Ambassador to attend insurgency commemoration

The Newsletter are covering the answer given to a written question by Lord Kilclooney over British representation at the commeration of the 1916 rebellion against British rule.

  • Oilbhéar Chromaill

    I wonder does Lord Kilclooney, Danny Kennedy, Jeffrey Donaldson and the ‘outraged’ Newsletter feel the same way about the US War of Independence given that too was a war against British rule?
    Or does he feel compromised in that many of the signatories of that particular Declaration of Independence are commemorated as great Ulster Protestants on the gable walls in Unionist areas around the north?
    It’s a bit disingenuous also for the reporter of this story to say that 450 people died – 250 of them civilians – died during the Easter Rising given the vast majority were killed by the British bombing of Dublin. Also we have the infamous story about Sheehy Skeffington who was executed by a British officer for no good reason.
    Am I wrong in thinking that William of Orange was a rebel also, in that he challenged the British Realm in his day. His rebellion was successful – as was the Easter Rising (though only partially).

    It’s time for Lord Kilclooney and the Newsletter to grow up.

  • CS Parnell

    So what if the British ambassador goes? That’s not the real issue at stake here for Ireland – all of us, North, South, in exile, OTR whatever…

    If ireland wants a moment to celebrate, let it be playing Riverdance in the interval on Eurovision, or either one of the goals (you know which ones), or the moment (release of the Joshua Tree?) that an Irish band became the biggest thing in world music.

    When I was growing up in Belfast, and it’s not *all* that long ago, there were four things many houses had – a Sacred Heart, a picture of JFK, a picture of Grace Kelly and a copy of the 1916 declaration. In the 1970s they were the sum achievements of a country that had, a thousand years before, saved civilisation. They were all shite.

    Sadly, many of Belfast’s catholics are still stuck in that timewarp, but the rest of Ireland has moved on. Except, it seems a few desperado FF Dail deputies who feel the breath of the Shinners on their necks.

    Well, let me say it. Fuck 1916. Up the (new) Republic.

  • darth rumsfeld

    well I’m not surprised that the Government should send our ambassador or that there should be an attempt to comply with the southern Irish mythology as regards the Rebellion. It is clearly important to maintain good relations and that means turning a blind eye to the ignoble birth pains of the USA, France, and even our semi-British, semi-independent chums down south. Diplomacy has nothing to do with principle, as the past 35 years has shown. Still stinks of post-imperial guilt complex though. “Britain turns its back on its own people and history”-hardly news mehtinks.

    And then along came Olly-without Stan we presume.

    “the vast majority were killed by the British bombing of Dublin.”

    Tut tut. For a devotee of the rising to make such a juvenile error. The bombing, such as it was, did not kill many-if indeed any-civilians, but it did take out several rebels-presumably as part of the sought for blood sacrifice Pearse would have approved. And everyone remembers Sheehy -Skeffington, murdered by a deranged officer, but noone seems to care about unarmed policemen and the elderly Dublin volunteers gunned down in cold blood by-presumably- sane and calculating members of Pearse’s fan club. Funny how its OK to have a heirarchy of victimhood when it suits you, eh?

    “Am I wrong in thinking that William of Orange was a rebel also, in that he challenged the British Realm in his day.”
    Completely wrong, not that you care. William was not a British subject-he was invited into Britain by British subjects who might merit the title rebel. However James had de facto abdicated the throne by the time William was crowned, and then only after many wanted him as regent, or consort, as opposed to the joint monarch he eventually became.
    Glad to see that you recognise the Glorious Revolution as a success though Olly .

  • Michael Shilliday

    I think it has perhaps been missed that the American revolution was in fact a very British revolution, fighting for British rights and liberty. A very basic conclusion of Edmund Burke.

  • Biffo

    Here’s another basic conclusion made by Burke on the system the British operated in Ireland and how it affected the majority of people in Ireland at the time…

    ‘a machine as well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people, and the debasement in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man’

    Biffo

  • Markkus

    Unionism should recognise that the modern British establishment is unconcerned about ancient history. They’re looking to the future – something of which the politicians of NI have not often been accused.

    On the face of it, Ireland is having a celebration, so it invites representatives from friendly countries. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe there is a political undertone – a message to Unionism, that they’re going to have to get with the programme – it doesn’t much matter what they think.

    Either way, the predictable incandescence is funny.

  • lib2016

    “…the predictable incandesence….”

    Apparently we’re not to have the usual firework display in Dublin on St. Pat’s Day. Could we have found a replacement?

    lib2016

  • Overhere

    I think it funny that the usual “outrage” quoted by the newsletter is only from the usual suspects. I do not think anyone else really cares.

    you know it would be nice once in a while for Lord whatever to get really annoyed and ask questions about things that really matter like job creation, housing and health matters instead of the predictible nonsence.

    Come to that it would be nice if all the PAID representatives did likewise. But no too much to ask, hospitals closing, schools not being funded and you get the sound of silence, an invite sent in a spirit of friendship and bust blood vessels !!

  • Garry

    “The bombing, such as it was, did not kill many-if indeed any-civilians, but it did take out several rebels…”

    Wow, it appears that the British had “smart” bombs in 1916, that were able to distinguish between civilians and the dastardly rebels. Amazing! And almost 90 years before their friends the Amerikans were using similar technology to “liberate” Iraq.

    Plus ca change!

    Garry

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    At this level it is possible to see why it is better to deal with the British at an Executive level rather than with dung heap crowing MOPEs.

  • Michael Shilliday

    ‘I think it has perhaps been missed that the American revolution was in fact a very British revolution, fighting for British rights and liberty. A very basic conclusion of Edmund Burke.’

    Whatever you want to wrap it up in, it still involved lots of British loyal subjects being murdered by rebels, more than in 1916, probably because as we are well aware, the British were always more efficent killers than us feckless Irish.

    Darth Rumsfeld

    Perhaps one day you could be the lapdog of the Irish Republic instead of the other Brit-killing Yanks?

  • ‘I think it has perhaps been missed that the American revolution was in fact a very British revolution, fighting for British rights and liberty. A very basic conclusion of Edmund Burke.’

    True, enough, but then surely the same could be said of the men of 1798, who were drawing on many of the same ideas.

    And if that is the case, then perhaps the Republic has as much claim on the Anglo-Saxon heritage in Ireland as unionism.

    If Americans can abolish the union in the name of English liberty, then why not Irishmen?

  • Ziznivy

    Since when were the Americans part of the Union (which also didn’t exist in 1798)?

  • GrassyNoel

    “And if that is the case, then perhaps the Republic has as much claim on the Anglo-Saxon heritage in Ireland as unionism.

    If Americans can abolish the union in the name of English liberty, then why not Irishmen”?

    ?

    Liberty is English? Liberty is part of ‘Anglo-Saxon Heritage’?

    Well I never.

    GrassyNoel

  • Brian Boru

    This is great news that the British ambassador is to attend. It amounts to a recognition of the legitimacy of 1916 and the War of Independence – something Northern Unionists will hopefully oneday recognise too.

    “I think it has perhaps been missed that the American revolution was in fact a very British revolution, fighting for British rights and liberty. A very basic conclusion of Edmund Burke.”

    Liberty should not be the preserve of Protestants or of those considering themselves “British”. By the way John Carroll, one of the signaturies of the Declaration of Independence, was a Catholic of Irish descent. I resent the hypocrisy of some Northern Unionists in agreeing with the US WOI but decrying 1916 as “terrorism”. I don’t think Henry Joy McCracken and Henry Monroe would understand either. They might conclude that their descendents had taken confusion pills.

  • Brian Boru

    Oilbhar Chromaill3 on Mar 15, 2006 @ 12:31 PM is me Brian Boru.

  • Rory

    Whatever of the Anglo-Saxon heritage of liberty it was surely superceded by the Norman conquest of 1066 and marmalised entirely when the Hanoverians came to call. Not very man Herewards were left awake after those fellows got to shore.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Michael Shilliday: “I think it has perhaps been missed that the American revolution was in fact a very British revolution, fighting for British rights and liberty. A very basic conclusion of Edmund Burke.”

    Quite so. The colonists demands were simply “The rights of Englishmen,” such as representation in Parliment, etc. It was not until Mother England had shown her abusive side that acceptance of seperation on the basis of independence went beyond the Sam Adams / Boston Massacre / Boston Tea Party radical fringe.

    Darth Rumsfeld: “Whatever you want to wrap it up in, it still involved lots of British loyal subjects being murdered by rebels, more than in 1916, probably because as we are well aware, the British were always more efficent killers than us feckless Irish.”

    You can blame that on the French, the Indians and the British. Warfare in the New World was far different than in Europe. Goaded by their French (later English) allies, the Indians fought a war of massacre. British intractibility, along with their arrogance, lost them the American colonies.

    Brian Boru: “Liberty should not be the preserve of Protestants or of those considering themselves “British”. By the way John Carroll, one of the signaturies of the Declaration of Independence, was a Catholic of Irish descent. I resent the hypocrisy of some Northern Unionists in agreeing with the US WOI but decrying 1916 as “terrorism”. I don’t think Henry Joy McCracken and Henry Monroe would understand either. They might conclude that their descendents had taken confusion pills.”

    You misconstrue the Burke reference, whether out of ignorance or to make some cheap political point, I know not. The US won the War of Independence because its a heck of a lot further across the Atlantic Ocean than the Irish Sea, Yorktown or no. The Easter Rising wasn’t terrorism, it was stupidity — a poetic “beau geste” that had a snowball’s chance in Hades of success. 1916 wasn’t even Breed’s Hill, let alone Yorktown or Saratoga. The Irish never won the Free State through force of arms per se, they simply made it the least expensive alternative for the English. Personally, even as one who believes in a united Ireland, I see no purpose in celebrating past stupidities.