Interesting post. However, I disagree with the glorification of Pearse and co. On a side note; there's one extra thing - and I mean no disrespect, but, there is a small grammatical correction to be made: It's ''others have GONE further'' as opposed to ''others have WENT further.'' If you dropped the ''have'' you could have used the word ''went'' as in ''others went further''.
Almost all of Irish history within Ireland, at least, is framed through the lens of Irish Nationalism. What has been conveniently forgotten, is the fact that there was another side Now, I'm not speaking of the English, or the virulent anti-Catholic Unionists, but of the Irish people who desired Home Rule, but not total Independence; and prior to the executions of the 1916 leaders, that group accounted for the majority. Irish Independence was not a salient issue for the population at large. When the rebellion broke out, the people looked on the participants as traitors. Had the signatories not been executed, things would have been very different, as it was this action that swung support in favour of their cause.
My own family; on both sides, were peaceable. They were, like the majority of their neighbours,, quite happy with the status quo. They were law abiding people who went about their daily lives unencumbered by politics. I still have the primary sources, in the shape of correspondences between my great-great grandmother and her son, my great grand uncle. In those letters, she warned him to ''keep his business to himself'' whilst in Dublin and to ''avoid those madmen with their dangerous beliefs''. She was warning him against getting involved in the workers movement, and, by extension, the Nationalist cause.
That little anecdote is just to illustrate the mindset of the non-involved, devout Catholic mother of the times. People back then, who didn't think much on politics, didn't see the world as we do. Ordinary people like my great-great grandmother just wanted to go about their business and didn't view British rule in Ireland as particularly unjust. In fact; they didn't dwell on it at all. What did upset them - was what she termed - the ''insurrection'' in Dublin. And, the fear, poverty and uncertainty that followed independence. Those first years after independence were nightmarish for her and her family. I have her thoughts and memories, scribed by her hand in the pages of her yellowed diary. She wasn't celebrating independence; she was cursing it, because - in her words - ''we no longer have any protection, God help us.'' She lived in constant fear during those early years because of the IRA and their targeting of the Free State and pro-British sympathisers, and anyone they deemed thus, based on the flimsiest of ''evidence.'' She feared for her sons; she feared for her daughter - my great-grandmother, and her husband, my great-grandad, who was an Englishman; that alone was enough to put a target on their backs.
But, personal anecdotes aside; the actions of those ''glorious'' leaders of 1916 and their followers, opened the door to every ill that followed, starting with the loss of stability, infrastructure and finances, followed by authoritarian, corrupt governments in collusion with the Catholic Church. Women and girls, who had not committed any crime punishable by law, were taken by force and locked away in Magdalene Laundries, forced to work like slaves; their newborn babies taken from them. Young boys, who missed a few days of school, or played up in class were torn from their families and sent to places like the reform school in Letterfrack, Co. Galway. Books deemed ''subversive'' by the Committee on Evil Literature were prohibited, and those who were found to be in possession of banned material, faced not only fines, but a stint in prison. We were way behind the rest of Western Europe in terms of equality, modern innovation and technology, and it took us until the mid 1990s to come anywhere close to catching up. Women were treated like property, and rape within marriage was not outlawed until the Section 5 Amendment of the Criminal Law Act in 1990. Homosexuality was not decriminalised until 1993, divorce was prohibited until the Referendum of 1995. Abortion, shockingly, has only been legailised since 2018 - over fifty years after it became law in the UK.
So, did gaining independence enrich us as a population? Did we fare better under the de facto rule of John Charles McQuaid - who helped to draft, then approve the Constitution - than we did under the ceremonial rule of King George V? Would we not have been better and stronger with our Home Rule Parliament and having an equal voice within the United Kingdom, than being at the mercy of power hungry men, who were slaves to the Church? In my opinion, we exchanged one master for a crueler one, by 20th century standards, at least. And, as of now; we're beholden to the EU -
independence, how are you? The romanticisation of those signatories of the 1916 Proclamation is, in my opinion, a result of a highly successful, propagandised telling of history. It was never as simplistic as it's made out to be; with conflict, it's rarely a case of purely good versus despicable evil - human beings are far more nuanced than that. But, anyone who subscribes to the belief that there are only two groups; the oppressors and the oppressed, fail; to take that nuance into account. To my mind; the events of 1916 and all that followed was a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. But, rarely, in modern Ireland do we get to see Irish Nationalism through anything other than misty eyed, oft misguided, patriotism.
Having said that extremely long piece; I'm more of the opinion that he was likely a voluntary celibate, as opposed to an incel. All in all, he strikes me as having been a really odd person.
Interesting post. However, I disagree with the glorification of Pearse and co. On a side note; there's one extra thing - and I mean no disrespect, but, there is a small grammatical correction to be made: It's ''others have GONE further'' as opposed to ''others have WENT further.'' If you dropped the ''have'' you could have used the word ''went'' as in ''others went further''.
Hi, thanks for the grammar corrections! What's your thoughts on the glorification of Pearse and co? As in, how come you disagree?
No problem. Glad that you didn't take offence. :)
Almost all of Irish history within Ireland, at least, is framed through the lens of Irish Nationalism. What has been conveniently forgotten, is the fact that there was another side Now, I'm not speaking of the English, or the virulent anti-Catholic Unionists, but of the Irish people who desired Home Rule, but not total Independence; and prior to the executions of the 1916 leaders, that group accounted for the majority. Irish Independence was not a salient issue for the population at large. When the rebellion broke out, the people looked on the participants as traitors. Had the signatories not been executed, things would have been very different, as it was this action that swung support in favour of their cause.
My own family; on both sides, were peaceable. They were, like the majority of their neighbours,, quite happy with the status quo. They were law abiding people who went about their daily lives unencumbered by politics. I still have the primary sources, in the shape of correspondences between my great-great grandmother and her son, my great grand uncle. In those letters, she warned him to ''keep his business to himself'' whilst in Dublin and to ''avoid those madmen with their dangerous beliefs''. She was warning him against getting involved in the workers movement, and, by extension, the Nationalist cause.
That little anecdote is just to illustrate the mindset of the non-involved, devout Catholic mother of the times. People back then, who didn't think much on politics, didn't see the world as we do. Ordinary people like my great-great grandmother just wanted to go about their business and didn't view British rule in Ireland as particularly unjust. In fact; they didn't dwell on it at all. What did upset them - was what she termed - the ''insurrection'' in Dublin. And, the fear, poverty and uncertainty that followed independence. Those first years after independence were nightmarish for her and her family. I have her thoughts and memories, scribed by her hand in the pages of her yellowed diary. She wasn't celebrating independence; she was cursing it, because - in her words - ''we no longer have any protection, God help us.'' She lived in constant fear during those early years because of the IRA and their targeting of the Free State and pro-British sympathisers, and anyone they deemed thus, based on the flimsiest of ''evidence.'' She feared for her sons; she feared for her daughter - my great-grandmother, and her husband, my great-grandad, who was an Englishman; that alone was enough to put a target on their backs.
But, personal anecdotes aside; the actions of those ''glorious'' leaders of 1916 and their followers, opened the door to every ill that followed, starting with the loss of stability, infrastructure and finances, followed by authoritarian, corrupt governments in collusion with the Catholic Church. Women and girls, who had not committed any crime punishable by law, were taken by force and locked away in Magdalene Laundries, forced to work like slaves; their newborn babies taken from them. Young boys, who missed a few days of school, or played up in class were torn from their families and sent to places like the reform school in Letterfrack, Co. Galway. Books deemed ''subversive'' by the Committee on Evil Literature were prohibited, and those who were found to be in possession of banned material, faced not only fines, but a stint in prison. We were way behind the rest of Western Europe in terms of equality, modern innovation and technology, and it took us until the mid 1990s to come anywhere close to catching up. Women were treated like property, and rape within marriage was not outlawed until the Section 5 Amendment of the Criminal Law Act in 1990. Homosexuality was not decriminalised until 1993, divorce was prohibited until the Referendum of 1995. Abortion, shockingly, has only been legailised since 2018 - over fifty years after it became law in the UK.
So, did gaining independence enrich us as a population? Did we fare better under the de facto rule of John Charles McQuaid - who helped to draft, then approve the Constitution - than we did under the ceremonial rule of King George V? Would we not have been better and stronger with our Home Rule Parliament and having an equal voice within the United Kingdom, than being at the mercy of power hungry men, who were slaves to the Church? In my opinion, we exchanged one master for a crueler one, by 20th century standards, at least. And, as of now; we're beholden to the EU -
independence, how are you? The romanticisation of those signatories of the 1916 Proclamation is, in my opinion, a result of a highly successful, propagandised telling of history. It was never as simplistic as it's made out to be; with conflict, it's rarely a case of purely good versus despicable evil - human beings are far more nuanced than that. But, anyone who subscribes to the belief that there are only two groups; the oppressors and the oppressed, fail; to take that nuance into account. To my mind; the events of 1916 and all that followed was a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. But, rarely, in modern Ireland do we get to see Irish Nationalism through anything other than misty eyed, oft misguided, patriotism.
Having said that extremely long piece; I'm more of the opinion that he was likely a voluntary celibate, as opposed to an incel. All in all, he strikes me as having been a really odd person.