In denial of a bloody and Catholic past…

Eammon McCann hits a rare dissonant note when he argues that the only real inheritors of the rebels of 1916 are those who continue to be unadulterated rebels – Republican Sinn Fein. He notes a particular reluctance to acknowledge the determination of many of the participants to build “a Catholic country for a Catholic people”:

Nobody knew in 1916 what the world would look like 90 years later or how Ireland might fit within it. People say of 1916 what suits their present-day politics. It would even be possible for advocates of a Catholic State for a Catholic people to assert their claim to the Easter tradition. The fact that they don’t draw this argument out says something about the decline of their self-confidence. There was far more religious fervour in the GPO than any of the special supplements or feature pieces I’ve read has acknowledged. Throughout the fighting, on the roof of the GPO, the rosary was recited at half-hourly intervals. I havn’t seen this mentioned anywhere in the past week.

, , ,

  • cuculain

    Does the heading fit the argument? Mc Cann was pointing out the perspective of those who remember. Its a point that most Free State’rs forget and are convinced by present day historians. Say it long enough and you will believe it was right and then fix the facts. Very much true of British justice system even in today’s climate. The perspective does not make much sense as the will of the ‘citizens’ needs to be supportive. Wolf Tone tried the same argument in his time even during his trial and yet again the bread givers convinced the land dwellers that he was in their land and under their justice, so how would those who eat the bread acknowledge otherwise and see the Lords as visitors and Tone as a resident and their son? The Catholic attribute is a consequence and not a contribute.

    If Ireland was dominate protestant at any of those historical episodes then there would be the same conclusion and strive for republicanism. One wonders on the hypocrisy of those who jibe at ‘National’ ceremonies by those who see it from afar. As DUP’s Ian Paisley Jnr criticised “unionists will take a very different view of those involved in organising a rebellion against the United Kingdom in 1916”. Did his forefathers support the will of the people? His fellow DUP collegues insisting that the 90th anniversary parade will romanticise violent revolution. So historians can now get cracking on rewording the Battle of the Boyne and the previous battles by a revolutionary foreigner and mercenary whose behest in overthrowing a THEIR King. Was this a rebellion, revolution, a just war, is it romanticised, are there parades and are they bigoted? And now we still hear from the ‘Loyalists’ that they will NOT lay down their arms until their politicians get there way. These are no more of religious motives than those who pray at the GPO in remembrances.

  • Oilbhéar Chromaill

    Even if it were true that a rosary was recited every half hour from the roof of the GPO in the height of battle, and Eamonn offers no proof of same or any source to back up this claim, all it indicates is that some in the GPO were religiously fervent not that they were fighting for a Catholic country for a Catholic people. Eamonn McCann is the first journalist I’ve seen to use that phrase in his unique revision of the Rising.
    Were he the leader of the Rising, maybe he would have confounded us all and declared a Godless Rising. In his humanist or atheist fervour, he should acknowledge that the Proclamation was an ecumenical document far in advance of its time and far more sophisticated than the Church of the Latter Day Revisers would be able to take on board.

  • Martin

    I think 1916 is important for the way it is interpreted today more than the actual motives and personailities of the participants. All this debate about what ‘actually’ happened or what people meant is a little beside the point. If those in 1916 and their political successors in the Free State and elsewhere failed to “cherish all the children of the nation equally” that does not invalidate the delaration it simply means that the current generation have to work harder to do that.

    Founding national myths, or legends which confer legitimacy on the state, often bear very little close examination. In lieu of a war of independence over here in England we have the monarchy which, as anyone can tell you, is best viewed through rose tinted glasses. All revolutions and similar national myths have dark undersides as well. How many of the signers of the American Declaration in 1776 were declaring that “all men are created equal” while simultaniously owning slaves. Jefferson did and he wrote it! There was precious little “Liberté, Égalité” or indeed “Fraternité” in the years immediately after 1789. Nonetheless these are aspirations the people of the US and France should be proud of and work towards. Same with Ireland today.

  • Henry94

    Martin

    If those in 1916 and their political successors in the Free State and elsewhere failed to “cherish all the children of the nation equally” that does not invalidate the declaration it simply means that the current generation have to work harder to do that.

    I don’t think we have any obligation to implement the proclamation in any respect.

    It was the program and aspiration for the Provisional government but if someone runs for election today on a “cherish all the children of the nation equally” ticket then the first question is what the slogan means.

    Does it mean that everyone should have the same income? Or that we should have equality before the law? Or that we are all entitled to be served in pubs.

    It is for the people of Ireland today to decide what to do with the freedom that was won for us. That’s the whole point of freedom.

    On McCann’s point it is no surprise to find that there were catholics in the GPO but all national movements are coalitions.

    If you found a Trotskyite in a small group like the Environmental alliance then you could suspect a front organisation. But there was far more diversity in the GPO.

    From a Catholic point of view Pearse’s hi-jacking of Easter was blasphemous.

    The state should mark the rising on the calendar anniversary. Not at Easter.

  • Martin

    OK Henry94, I appreciate that (and as a Brit and quite rightly my view shouldn’t count for squat which was the main point of the whole event I suppose) but I don’t think your point necessarily runs counter to mine. My point is those who seek to claim the inheritance of the Proclamation for themselves should use it in a current political context rather than some spurious, and ultimately pointless and unresolvable, argument about history.

    However, being British, and therefore associated with a tradition which at least much of the North of the Island share and for whom 1916 is perceived as being nothing to celebrate, I feel modern republicans could move away from the instinctive anglophobia and Gaelic bias exemplified by De Valera, and truly live up to the ideals exemplified by the Tricolour and at least seek make the celebration of 1916 less of an issue. The proclamation is a stirring, fantastic, aspirational piece of prose and, as one who would like to see an end to partition, it would be great to see it reclaimed from the negative sectarian connotations that in many quarters it has acquired. Persuading those who need to be persuaded may be like asking water to run uphill but that is what idealism is all about I suppose…

    But, wearing my Catholic hat, I think your point about the timing of the anniversary is a very good one and one I hadn’t considered before.

  • D’Oracle

    Surely McCann is always dissonant -if entertaining

  • mickhall

    By and large I feel the Easter remembrance parade in Dublin went off well, although I would hope in the future we see less of the Irish armed forces, for I feel far from an expression of confidence when nation States parade their armed detachments through there Capitals streets, it displays the reverse. An example of how comfortable the English bourgeoisie sit in the their chair of power, is they rarely feel the need to remind their own ‘subjects’ what force lays behind their power. No, it is normally satrap despots who love to parade their wasted tax dollars on military toys and their is as I have aforementioned a method and a fear in their arrogance.

    As it was the first commemoration of the Easter Rising in decades perhaps we should over look Bertie Ahern attempt to flex the States muscles by parading the ROI very own Oglaigh nh hEireann. Just the once though for all its faults, the ‘ROI’ has much to be proud about since its foundation by the men and women who came out in 1916.

    For all the media coverage of this celebration I felt a piece on a blog made an excellent point, as it touched on why James Connolly demanded of the IRA leadership that not a shot be fired in the north. It also illustrates why there is the deep cavern between the two communities

    “We talk so much in Ireland about sacrifice, about boys and men who died for Ireland. but they killed for Ireland to. And so I feel torn. ‘Not because I think violence is brutal or frightening. But because violence is like a stitch dropped–it unravels things quickly, invisibly, running both deep into the past and on into the future, a fracture that never quite mends'”

    Posted by thisismebreathing.blogspot.com

  • barnshee

    Shit man you mean– like those nasty prods –moight have a point– jasus what are you saying?

  • Harry

    barnshee wrote
    “Shit man you mean– like those nasty prods –moight have a point– jasus what are you saying?”

    Unionists are wrong, that’s a simple fact. They rely not on morality for the rightness of their argument but rapports of force, to this day.

    McCann was right to mention the catholic aspect in the irish rising, though there were also protestants, socialists and athieists. Partition brought about religious polarisation across the island, but the catholic nature of the Free State was also a result of the Irish.

    mickhall wrote
    “‘Not because I think violence is brutal or frightening. But because violence is like a stitch dropped–it unravels things quickly, invisibly, running both deep into the past and on into the future, a fracture that never quite mends’”

    We are taught to apply such delicate and human thoughts to consideration of the violence of nationalism, but somehow dwell less on this point of view when reflecting upon the creation and maintenance of n. ireland through armed militia or the British artillery bombardment of Basra.

  • dodrade

    McCann is spot on. The Republic of Pearse’s dreams bears little resemblance to the southern state of today. The irony of it all aumses me. If the Brits hadn’t shot him in 1916 the Free State surely would have in 1922.

    Incidentally, are the “dead generations” of the proclamation the first recorded example of Republican voting fraud?

  • Harry

    ‘Vote early, vote often’ was originally a phrase used by Unionists in regard to gerrymandering.

  • Peader O’Baoill

    I was at the Dublin commemoration of the Easter Rising yesterday and I have to say it was one of the most underwhelming events I have ever been at.

    Particularily of note was the absolute lack of atmosphere, the crowd was full of tourists and there was a distinct lack of Irish voices, indeed this was exemplified by there being more Irish flags on lamp posts than there were in amongst the crowd.

    My local Royal British Legion’s Remembrance Sunday event would put the organisation of this event to shame!

  • Harry Flashman

    Eamon McCann is an amusing figure, the left over has been, a sixties Trotskyite, still doing his best to shill for a secular religion that nobody in their right minds gives a shite about today (well nobody outside university campuses and newspaper editorial offices, but then I did say “in their right minds” didn’t I?).

    I well recall a few years back when Eamon was a contributor to Talkback and he condemned religions generally (well the religions that believe in God as opposed to Marx if you follow me) and his clinching argument was that no one who killed their enemy ever did so without believing that God was on their side. We were supposed to take from this that religion is solely responsible for causing wars. Er, so all those people who killed in war were believers in God then, is that what you say Eamon? So how do you explain the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, the Red Army, the Shining Path, the Khmer Rouge, the Baader Meinhoff or indeed the great Socialist (National variety) army of Adolf Hitler then?

    Eamon says the Easter rebels were Catholics so he condemns them, funny how he has no problem with Islamic Jihad and Hamas splodeydopes when they invoke Allah and Mohammed just before they self detonate inside Israeli pizza parlours.

  • Henry94

    Harry

    We are taught to apply such delicate and human thoughts to consideration of the violence of nationalism, but somehow dwell less on this point of view when reflecting upon the creation and maintenance of n. Ireland through armed militia or the British artillery bombardment of Basra.

    It is to our credit that we reflect. The commemoration was valuable above all for the debate is provoked and the many different aspects of the rising that were considered. 1916 is different in 2006 than it was in 1966. It will be different again in 2016. It continues to help us define ourselves and we’re lucky to have it.

  • Diarmid Logan

    Since most indigenous Irish people are Catholics there is no problem in building “a Catholic country for a Catholic people”. The main problem facing Ireland in the past and present is not Catholicism but British colonialism.

  • Reader

    Harry: ’Vote early, vote often’ was originally a phrase used by Unionists in regard to gerrymandering.
    The original quote was “Vote early, work late” – advice given to prevent a vote being stolen or forgotten. However, your version is better known, and has normally been used either with humourous intent, or to act as a warning to us’ns against the tricks of them’uns. In either form, it is relatied to voting fraud, not gerrymandering.

  • Mick Fealty

    “Vote early and vote often” is originally from Al Capone. Voting fraud I’m afraid has been a game for all the NI political family.

  • Jacko

    “Since most indigenous Irish people are Catholics there is no problem in building “a Catholic country for a Catholic people”.”

    And there you have it.
    “Indigenous” about a people as mixed in bloodlines as you could imagine. The real point is if you are Protestant or from immigrant parentage, you are not idigenous or wholly Irish. You have to be Catholic to be that. Fascism is never far below the surface in this part of the world.

  • IJP

    Spot on, Jacko. Here again we have more bigotry:

    ’Vote early, vote often’ was originally a phrase used by Unionists in regard to gerrymandering.

    That’s a lie. But it suits your tribal view of life…

    Since most indigenous Irish people are Catholics there is no problem in building “a Catholic country for a Catholic people”.

    That’s hypocrisy. But it suits your tribal view of life…

    (Presumably there’s no problem with Craig’s Protestant state for a Protestant people then, since most ‘indigenous six-county Ulster people’ are Protestants? Presumably the main problem in NI was the ‘Catholic peasantry’?)

    There’s that tribal politics again. You can have any kind of equality, human rights and dialogue, so long as it’s green…?

    Is there anyone out there who is going to take this rampant tribal bigotry on, or are we just going to allow it provided it’s done on a ‘cross-community’ basis?

  • Brian Boru

    “The real point is if you are Protestant or from immigrant parentage, you are not idigenous or wholly Irish. You have to be Catholic to be that. Fascism is never far below the surface in this part of the world.”

    I don’t care what religion someone is. I consider Green leader Trevor Sargent to be an Irish Protestant. We have thrown off the Church as an influence on state-policy. However on the immigrant issue I would say nationhood is something you are. It is intrinsic not some club that the entire population of the world can join with respect to becoming another nationality, as far as I am concerned. White Westerners who live in China are unlikely to consider their children as Chinese after all.

  • Henry94

    Chinese children who grow up in Ireland consider themselves Irish in my experience. We need to establish the principle that Irishnes is the option we want people to take as their primary identiy. Not compel but encourage.

    In Cork there is a nice saying “Irish by birth, Cork by the grace of God” That little extra blessing could be applied to any community or place on the island.

  • Jacko

    Never mind China.
    Are the children of immigrants to Ireland going to be considered as evry bit as much children of Ireland as anyone else – or is that reserved for white, idigenous, Catholic children?

  • Jacko

    My above point was to Brian Boru and Diarmid Logan, though I’m wasting my time on the latter – not Henry 94 whose ideal I agree with entirely.

  • Brian Boru

    “Chinese children who grow up in Ireland consider themselves Irish in my experience. We need to establish the principle that Irishnes is the option we want people to take as their primary identiy. Not compel but encourage.”

    And are they for a United Ireland?

    “Never mind China.
    Are the children of immigrants to Ireland going to be considered as evry bit as much children of Ireland as anyone else – or is that reserved for white, idigenous, Catholic children?”

    The religious aspect of it just does not matter. If we consider all the children of immigrants to be Irish for the purposes of law, then all the illegals will be having children in order to stay here. Despite the citizenship referendum in 2004, a Nigerian former student is currently trying to get the courts to block his deportation on the grounds that he has had a child here (convenient timing). Don’t want to encourage such cynical behaviour.

    If one of the parents is Irish (regardless of religion) then I consider the child to be Irish too. If the child has an Irish ancestor then yes I will consider them Irish. If neither of the 2 parents are either Irish or have Irish ancestors and are here legally, then my answer would depend on the degree of acceptance of the values of the host society. They are introducing citizenship tests in Britain and Holland etc. after all so perhaps my view of this has backing from the actions of other countries.

  • Fidel O’toole

    There is still an awful lot of “what aboutery” in N.Ireland. Mr McCann pointed out that the 1916 rising was a “Catholic” rising. He did not say anything about the Battle of the Boyne, nor about all the “Loyalists” killed by Cromwell, the father of English/Irish republicanism. He was concentrating on 1916.

    Besides, the whole affair was Bertie trying to tell people that it was Fianna Fail who freed Ireland, not Sinn Fein. In short, all done for selfish political motives, no-one, or very few, in the South could name the signatories of the proclamation, and know little of, and care less, about Pearse, McDonagh, Plunkett et al.

    James Connolly tried to bring some socialism to the North, but was easily defeated, like all socialists, by sectarianism. So he gave up on the North. Most of the others, knew nothing about the North, apart from Redmond who at least realised that the Unionists were a problem, and were unlikely to welcome a republic, once their eyes were opened by a British withdrawal.And because he was a bit of a realist, Redmond stands reviled in Irish history.

  • Harry

    Reader wrote: “The original quote was “Vote early, work late” – advice given to prevent a vote being stolen or forgotten.” – I almost fell off my chairing laughing when I saw this. This is the virtuous, righteous original Sunday school version, is it, before becoming bastardised by ‘you know who’?

    IJP wrote: “’Vote early, vote often’ was originally a phrase used by Unionists in regard to gerrymandering.’

    That’s a lie. But it suits your tribal view of life…”

    No its not, it was in a book I read recently and surprised me. I thought the book was ‘The Longest War’ by Mark Mulholland – which is quite favourable to unionists – but after skimming through it I can’t find the reference. If I find it I’ll post it up.

    My what a touchy lot you are on this website!

    Jacko wrote: “The real point is if you are Protestant or from immigrant parentage, you are not idigenous or wholly Irish. You have to be Catholic to be that. Fascism is never far below the surface in this part of the world.”

    You really shouldn’t project your own way of viewing things onto others, it’s not accurate. Indigenous means you were born here and identify with Ireland and not with a foreign government, no more nor less. You can be any religion or none, any politics or none and be indigenous.

    You can not be indigenous if you identify yourself primarily as a coloniser from another land, a subject of another government and an implementer of its laws in this island.

    To be Irish, to be indigenous, is to be republican – in every sense of that word. Do not project your own sectarian comprehensions onto that which you do not understand.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    IJP wrote: “’Vote early, vote often’ was originally a phrase used by Unionists in regard to gerrymandering.’

    Correct me if I am wrong, but gerrymandering, that is to say, the use of bizarrely shaped districts in an effort to control the outcome of elections, does not require “voting often,” since, mathematically, the game is already “in the bag.”

    “Vote early, vote often,” is an admonishing to “stuff” the ballot box through repeat voting… hence the phrase “vote often.” I would think a politician of *any* ilk would realize the difference between these two concepts.

    I don’t know about Al Capone, but the phrase “its the Chicago way” has been known to be tacked onto the end, leastwise in Illinois.

    Irony: Al Gore, at the start of the debacle in Florida, trotted out on of Mayor Daley of Chicago, Illinois to discuss Bush “stealing the election.” Then again, if anyone would know what a stolen election looked like, it would be one of Boss Daley’s kids.

  • Brian Boru

    “Cromwell, the father of English/Irish republicanism.”

    LOL English maybe certainly not Irish Republicanism which shares little of his monstrous ideas.

    And it wasn’t a purely Catholic rebellion e.g. Kathlyn Lynn, Countess Markievicz, Ernest Blythe, Sean Lester etc. This is a widespread myth that has to be countered.

  • Ruth Dudley Edwards

    I am no Trot, but I agree with Eamonn McCann that the true inheritors of 1916 are the Continuity IRA. I think his remarks about Catholicism are irrelevant, but logically, if 1916 was right, all violence in the name of Irish freedom is permissible.
    The problem with 1916 was that the rising, revolt, revolution, insurgency or whatever you’re having yourself by a tiny cabal happened in a democracy. Subsequent violence has been justified in the name of the dead of 1916. As a wit observed, ‘the dead, the dead, the dead, they have left us our Fenian fools.’

  • Harry

    Only a fool would argue that the Irish didn’t have a right to rebel in 1916. How many Irish were hung, deported or imprisoned in the 20 years prior to 1916 by british law? How many were evicted, denied economic opportunities or forced to emigrate?
    How much psychological damage was done to a whole nation that knew it’s politics in its own land was decided by the military power of a foreign country? That men with guns from another country walked the streets of their towns and cities?

    Only a mental weakling would argue that you don’t do in such a situation what all peoples do – take up arms and drive the invader out.

  • McKelvey

    I think that McCann’s article is a nice piece of self-serving rhetoric. He degrades his political opponents, except Republican Sinn Fein with whom his party SWP/SEA does not compete electoraally and subtly links his own party with the Easter Rising through a shared anti-imperial perspective. The impression he seeks to leave the reader with is that apart from RSF the Trots are also the inheritors of Easter Week.

  • Brian Boru

    “I am no Trot, but I agree with Eamonn McCann that the true inheritors of 1916 are the Continuity IRA. I think his remarks about Catholicism are irrelevant, but logically, if 1916 was right, all violence in the name of Irish freedom is permissible.”

    That is certainly not what the 1916 Proclamation states, specifically “we pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, in humanity, or rapine.”. I don’t think the men and women of 1916 would have at all approved of the PIRA, CIRA, RIRA or INLA.

    “The problem with 1916 was that the rising, revolt, revolution, insurgency or whatever you’re having yourself by a tiny cabal happened in a democracy. Subsequent violence has been justified in the name of the dead of 1916. As a wit observed, ‘the dead, the dead, the dead, they have left us our Fenian fools.’”

    I don’t agree. I don’t remember us voting to join the UK either directly, or via a truly representative body. The pre-Union Irish parliament hardly constituted such a body, when Catholics were forbidden from entering it, and when the last constituency revisions had been in the 17th century. 40 of its MPs were bribed to support the Union anyway, and members could buy their seats. Those arguing against the legitimacy of 1916 on the basis of the absence of mandate sometimes conveniently forget the absence of mandate for the Union. Perhaps then the Union and therefore any government deriving from it was no better in moral terms than the rebels?

    Irish MPs at Westminster were constantly outvoted and ultimately it was English MPs that decided what happened here. We didn’t consent to that. We tried voting Home Rule but we were constantly frustrated by the unelected House of Lords and then by the Curragh Mutiny. The Home Rule Act 1914 was suspended and amended in the Lords beforehand to exclude an unspecified territory called “Northern Ireland”. The Mutiny called into question whether the British military could be relied on to implement Home Rule. Furthermore, the form of Home Rule on offer would have been extremely weak – on par perhaps with the Welsh Assembly. As Garrett Fitzgerald has argued, we could have become dependent on UK subsidies like the North and then it would have been harder to pull out later on. I reject the thesis from persons like Robin Bury in the press that independence would have come anyway.

    Whatever the British army had thrown at them in 1916 and 1919-21 was as nothing compared to some of the things those in their position did to us for hundreds of years, including Cromwellian massacres, pitch-capping, transportation to slave-plantations, and confiscations of land. Their defenders during this time ought to – in all fairness – remember that when judgement 1916 and the War of Independence.

  • Cuculain

    Phil Lynott, who I knew personally, was referred to as black Irish. Those who know Phil and his upbringing would know what the Irish were referring to. If many Irish people were honest with themselves, there was a stigmatism about different race or coloured people other than the familiar blend of freckles red hair or the jet-black hair sun bleached skin clan. I am not expecting that Irish are any means racist but we can react with a sense of humour to identify their different sons.

    I believe the term Black Irish was formed in London in the days when the young Irish kids cleaned the chimneys of the wealthy. It then transpired to Dublin in a similar fashion but later became a regional description to denote an area of Dublin.

    My first point is about the apparently side track debate of this thread on Irishness. Irishness is like a religion its not where you are born or who’s your mother is, its about the persons belief and ability to teach and stand up for Irish or Celtic traditions. The 1916 ‘patriots’ had no country that was theirs, which is the main point, and their act to amend the wrongs by what they saw as the foreign state. But importantly they accepted “both” traditions within the island. If they are now seen as cross waving bigots then there are bigger problems in Ireland.

    [Fidel O’toole wrote]
    “Mr McCann pointed out that the 1916 rising was a “Catholic” rising.” This is way off the point and not correct.

    Eammon McCann said, “It would even be possible for advocates of a Catholic State for a Catholic people to assert their claim to the Easter tradition.” But unfortunately by reading Mick Fealty’s response stating that McCann “acknowledge the determination of many of the participants to build ‘a Catholic country for a Catholic people’ is very much off the beaten track. McCann was referring to today’s Catholic people who have adopted the ideals of the Rising, where as Mick could explain his view and where the quote;

    ‘a Catholic country for a Catholic people’ came from?

    (Sorry Mick 🙂

  • Henry94

    RDE

    but logically, if 1916 was right, all violence in the name of Irish freedom is permissible.

    There will always be people who do believe that all violence in the name of Irish freedom is permissible. That belief predates 1916. Otherwise 1916 couldn’t have happened.

    There is a case for it. If the British occupy the country or part of it in arms then why not resist them in arms. Theoretically, if you could guarantee success, there would be substantial support for armed struggle. It’s a tactical question not a moral one for many.

    It is an argument that is at its weakest when there is a strong constitutional nationalist movement. For many years Fianna Fail provided a democratic outlet for republican views and militant republicanism found it hard to make progress against them.

    But this is not 1966. Sinn Fein, organised on a 32 county, basis is the alternative to armed struggle today.

    We had a great debate on the Rising thanks to the decision to hold the parade. Your side can’t say you didn’t get a fair hearing. But you are dogmatic extremists on the issue and that is why you lost the debate.

    There are too many of you on the same paper and it reads as if adherence to the dogma is valued over independent thought.

    The cause may have changed but the grannys DNA hasn’t gone away you know.

  • Ruth Dudley Edwards,
    “The problem with 1916 was that the rising, revolt, revolution, insurgency or whatever you’re having yourself by a tiny cabal happened in a democracy.”

    Such a democracy had been imposed in Ireland since the Act of Union. Despite the wishes of the majority of the people on the island, Home Rule was never going to be fully implemented. What sort of democracy is that? We may be “nationalist necrophiliacs” now but at least we do not spew out such lazy academic tripe which characerises the tiny, unrepresentative reform movement, who somehow manages to maintain a grip on Irish newspapers.

  • bag’oshite

    it was right for the 1916 uprising to coincide with easter. it was and is the most sacred day of the year for the indigenous inhabitants of ireland. the british would have been least expecting rebellion at that time and been caught unawares. and it’s good to know another oppressed country took a leaf out of irish history’s book and took a stand against military
    aggressors. anybody heard of the tet offensive?