than allowing you to trot out your insults unsubstantiated by anything except your conviction that you are correct.
I suggest you read some books rather than rely on off-hand comments of out of work politicians. If you really want to know what Desmond Fitzgerald thought, you could read his memoirs. If you want evidence to support my statements, I suggest two books with diametrically opposed sentiments towards the Rising: Peter De Rosa's [i] Rebels: The Irish Rising of athetic Appeal to Authority esp. when that "authority" is so obviously incorrect.
I do have to wonder about your depth of knowledge, though, if you don't know why it took over a year and a half to prepare for the Rising, or simply that it took that long. Amongst other reasons, the IRB split, the alignment with the militant wing of the IVF and the alignment with the ICA all took place in that period, along with planning and preparation. The actual plans for the Rising were developed through 1915, and by late that year it was decided to stage the Rising the following Easter. So, no, I am still at a complete loss as to how exactly his claims are at variance with the facts. Do you want to try again?
Finally, I see you decided not to point out where, in the preceding posts, you had provided any evidence whatsoever to support your rhetorical claims concerning the aims and sentiments of the Irish people. As I said, I don't object to the use of rhetoric, but it's difficult not to object to double standards.
EDIT - I have no idea why this is all in italics...
The post that was quoted here has been removedYour personal attacks and childish vendetta is noted.
Edward "Ned" Daly was the commander of the First Battalion at Four Courts. I can find no allegation of him shooting a boy as you claim. Is this something you read in a Kevin Myers column?
Of course, it is your sentiments towards the participants in the Rising that is out of touch with Irish sentiment then and now. Though you consider them "murderers" currently in Ireland:
Four out of five voters say the Rising was a ‘‘positive event in Irish history’’; 71 per cent believe Ireland ‘‘owes a debt to the leaders of the 1916 Rising’’
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/04/02/story13121.asp
And the 1918 election showed what the people of Ireland thought of those who participated in the Rising; 47 of the Sinn Fein candidates were in British jails, they all won. The Home Rule party was obliterated by Sinn Fein, going from 68 seats in the House of Commons to 6. As British historian Kee notes Sinn Fein "a party demanding total sovereign independence for Ireland dominated both the political scene and Irish public opinion".
It is you who should stop trying to rewrite history and also stop pretending your extremist views towards the heroes of the Rising are mainstream anywhere but at Kevin Myers' house.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're ridiculous -- the first comment you address to this poster in this thread mentions his 'imbecility' and here you are whining about a 'personal argument'. Is it that you can't answer his questions?
Since you seem to insist on making this into some petty personal argument, I'll stop there. Hopefully, you'll bother to do some research and then have something besides a pathetic Appeal to Authority esp. when that "authority" is so obviously incorrect.
Originally posted by DrKFPerhaps you could cite me where in De Rosa's book ANY of the participants make ANY statement supporting Fitzgerald's thesis?
I've read the de Rosa book (amongst others), but not Kee's. Thanks for the tip. I've read a reasonable amount about the subject, in fact. I don't think I've exhibited any real ignorance concerning Irish history and politics, and nor do I think Fitzgerald has, based on my reading and understanding. You obviously think differently, but let's not turn this in to a ...[text shortened]... object to double standards.
EDIT - I have no idea why this is all in italics...
Go to page 69 and see what the opinion of Clarke, Pearse and Kent was on June 25, 1915 as regards Irish nationalism.
Clarke: Redmond's volunteers are drying up while ours are growing daily.
Pearse: Redmond is still preaching that a Home Rule Parliament is as certain as the rising of tomorrow's sun. If he believes that he's the only one in Ireland.
Kent: Right, he's finished.
Clarke: The future lies with us, all right.
Where exactly is this "desperation" at nationalism's "imminent demise" that Fitzgerald claims?
Originally posted by no1marauderI'll dig out my copy when I get home, if I can find it, and have a look.
Perhaps you could cite me where in De Rosa's book ANY of the participants make ANY statement supporting Fitzgerald's thesis?
Go to page 69 and see what the opinion of Clarke, Pearse and Kent was on June 25, 1915 as regards Irish nationalism.
Clarke: Redmond's volunteers are drying up while ours are growing daily.
...[text shortened]... ctly is this "desperation" at nationalism's "imminent demise" that Fitzgerald claims?
In the meantime, why not address the points I made?
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFYou want me to "prove" that the Irish desired separation from Britain? Seriously? 🙄
I'll dig out my copy when I get home, if I can find it, and have a look.
In the meantime, why not address the points I made?
I think the election of 1918 is pretty persuasive evidence as regards how desirable Home Rule was thought of after the Rising. What is it you want exactly? A statement from a politician who wasn't alive at the time saying so?
Originally posted by no1marauderNot at all. I don't doubt hunger for independence was strong after the Rising. But then again, at no point have we disagreed on that, or even broached the subject. Scroll back up, look at what we were discussing and address that.
You want me to "prove" that the Irish desired separation from Britain? Seriously? 🙄
I think the election of 1918 is pretty persuasive evidence as regards how desirable Home Rule was thought of after the Rising. What is it you want exactly? A statement from a politician who wasn't alive at the time saying so?
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFYOU: "there was no fundamental change in overall Irish feeling toward the desirability of separation from the Empire; that was always majority sentiment in Ireland." - I have seen nothing above that evidences this claim. Perhaps you can show me some? Why is your interpretation better than FitzGerald's?
Not at all. I don't doubt hunger for independence was strong after the Rising. But then again, at no point have we disagreed on that, or even broached the subject. Scroll back up, look at what we were discussing and address that.
Well? Are you not denying my statement that separation from Britain was the majority sentiment in Ireland?
Originally posted by no1marauderNot to harp on about double standards, but for somebody who so frequently complains of people never 'actually reading' his posts, you seem to have done a remarkably poor job of reading his.
You want me to "prove" that the Irish desired separation from Britain? Seriously? 🙄
I think the election of 1918 is pretty persuasive evidence as regards how desirable Home Rule was thought of after the Rising. What is it you want exactly? A statement from a politician who wasn't alive at the time saying so?
The election of 1918 seems to have been greatly influenced by something called the Conscription Crisis of 1918.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderDid you answer these questions? He's asking you to back up your assertions with evidence. You're trying to flip-flop and make him responsible for disproving your so far unsubstantiated claims. I'd say something about intellectual dishonesty, but that'd be utterly redundant by this point.
YOU: "there was no fundamental change in overall Irish feeling toward the desirability of separation from the Empire; that was always majority sentiment in Ireland." - I have seen nothing above that evidences this claim. Perhaps you can show me some? Why is your interpretation better than FitzGerald's?
Well? Are you not denying my statement that separation from Britain was the majority sentiment in Ireland?