PDA

View Full Version : Observer article on 1916 commemoration



Pages : [1] 2

WeAreRovers
10/04/2006, 2:45 PM
What are people's views on this piece from yesterday's Observer? Personally, I think it's beneath contempt. :rolleyes:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1750081,00.html

KOH

rebs23
10/04/2006, 4:11 PM
Not suprising view from a British commentator is it?
Personally I would make a far bigger deal out of the War of Independance rather than just the Easter Rising. Can't put my finger on it but I was always a bit uneasy about Padraig Pearse.
It's the War of Independance that won this country it's freedom and did not carry some of the baggage of the Rising, (No mandate from the people arguments etc.)

Speranza
10/04/2006, 4:18 PM
Awful article. Surprised the Observer published such misguided rubbish. One of the comments notes the main problem with Wheatcroft's piece...


According to Wheatcroft, "If the Irish want to celebrate the Easter Rising they may, but they must realise that they are in no moral position whatever to condemn any other violent insurrection against another lawful government carried out by people who feel strongly enough." I'd like to see him run that line in the US, arguing against celebrating the 4th of July. After all, what was the war of Independence if not a violent insurrection

It is all well and good when the powerful nations of the time wield force in search for their definition of "freedom" but heaven forbid the rise of those who have been oppressed. One example...The current American administration targets countries which pose a threat to them but if this logic is to be used then surely Cuba and Nicaragua would have been justified if they had have bombed central D.C.

Wheatcroft refers to the exhaltation of the leaders of 1916 being wrong. What about the present monarch's policy of granting OBE's and Knighthoods to the paratroopers involved in Derry in '72.

Should this journo not be writing for the Express?

strangeirish
10/04/2006, 4:55 PM
It's just a myopic attempt to get himself attention. Apparently it worked.

Docboy
10/04/2006, 6:12 PM
Yes mate all the world's problems stem from the 1916 rising. Unbelievable! And he gets paid for his views.

pete
10/04/2006, 6:35 PM
Doesn't he comment for Today FM or Newstalk evening shows?

Not much to the article & surprising the Observer sunk so low.

Linking Republicanism in the start of the 20th century to present day is far too simplistic.

hamish
10/04/2006, 6:39 PM
The Guardian newspaper group is getting schitzo - Guardian is still left of center while the Observer is swinging more and more to the right - not surprised but disappointed TBH.:(

Speranza
10/04/2006, 8:17 PM
Todays edition of the Guardian highlighted this Hamish. The paper had a much less opinionated look at the commeroration which was fair and balanced in comparison to that nut.

hamish
10/04/2006, 8:22 PM
Todays edition of the Guardian highlighted this Hamish. The paper had a much less opinionated look at the commeroration which was fair and balenced in comparison to that nut.

Thanks Speranza - bro. in law will be dropping it into me soon and I'll check that out.
Every now and again, the "Grauniad"/Observer throws in the odd nut or two - y'know. the likes of Charles Krauthammer, Tony Blankley (former is on Brit Hume's Fox "News" a lot at 11pm and latter is on the McLoughlin programme on MSNBC).

beautifulrock
10/04/2006, 8:30 PM
Good to hear a more balanced view in the Guardian today as it would be most irritiating to think this was the way the group is headed. Well spotted.

Macy
11/04/2006, 8:37 AM
Wheatcroft was on Dunphy this morning. Didn't do himself any favours. Bumbled away when Dunphy asked him whether Northern Ireland was a democracy in the 60's and 70's... Also lame arguements about Home Rule, as if proposing and eventually passing them was in some way the same as implementing them.

He should stick to the Tory's as he's clearly of that mindset.

He's really gone down in my estimation, and I did used to enjoy his UK politics stuff. After that piece and this mornings debate, he's Myer's like spoofer...

klein4
11/04/2006, 1:24 PM
I have to say I think a military parade to commemorate the easter rising is a bad joke. we are supposed to just ignore the last 30 years of bombings/murders just cause fianna fail want to win back a few votes from sinn fein? if people want to celebrate their history they should read a ****ing book about it and educate themselves on it. eradicating ignorance on this subject might be a more fitting legacy than pandering to ignorance which is what this weekend will be about....

WeAreRovers
11/04/2006, 1:45 PM
we are supposed to just ignore the last 30 years of bombings/murders

It's the Irish Army parading on Easter Sunday, it has nothing to do with the British Army's murderous campaign in the North over the last 30 years. At least that's what I assume you're getting at. ;)

KOH

klein4
11/04/2006, 1:50 PM
just armies in general. they are all ****e.

hamish
11/04/2006, 2:00 PM
fianna fail want to win back a few votes from sinn fein? if people want to celebrate their history they should read a ****ing book about it and educate themselves on it. ....

Yep, I'd agree with that about £ianna £ail. Wonder will there be Cuban abd Belorussian representatives at the parade now that Bertie's a Socialist again.:)

REVIP
11/04/2006, 2:36 PM
Guardian is still left of center while the Observer is swinging more and more to the right - not surprised but disappointed TBH.:(

Used to be a Guardian reader (at the LSE you couldn't be seen with anything else!) but it became so PC that its editorial slant seemed to colour its reporting of the news.

The Observer always seemed much more centrist, even under Cruise O'Brien

I stick to the Torygraph now, know exactly where it stands so can read everything in light of that. Sunday Torygraph is even more right-wing and where I would have expected to find Wheatcroft's sort of logic.

Denis Skinner says to read the FT, cos the b*****ds don't tell each other lies

hamish
11/04/2006, 3:07 PM
Used to be a Guardian reader (at the LSE you couldn't be seen with anything else!) but it became so PC that its editorial slant seemed to colour its reporting of the news.

The Observer always seemed much more centrist, even under Cruise O'Brien

I stick to the Torygraph now, know exactly where it stands so can read everything in light of that. Sunday Torygraph is even more right-wing and where I would have expected to find Wheatcroft's sort of logic.

Denis Skinner says to read the FT, cos the b*****ds don't tell each other lies

Think I'll stick with The Grauniad for a little while longer, Revip, but it has become a bit boring lately. It's sports section can be good at times but some of the "humour" articles - usually on the back of that section are really silly and sleep inducing. I like the Gary Younge articles but the likes of Jackie Ashley and co. bore me to death. George Monbiot is not too bad. The International news section is pretty good but even Simon Hoggart is looking a bit jaded these days.
For the life of me, I cannot see the reason for the diary section and Norman Johnstone is a waste of space. Marina Hyde can be reasonable at times as can Timothy Garton Ash but there are far too many "filler" journalists. Simon Jenkins rises to the occasion at times.
Think it's reigned back its PC too.
Simon Bell's cartoons also are getting more bizzare by the day but he has his moments.

The papers new Berliner format is nice but the paper needs a a new editor and generally, a good kick up the ass, it doesn't seem to be focusing much on investigative stuff these days like The Independent does now and again. Hard to put my finger on it but I suppose "jaded" is the closest I can get.:confused:
The paper needs more from Gary Younge and a few more journos of the calibre of Robert Fisk.

WeAreRovers
11/04/2006, 6:48 PM
just armies in general. they are all ****e.

:D

Can't argue with that.

As for the Granuaid and the Observer, well The Observer has been slowly lurching to the right for a while and is pro-Iraq war for instance. That said, Henry Porter is the best columnist currently scribbling and Nick Cohen still rocks (despite his pro-war views). I just wish they hadn't got rid of Richard Ingrams. The Guardian's still good though, despite some stupid changes with the new format.

KOH

Marked Man
14/04/2006, 1:04 AM
The guy seems to have a problem distinguishing between morality and legality. The British were indeed the lawful government of Ireland at the time, but only because of an immoral invasion. The Easter Rising was an attempt to remove a lawful, but immoral occupation.

Pearse is an easy target though. I too always felt a bit uncomfortable with his talk of blood sacrifices and facile acceptance of killing the wrong people.

Roverstillidie
14/04/2006, 3:03 AM
Pearse is an easy target though. I too always felt a bit uncomfortable with his talk of blood sacrifices and facile acceptance of killing the wrong people.

interesting the same logic want applied to his own side, blaming mrs windsor for the shankill butchers. it was done in her name after all.

am i not right to say that pearse mentioned the immortal phrase 'blood sacrifice' once in an early poem and the revisionists blew it out of all proportion?

CollegeTillIDie
14/04/2006, 9:49 AM
The Guardian newspaper group is getting schitzo - Guardian is still left of center while the Observer is swinging more and more to the right - not surprised but disappointed TBH.:(

Hamish

Oh the Observer employed Conor Cruise Quisling O,Brien as editor or had you forgotten?:eek:

big p from owc
14/04/2006, 3:29 PM
Personally, I think it's beneath contempt. :rolleyes:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1750081,00.html


What will you think of this then ?
http://www.langerland.com/content/view/78/59/

;) :)

REVIP
14/04/2006, 3:52 PM
am i not right to say that pearse mentioned the immortal phrase 'blood sacrifice' once in an early poem and the revisionists blew it out of all proportion?

I read a collection of Pearse's Letters and Papers about twenty years ago, the 'blood sacrifice' theme was fairly strong, but the sacralisation of history was common to both sides. Late 19th Century Catholic spirituality was much influenced by devotion to the Sacred Heart, whilst on the Protestant side the Cross was at the centre of Evangelical spirituality.

On both sides, at a time when church going was fairly universal, the spirituality would have shaped thinking.

If Easter 1916 became the great 'blood sacrifice' for Republicans, then the Somme on 1st July 1916 was the sacrificial day for Loyalists. Frank McGuinness's 'Observe the Sons of Ulster . . .' has some profound insights into the Loyalist psyche.

Marked Man
14/04/2006, 5:12 PM
I don't know the context of those remarks--I only got them from a textbook on Irish history for the leaving. There was a phrase that went something like
"we may kill the wrong people" which always bothered me.

Of course I don't mean to suggest that that kind of sentiment is unique to those involved in the Easter Rising.

It is interesting to note that the journo doesn't seem at all bothered at the role of the civil war in cementing British Parliamentary rule (after all, wasn't the monarchy a lawful government?).

strangeirish
14/04/2006, 6:36 PM
What will you think of this then ?
http://www.langerland.com/content/view/78/59/

;) :)
Classic as usual.:D

REVIP
14/04/2006, 6:55 PM
I don't know the context of those remarks--I only got them from a textbook on Irish history for the leaving. There was a phrase that went something like "we may kill the wrong people" which always bothered me..


The BBC have some interesting stuff on their website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/easterrising/insurrection/in05.shtml

If what was important was the 'blood sacrifice', ‘the old heart of the earth needed to be warmed by the red wine of the battlefield’, then, if some of the wrong people were killed, then that was a necessary price. What are such casualties referred to as now, 'collateral damage', or something like that?

Anyway, if the point of the Rising for Pearse is that it is a redemptive event, ‘Bloodshed is a cleansing and sanctifying thing’, then the Observer column last Sunday completely missed the point of what it was all about anyway.

Pearse's reasoning seemed to be that this was not about mandates, or legitimacy, or concepts within a western democratic tradition, but that it was about a mystical event that would shape the history of the nation.

In that he was proved right, whatever people may think of him.

hamish
14/04/2006, 8:57 PM
Hamish

Oh the Observer employed Conor Cruise Quisling O,Brien as editor or had you forgotten?:eek:

All in the past CTID- all in the past:D

Thunderblaster
15/04/2006, 12:57 AM
The British invasion of Ireland was a Vatican sanctioned invasion as the Pope at the time wanted to bring Ireland to heel within the Catholic Church. The man that made martyrs of the 1916 Rising was General Maxwell, who got removed from his post in Dublin in the aftermath. It is also to be remembered that the Irish were not only oppressed, but were also oppresers. The Amritsar Massacre of 1919 was instigated by an Irishman, Sir Michael O'Dwyer, from Co. Tipperary.

SÓC
18/04/2006, 12:55 AM
What a fantastic piece...Hitler mourned the loss of 16 dead people and so did Republicans, sure they must be the same...

wtf, how can anyone with 1/10 of a brain come out with such vile bollóx? Punch is alive and well

dcfcsteve
18/04/2006, 2:37 AM
The British invasion of Ireland was a Vatican sanctioned invasion as the Pope at the time wanted to bring Ireland to heel within the Catholic Church.

Any more info on this Thunderblaster ? Are you talking about the initial Strongbow invasion in the 12th Century ?


It is also to be remembered that the Irish were not only oppressed, but were also oppresers. The Amritsar Massacre of 1919 was instigated by an Irishman, Sir Michael O'Dwyer, from Co. Tipperary.

So ? Irish people in the British army were taking their orders/military culture/outlook directly from the English. Was it the Irish who were responsible for Amritsar, or the English/British ? None of thsi changes or belittles the fact that the Irish were clearly opporessed as a nation as well. The Israeli's oppression of ther Palestinians doesn't erase or in any way impact the Holocaust...

CollegeTillIDie
18/04/2006, 7:21 AM
The British invasion of Ireland was a Vatican sanctioned invasion as the Pope at the time wanted to bring Ireland to heel within the Catholic Church. The man that made martyrs of the 1916 Rising was General Maxwell, who got removed from his post in Dublin in the aftermath. It is also to be remembered that the Irish were not only oppressed, but were also oppresers. The Amritsar Massacre of 1919 was instigated by an Irishman, Sir Michael O'Dwyer, from Co. Tipperary.

Point of information, WHICH ARMY was he in again?
Ireland never invaded India , get a grip will you!:mad:Ireland as a nation State has NEVER oppressed any other Nation State!
We actually inspired Ghandi to organise his peaceful opposition to British Rule in India.

jebus
18/04/2006, 2:18 PM
The Israeli's oppression of ther Palestinians doesn't erase or in any way impact the Holocaust...

I know this is going off topic, but I'd have to disagree with you there. Obviously nothing will ever impact the atrocities that occured during the Holocaust, but the current debacle between Israel and Palestine is certainly bringing a bit of anti-semitism back into the world. I know quite a few people now who are of the opinion that, whilst no race of people have ever deserved what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust, they have little or no sympathy left for them because of Palestine and the (supposed) Jewish thoughts towards the Islamic world. So in a way it is impacting not on the events of the Holocaust, but on the sympathy generated from it for Jewish people, which is a problem in itself I think.

Thunderblaster
18/04/2006, 10:32 PM
Any more info on this Thunderblaster ? Are you talking about the initial Strongbow invasion in the 12th Century ?

That would be the one indeed.



So ? Irish people in the British army were taking their orders/military culture/outlook directly from the English. Was it the Irish who were responsible for Amritsar, or the English/British ? None of thsi changes or belittles the fact that the Irish were clearly opporessed as a nation as well. The Israeli's oppression of ther Palestinians doesn't erase or in any way impact the Holocaust...

Sir Michael O'Dwyer, born in Co. Tipperary and educated in Tullamore was the Governer of the Punjab region of India at the time of the Amritsar massacre.

Thunderblaster
18/04/2006, 10:56 PM
Point of information, WHICH ARMY was he in again?
Ireland never invaded India , get a grip will you!:mad:Ireland as a nation State has NEVER oppressed any other Nation State!
We actually inspired Ghandi to organise his peaceful opposition to British Rule in India.

Sir Michael O'Dwyer was the Governor of Punjab in India in 1919 and he ordered the British battalion stationed to "teach the locals a lesson that they will never forget". The Irish as a nation did not invade India but did assist the Brits in ruling India. Actually, Jamaica at one point was ruled by an Irishman in the 19th Century and it was one of the Marquess of Sligo that ruled the island.
Cannot be 100% sure that the Irish never oppressed anybody. Look at all the Irish emigration to the US, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. None of the Irish are playing second fiddle to the natives of these places; the Irish were likely to take part in some form of discrimination to get land.
Gandhi was inspired by his racist treatment in South Africa where there were apartheid laws against Indians.

Roverstillidie
19/04/2006, 1:07 AM
Sir Michael O'Dwyer was the Governor of Punjab in India in 1919 and he ordered the British battalion stationed to "teach the locals a lesson that they will never forget". The Irish as a nation did not invade India but did assist the Brits in ruling India. Actually, Jamaica at one point was ruled by an Irishman in the 19th Century and it was one of the Marquess of Sligo that ruled the island.
Cannot be 100% sure that the Irish never oppressed anybody. Look at all the Irish emigration to the US, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. None of the Irish are playing second fiddle to the natives of these places; the Irish were likely to take part in some form of discrimination to get land.
Gandhi was inspired by his racist treatment in South Africa where there were apartheid laws against Indians.

individual irishmen in the british army commiting acts of oppression is somwhat different to the irish nation oppressing others. thats quite a leap

CollegeTillIDie
19/04/2006, 7:21 AM
individual irishmen in the british army commiting acts of oppression is somwhat different to the irish nation oppressing others. thats quite a leap

Well said. After all if you want to take the Second World War as an Example,
William Joyce an Irishman was the voice of Nazi Propaganda on The English Language service of German Radio. Brendan Bracken , another Irishman was Winston Churchill's private secretary.

Ireland did not as a Nation since 1922 invade anybody or wage war as a Nation state, against Anybody!

CollegeTillIDie
19/04/2006, 7:24 AM
Cannot be 100% sure that the Irish never oppressed anybody. Look at all the Irish emigration to the US, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. None of the Irish are playing second fiddle to the natives of these places; the Irish were likely to take part in some form of discrimination to get land.
Gandhi was inspired by his racist treatment in South Africa where there were apartheid laws against Indians.

Again I would argue was it a matter of State policy?
Irish Emigration to all the countries you mentioned bar the USA occurred when they were under British Rule and the same principles apply in the case of your army instances. All emigrants behaved in the same way. If there was someone they could dump on to get higher up the ladder they would do so.
It's not a uniquely Irish behavioural trait:mad:

CollegeTillIDie
19/04/2006, 7:25 AM
Thunderblaster

Using your logic ....
Austria started the First World War...
And Adolf Hitler, who started the Second World War, was an Austrian therefore Austria is the most evil state on earth!

Roverstillidie
19/04/2006, 11:38 PM
Thunderblaster

Using your logic ....
Austria started the First World War...
And Adolf Hitler, who started the Second World War, was an Austrian therefore Austria is the most evil state on earth!

thats racist.....

to be fair, we are taking this joker far too seriously.

Thunderblaster
20/04/2006, 12:23 AM
Hitler is a different animal that we won't discuss.

Thunderblaster
20/04/2006, 12:25 AM
individual irishmen in the british army commiting acts of oppression is somwhat different to the irish nation oppressing others

Sir Michael O'Dwyer was a civillian ruler.

CollegeTillIDie
20/04/2006, 7:16 AM
Sir Michael O'Dwyer was a civillian ruler.
He wasn't ruling on BEHALF of THIS country!

CollegeTillIDie
20/04/2006, 7:17 AM
thats racist.....

to be fair, we are taking this joker far too seriously.

I did say that I was using HIS logic in the situation... I have never forgiven the Austrians for the Von Trapp Family :D but I digress ....it's consistent with Thunderblasters ridiculous attempts at lambasting his own nation!

Roverstillidie
20/04/2006, 7:00 PM
I did say that I was using HIS logic in the situation... I have never forgiven the Austrians for the Von Trapp Family :D but I digress ....it's consistent with Thunderblasters ridiculous attempts at lambasting his own nation!

twas a wind up.

remember that yank who joined the taliban? next we will be hearing that all septics are islamic fundamentalists.

or those jazis's? jewish nazis. dont even get him started on them.


Sir Michael O'Dwyer was a civillian ruler.

so what? he was a civilan who ruled on behalf of the British empire, of which the irish were a coerced part. he didn't do it on behalf of the Irish nation or the state which didnt appear for many years.

the actions of individuals cannot be taken as a proxy for the behaviour of entire nations. bizarre logic.

John83
21/04/2006, 9:04 PM
Sir Michael O'Dwyer was the Governor of Punjab in India in 1919 and he ordered the British battalion stationed to "teach the locals a lesson that they will never forget". The Irish as a nation did not invade India but did assist the Brits in ruling India. Actually, Jamaica at one point was ruled by an Irishman in the 19th Century and it was one of the Marquess of Sligo that ruled the island.
Wellington is famously supposed to have retorted to a reminder of his Irish birth that being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse. I doubt the Marquess of Sligo was of Irish stock.


Cannot be 100% sure that the Irish never oppressed anybody. Look at all the Irish emigration to the US, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. None of the Irish are playing second fiddle to the natives of these places; the Irish were likely to take part in some form of discrimination to get land.
This is unfortunately true. The Irish were happy to emigrate to a country where their being white was more important than their being Irish, but they didn't translate their own experience into empathy for non-white slaves/immigrants/natives.

I think you can't read any more into our having never taken over anywhere than that we're a small country with awkward logistical problems to overcome if we wanted to invade, say, France.

Thunderblaster
22/04/2006, 11:37 AM
I doubt the Marquess of Sligo was of Irish stock.

The Marquess of Sligo is a direct descendant of Grace O'Malley, Pirate Queen of Connacht.

Thunderblaster
22/04/2006, 11:42 AM
He wasn't ruling on BEHALF of THIS country!

He was ruling on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Thunderblaster
22/04/2006, 12:12 PM
I was looking at a planned map of Ireland that Sir Roger Casement and Sir Edward Carson were planning out on The Star. The partition of Ireland was planned very differently with the Stormont government ruling as far south as Westport, Longford, Mullingar, Navan and Drogheda while Dublin would have had the rest of the country. That would have led to the partition of Mayo, Roscommon, Longford, Westmeath and Meath. I don't think that the Unionists would have got away with what they did for so long under such a system.

Thunderblaster
22/04/2006, 12:17 PM
I think you can't read any more into our having never taken over anywhere than that we're a small country with awkward logistical problems to overcome if we wanted to invade, say, France.

Much better chance of us being invaded than invading. We have to come to terms with the fact that we as a people, not a nation, assisted with the British in colonising other lands.

CollegeTillIDie
23/04/2006, 9:18 AM
He was ruling on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

When was Ireland a voluntary part of that?

The vast majority of the population of Great Britain, never mind Ireland, did not have the vote until about 1886 the time of the Third Reform Bill and even then it was restricted to householders. The so called Act Of Union was coerced through an Irish parliament, which consisted exclusively of Anglo-Irish Protestant Landowners, in 1800. You really need to learn your history!