jump to navigation

Understanding 1916: A day of talks to mark the 94th Anniversary of the Rising – Saturday 24th April April 22, 2010

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.
trackback

Comments»

1. Hugh Murphy - April 22, 2010

No doubt these agust people will have a lot to say about the betrayal of James Connolly’s principles – and the persecution, beating and forced discharging of Asbestos at Belfast Docks by suppossed well-paid believers of Connolly in ITGWU. In fact, in Belfast, just like Dublin during the boom, these union officials were corrupted by the employers and betrayed their own members.

Likewise, Jack O’Connor, [also very well paid] and his Stanalist co-horts, attempt to cover up the Belfast Dying Dockers, while paying Lip-Service to Connolly and the men of 1916. These non-believers ignore everything these great men fought and died for, but will tell you otherwise. The proof is what they now do – and what they failed to do in the past.

Just as failed Bankers should be got rid of and stripped of their wealth, so should failed trade union leaders, especially the one who sat on boards with employers and helped them wreck the country.

When James Connolly said: “if they take down the union jack and replace it with the Tricolour, they will still rule us…” he knew what he was talking about. It’s a pity O’Connor and all the other well paid union leaders don’t know it as well.

Like

Reply
2. sonofstan - April 24, 2010

Went along to this – at a bit of a loose end this weekend, given that I was supposed to be somewhere else entirely (ash- related)

so…. rather than do it chronologically, I’ll go in nearly reverse order: because the morning session was the one that, while perhaps not of any great scholarly interest, did outline some of the features of the coming debate on the commemoration of the centenary.

In the afternoon Hilary Pyle gave an interesting account of the life and work of Sadhbh Trinseach/ Cesca Chevenix Trench whose work provided much of the iconography of the nationalism of the time and influenced much more. Her story also provides a glimpse into that strange world of aristocratic anglo-irish ultra cultural nationalism, where -for example – those ‘born to lead’ were quite unable to resist the temptation to teach proper Irish to native speakers. Much dressing- up – in ‘Irish costumes’ for the ladies, and Kilts for the gentlemen – was involved also, a point Ann Matthews also made about De Markiewicz (as she insists on calling her) in her very interesting paper on Cumann Na mBan.

This was the closest thing to a proper academic paper all day, and took a decidedly independent and provocative stance. She says any attempt to paint the women of the rising as ‘proto-feminist’ is simply a-historical projection – turning them into what we want them to be, rather than what they were – which was, essentially, ‘Sinn Fein red cross’ exploiting the perception of neutrality, and the confusion between them and the ‘real’ Red Cross, (set up by the Lord Lieutenant’s wife) to carry ammo and messages between the various outposts. She also made some very sharp points about the civilian casualties, the contempt shown for unarmed non-combatants by the Countess among others, and, a very good point: the fact that the South Dublin Union was at that point home to 5,000 paupers, a fact apparently of little consequence to the leaders as they occupied it.

The morning session was different: three relatively short pieces by Michael Laffan, Catriona Crowe and Diarmuid Ferriter. Each of them is a seasoned performer, and gave trenchant and succinct accounts of their topics.

ML spoke about the reaction to the rising abroad, specifically in France, Germany and the US. His basic point, completely obvious, but, given the Irish propensity for naval gazing, necessary, was that ‘there was a war on’: and thus, everyone else saw it against the background of that and not on its own terms (if there ever were such terms). The French were appalled; apart from one leader writer in L’Humanite, the French press were unanimous that this was treason against their ally at a time like this. Apparently the decidedly anti-clerical government tried to get the French bishops to talk to their Irish counterparts to calm things down.

The Germans were, of course, implicated, but not really interested: two stories in major German newspapers about Ireland in the years 1916-19. They listened to Casement a bit, but committed as little as they could get away with.

The US story is a little more complex, but, even though they weren’t at war at the time, they were neutral on the allies side, and the WASP establishment was not even concealed about its dislike of the Irish and of Catholics in general. Again, all reportage took place against the backdrop of war.

CC talked about the archives, and particularly about the depositions made by veterans to the Bureau of Military History set up by Dev to record the testimonies of 17,000 plus combatants through the rising, the war of independence and the civil war. Even more interesting, statements made to the pension board are becoming available – some 240,000 claims were made, which makes all those jokes about the 3,000 people in the GPO pale a bit. She read a fair bit from an interesting account of one of the garrison in Jacobs – apparently the lads gorged on choccy bickies for the first few days, but, feeling a little sick after that, sent out for proper provisions. There was also the story of attempting to set up a barricade in Blackpitts, and being beaten back by the locals, mostly women, singing patriotic (British) songs – many had husbands or sons in the army and were angry that the closure of the GPO meant they couldn’t collect their money.

DF talked about the history of commemoration of ’16 is the subsequent history of the state, and it was here that the sinking feeling began to manifest itself, as I realised the kind of ‘debates’ we were going to start having over the next 6 years until 2016. In the ’20s, obviously, CnaG were a bit low key – when FF took over the celebrations, one of Ernie Blythe’s first actions was to run a big red pencil through the guest list for the GPO podium: and so it went on, each side trying to claim the founding fathers for themselves. Until, of course the 70s…….

There were some interesting anecdotes, but I’m sure Ferriter will recycle them somewhere: the point he finished with was what troubled me – he quoted an Irish Independent survey in 1992 that said 65% of ‘Irish’ people were proud of 1916 and, the same question, posed in 2006, showed that figure at 80%: and he suggested that ‘middle Ireland’ – his phrase – felt cheated out of celebrating the rising by political and academic elites. Two things, at least about that: first ‘Irish’ in this context clearly means, ‘in the republic’: i really think a historian should never indulge this elision. More troubling was this though; he didn’t ask why 35% in ’92 and 20% in ’06 were less than proud. I very much doubt if 20% of US citizens have ever felt ‘less than proud’ of the events of 1776, certainly not after the last Loyalists past away.

Perhaps some of that 20% are not revisionist elitists but those who want a functioning country now and not be asked to be proud of a weird and unsuccessful rebellion?

Through all of this, something Conor said to me during the week reverberated: something about how in other countries they do proper history; here we still argue about who shot Collins.(possibly not an accurate quote) . We’re going to spend the next six years arguing about the meaning of the rising, endlessly going over the same ground, but all the time ignoring the point Michael Laffan didn’t make, but ought to have: not only was the World War the most important thing going on in the world at the time, and therefore the inevitable backdrop to any consideration of the rising abroad: in term of Irish history, considered as what was happening to the lives of Irishmen and women, it was by far the most important thing going on too…….

But ‘thinking’ about the rising gives a perfect pretext for ignoring the failure of the state in so many ways, ignoring class, ignoring partition as Ferriter did, and what that meant for both states, and generally not wanting to talk about the real of history of 20th c Ireland: economic failure for much of it, emigration, huge inequalities …… we all know the list.

Like

Reply
WorldbyStorm - April 24, 2010

Can I put this up as a post under your name? It’s very good and comprehensive.

Like

Reply
sonofstan - April 24, 2010

Sure – but can you change the word ‘Loyalist’ at the end of the fourth last para to ‘Royalist’?

Like

Reply
CMK - April 25, 2010

Just want to state that that’s a wonderful summary. For me the period 1926-1923 is encapsulated by the two memorials in the town in which I currently dwell.

One commemorates two members of the IRA killed on active service between 1919-1921, for which a ceremony is held every year sponsored by SF and where literally thousands of tricolours are mounted on innocent light poles.

The other memorial remembers the 400+ men from the town and approximately 15 mile hinterland who died in a British uniform between 1914-1918. That’s a lot of people to die in a four year period from on relatively small Irish town and surronding area. The tragedy is that those poor bastards are remembered by the British Legion and, for politeness sake, some unionist politicians who venture South in November. Other than that their descendants don’t seem too interested, and many of them probably died cursing the King.

I think your point about the context in which the Rising took place is critical. It was a blip between 1914-1918 and, in human terms, doesn’t register given the 50,000+ dead, and several multiples of that injured, in World War One.

I think the process of forgetting that depth of suffering in such a short space of time while the new state was being founded and then consolidated, counts, in my uninformed opinion, for the large degree of psychological distress that’s woven into the fabric of this benighted society. Something that persists to this day.

Like

Reply
3. WorldbyStorm - April 24, 2010

Of course… no problem.. Thanks a million…

Like

Reply
4. Hugh Murphy - April 24, 2010

I take it from sonofstan’s posting that nothing was said about the principles of the leaders of the Easter Rising, specifically James Connolly, and more importantly, from my point of view, the betrayal of these principles by ITGWU/SIPTU.

I have yet to see anyone proportion any blame whatsoever to ICTU, or SIPTU for the mess which the country is in. How can David Beggs justify his ‘hear no evil see no evil’ behaviour on the board of Central Bank.

The unions policy of appeasement to employers, allowing criminal behaviour in the banks fas, and covering up tthe anti worker behaviour of ITGWU in Belfast because it exposes exactly the morals and principles of the present day union leadership, is, a betrayal of what James Connolly lived for, fought for and died for.

This betrayal has cause a crisis of conscience among the champagne socialists and King Makers of the media, chief among them Fintan O’Toole. Rather than expose the hypocrisy of Jack O’Connor and the other well paid bureaucrats, O’Toole sanctimoniously ignores it. Up until I confronted him at the so-called Transparency International launch of their whistleblowers booklet, which he chaired, he could claim ignorance. His pathetic defence was “The Irish Times could be sued”. Many whistle blowers laughed at this. However, O’Toole used his influence to get my unparliamentary questioning of him deleted from their website and youtube.

Two days later at a conference on the changes to the defamation laws,
at the Q&A session, I stunned the large audience of solicitors, barristers, journalists and High Court Judge Peter Kelly who chaired the session, by stating, “I TRIED TO GET MYSELF SUED FOR DEFAMATION BY TELLING THE TRUTH”. I related, how, three times at large meeting I accused Jack O’Connor of being corrupt and of covering up corruption. And, how, after the first occasion, O’Connor promised to “sue the arse of me” but when his Belfast solicitor, one John O’Neill of Thompson McClures informed him that his union, in concert with the employers, DID sack its own members, and that in my own case, if the case happened today it would be an Unlawful Dismissal.

While I was giving two website addresses to prove what I said, High Court Judge Peter Kelly interrupted me, and asked “did I have a question”? I continued with the addresses then related to Geraldine Kennedy, editor of Irish Times what Fintan O’Toole had said two days earlier, and asked her the same question. “Why will Irish Times not cover the story of the Belfast Dying Dockers, dying because they were forced to discharge Asbestos without protection”? Geradines answer was, “I haven’t spoken to Fintan so I can’t comment”.

Again, just as happened two day earlier, not a word was reported on my comments at the Defamation Conference.

Had the agust people at the talk on understanding 1916, spoken about some of the events and betrays of the union leadership over what happened in Belfast, they might have gleaned some understanding of why the uprising occurred in the first place – and thus an understanding of why the ideals of the men who fought were undermined denigrated by the middle class.

Like

Reply
5. Paul - April 27, 2010

While the above mr murphy tells a remarkable story about his attempts to expose the coverup by siptu of itgwu behaviou at belfast docks it seems noone on this site is interested abiyt the tretment of workers by there union. and it seems a very strange co-incidence tthat another column of the same name is started. Is everyone on this site against the workin class because noone seems to care

Like

Reply
WorldbyStorm - April 27, 2010

Well Paul, Hugh has had every courtesy extended to him to discuss the issues he seeks to raise across the last two years on this site to the point where he had his own thread given to him. He was encouraged by us to start his own website. He put documents up. I don’t think there’s any more that we can do.

What we cannot do and will not do is permit any more threads to be derailed. We owe that not just to those of us who write and comment on here, but to other people who use this site for various reasons.

As for being against the working class. You have your view on that. I have mine.

Like

Reply

Leave a comment