Originally posted by DrKFThe evidence is in what happened; I don't agree with your baseless claim that all of a sudden the Irish went from acceptance of being forever ruled by Britain to a demand for immediate independence. You misunderstand what support for Home Rule meant; it certainly did not mean that would be a permanent solution (as Fitzgerald, but not you, concedes). The change in opinion was on tactics, not the ultimate goal. There were people in Ireland who did support British rule; they were called Unionists and represented a fraction of Irish opinion (perhaps 20😵.
I'm not ignoring neither, and note that you have provided no evidence for your assertion (despite the fact that it appears you accept the Home Rulers were ascendant around 1914) that the desire for Independence at that time, around 1914, represented majority opinion. That's a hoot, too.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSince I am suggesting that the Rising was a catalyst to separatist fervour, 'what happened' (Irish Independence, presumably) cannot stand for evidence for your claim. I don't agree with either of your baseless claims: that the desire for separatism always represented majority opinion or that Home Rulers were all (or sufficient of them to constitute majority opinion along with separatists) actually supportive of Independence rather than Home Rule as their ultimate aim.
The evidence is in what happened; I don't agree with your baseless claim that all of a sudden the Irish went from acceptance of being forever ruled by Britain to a demand for immediate independence. You misunderstand what support for Home Rule meant; it certainly did not mean that would be a permanent solution (as Fitzgerald, but not you, concedes). The ...[text shortened]... ish rule; they were called Unionists and represented a fraction of Irish opinion (perhaps 20😵.
The post that was quoted here has been removedThose are all the same article with different links. There is a description in De Rosa's book of Elizabeth O'Farrell taking a copy of Pearse's surrender to Ned Daly who then went to Four Courts and told his men then had to give up. It's on page 383.
Your original claim was that Holohan was a "murderer". Since that fell apart, now your claim is that he wasn't a "hero". Certainly the act of shooting the young Playfair wasn't particularly heroic, but it was justified under the circumstances.
Originally posted by DrKFSo Fitzgerald is wrong about that i.e. he shouldn't have suggested that the Irish would have accepted Home Rule for only a "time"?
Since I am suggesting that the Rising was a catalyst to separatist fervour, 'what happened' (Irish Independence, presumably) cannot stand for evidence for your claim. I don't agree with either of your baseless claims: that the desire for separatism always represented majority opinion or that Home Rulers were all (or sufficient of them to constitute majority opi ...[text shortened]... separatists) actually supportive of Independence rather than Home Rule as their ultimate aim.
There's little sense discussing it with someone so irrationally stubborn. Your claim that most Irish were perfectly happy being ruled by the Brits forever and then suddenly changed virtually overnight to demanding immediate freedom from the Brits is ludicrous.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf I had ever said such a thing, it would be ludicrous indeed.
Your claim that most Irish were perfectly happy being ruled by the Brits forever and then suddenly changed virtually overnight to demanding immediate freedom from the Brits is ludicrous.
Fortunately, and despite you twice trying to put those words in to my mouth, I have never done so.
Originally posted by MctaytoIf it ever did happen there would be a man dressed in black following behind you with a tape measure 😉
The 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.
Originally posted by spruce112358DrKF did say, however: "But that's what we're trying to say to you: that the Rising was a massive catalyst towards arousing separatist fervour, and that, perhaps, this was not the majority opinion prior to the Rising."
Well played.
DrKF 1
no1m 0
What would the majority opinion then have been? Non-separation? A form of acceptance of their position?
Or is DrKF trying to say that the majority of Irish would have been in favour of staying in the union if they were granted equal rights? And that they believed this possible?
Although the latter is an option, it's utopian in nature. The former is the only believable alternative.
And that would make No1's assessment of DrKF's sentiments about right.
2 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirThe options, as far as I understand, were Union, Home Rule, and independence.
What would the majority opinion then have been? Non-separation? A form of acceptance of their position?
Or is DrKF trying to say that the majority of Irish would have been in favour of staying in the union if they were granted equal rights? And that they believed this possible?
Although the latter is an option, it's utopian in nature. The former is the only believable alternative.
Why would it be unbelievable for the majority of Irish before 1916 to be in favour of Home Rule without being fervently attached to complete independence (this is my interpretation of DrKF's position)? They'd been fighting for it long enough -- and got it, albeit in a watered down form, in 1914, although it wasn't implemented, the big European bloodbath having intervened. And Home Rule would have led to independence in much the same way that other British dominions such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand became independent (the Queen's rubber stamp aside). (Asquith's views offer an intriguing perspective on these things: http://www.nicholaswhyte.info/asquith/asq1920.htm)
It's interesting to note that Sinn Fein got only 46% of the vote in 1918, although this does not take into account 25 seats they won uncontested.
"One side points out that Sinn Fein won 73 seats out of 105, an overwhelming mandate. Opponents point out that Sinn Fein received less than half the popular vote. As always the truth is in between - 25 seats were won by Sinn Fein unopposed, so we will never know what the true level of popular support for the party was." http://www.politics.ie/history/38357-1918-irish-general-election-ulster-9-counties.html
(Another interesting fact about the rebellion itself was that only 1500 odd rebels showed up out of a hoped-for 10 000).
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't think you can compare the Irish situation to these situations. They weren't political and religious in the way the Irish situation was.
And Home Rule would have led to independence in much the same way that other British dominions such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand became independent
The home rule Canada, Australia and New Zealand won was WASP gaining freedom from WASP (note that none of the indiginous peoples in these countries got the independance).
India was costing too much (and besides, they weren't catholic), etc.
Unless you take the rampant anti-Catholicism in England (and the protestant movement in Northern Ireland, which has much the same attitude as the Boers in South Africa) into consideration, you're not going to get a complete grasp of the situation.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBDN: And Home Rule would have led to independence in much the same way that other British dominions such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand became independent (the Queen's rubber stamp aside).
The options, as far as I understand, were Union, Home Rule, and independence.
Why would it be unbelievable for the majority of Irish before 1916 to be in favour of Home Rule without being fervently attached to complete independence (this is my interpretation of DrKF's position)? They'd been fighting for it long enough -- and got it, albeit in ...[text shortened]... the rebellion itself was that only 1500 odd rebels showed up out of a hoped-for 10 000).
Funny, that's what I'm saying and DrKF is denying. To be more precise, I'm saying that Home Rule had a lot of support pre-1916 because it was thought to be a stepping stone to independence.
Originally posted by shavixmirI simply noted a trend towards self-governance in British colonies at the time; of course regional politics differed. But I'll ask you to give some evidence for the relevance of rampant English anti-Catholicism in Irish politics around 1916.
I don't think you can compare the Irish situation to these situations. They weren't political and religious in the way the Irish situation was.
The home rule Canada, Australia and New Zealand won was WASP gaining freedom from WASP (note that none of the indiginous peoples in these countries got the independance).
India was costing too much (and beside ...[text shortened]... South Africa) into consideration, you're not going to get a complete grasp of the situation.
As for the Northern Irish Unionists (the analogy with the Boers is bizarre and irrelevant, especially since an Irish volunteer brigade fought on the Boer side) by forming an anti Home Rule paramilitary organisation in 1913 or 1914 (I forget), they were responsible for the formation of the republican Irish Volunteers (etc).