NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish in US Politics Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > News blogs > Periscope > The leaders of the Easter Rising of 1916 would hate to see what has happened to their country

Periscope by Niall O'Dowd

The leaders of the Easter Rising of 1916 would hate to see what has happened to their country

Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Larger Text

E-mail

94 Comments

RSS

Archives

There has been much speculation in Ireland as to how much the founding fathers of the modern Irish state, the leaders of 1916, would shudder to see the country they created now.

On the 95th anniversary of that gallant rising that “hurled the little streets upon the great” as Yeats wrote, it is a fair question to ask.

All changed utterly as Yeats often said, but the people he castigated, those “fumbling in the greasy till” are still with the Irish.

In a week when the ousted CEO of the utterly failed Allied Irish Bank was revealed to have pocketed a $4 million payoff, when Derek Quinlan, a former Celtic Tiger superstar now bankrupt, was revealed to have had a $140 million mansion, and Sean Quinn, Ireland’s richest man, turned out to be broke, it is fair to wonder what the founding fathers would think of Ireland today.

In a year when the Irish leaders now go cap in hand to Europe and the International Monetary Fund to ensure their future, it is an even more important question.

The 1916 rebellion took place against the backdrop of a primarily European war, World War I, which to this day is shrouded in mystery as to its real origins.

The British entered it, proclaiming the freedom of small nations after Germany overran many of its neighbors.

The Irish, justifiably, after being given the promise of Home Rule and then having it set aside, felt strongly that as a small nation they were entitled to freedom too.

That goal was achieved for the 26 counties in 1921 but the legacy of that war, the separated part of Ireland to the North would fester and suppurate for decades.

Only in recent years has it been settled, and we have what is as close to an agreed Ireland, in John Hume’s phrase, as can be attained.

One suspects most of the leaders of 1916, especially the pragmatists like Michael Collins, would accept that. Eamon de Valera, when later in power, certainly did very little to disturb the status quo between north and south which was considerably worse then than it is now.

The current financial morass would, however, be far beyond most of them, though De Valera was no stranger to financial shenanigans, having used American funds for the new Irish government to start his own newspaper chain, the Irish Press Group.

No doubt many of those leaders, surveying the legacy of greed and political corruption of the past decade, would echo Yeats’s words.

“Was it for this the wild geese spread, the grey wing upon every tide. For this that all that blood was shed. For this Edward Fitzgerald died. And Robert Emmet and Wolfe Tone. All that delirium of the brave?”

But there is hope. New Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Enda Kenny has promised a new broom and to date has delivered on it. The reformist government he leads seems intent on restoring honesty and integrity to the political process.

By the 100th anniversary on Easter 2016 we will know if he has been successful or not. It is a profound moment for the life of Ireland, to see if the brave words and deed of the 1916 men and women have been lived up to in the best way possible.

Time alone will tell.

E-mail

94 comments

Next Page 1 of 7 pages

seanomelbourne | Apr 29, 2011, 07:24 PM EDT

Pearse never asked for a catholic Ireland As the opening lines of the proclamation stated "we give to the people of Ireland the ownership of Ireland and unfettered control of Irish destiny".He did not say we give to the Catholics of Ireland etc.etc.

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | Apr 29, 2011, 04:10 PM EDT

GeorgeD –Read the posts again and you will see I denied another posters accusation that I had said PHP used these actual words...I was quoting a highly respected commentator, who gave this as his view..I agree with that view, and I believe that is what PHP and Co. wanted their Ireland to be. Just as in the same way I believe that you’re an embittered Irish-American Anglophobe...I don’t claim you said that you were...I just read the crap you post and draw that conclusion!!!

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | Apr 29, 2011, 03:44 PM EDT

ancavker – I have to admit that I’m not 100% convinced by my own argument, so it’s no surprise that you disagree...I just think there is an arguable case on behalf of the Unionists that their way of life, beliefs and loyalties could not have been accommodated in the New Ireland they saw unfolding before them...the avowed aim of many Nationalists was to ‘de-Brit’ the country, and to have a pastoral, Gaelic speaking, Catholic country...there was no place in that country for Unionists, so they had limited options before them...They chose the ‘West Virginia’ model as a solution...could an accommodation have been found? Did anyone on either side try very hard for one, or was this a handy little resolution to park the problem for the time being...btw using terms as ‘Statelet’ doesn’t help to show ‘Parity of Esteem’

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | Apr 29, 2011, 03:43 PM EDT

mairead – No I don’t miss the point you are making, I just don’t happen to agree. When you say ‘democratic country and/or a republic’, you seem to agree that one can have a democracy, with or without it being a republic. That is the case as stated for constitutional monarchies, including Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Spain and the Netherlands. One of the arguments is that prevents having a President from one party and a Prime Minister from another; someone who is genuinely neutral, above politics and a unifying figure...you may be too young to recall the part played by King Juan Carlos in securing democracy for Spain during the 1981 attempted coup...a party political President may not have had the personal trust of the senior military, who moved quickly to crush the coup, following the King making clear his support for democracy. You don’t think its appropriate...fair enough, that is your right...now you just need to respect the rights of others to think differently.

Report abuse

GeorgeDillon | Apr 29, 2011, 03:26 PM EDT

I really shouldn't waste my time on O'Loonsigh, but I smelt a lie when he denied that he had claimed that PH Pearse wanted a "devoutly catholic" Ireland. It showed that O'Loonsigh had really read nothing of the 1916 period, since the devout Catholics were to a man those who supported William martin Murphy and Redmond. There are countless pictures of Redmond accompanied by priests and bishops. There is no such picture of Pearse. Pearse was undoubtedly a mystical Catholic, as were others such as Plunkett, but to claim, as O'Loonsigh does, that he wanted to impose Catholicism on Ireland is utter nonsense and stupidity, the type we have come to expect from O'Loonsigh. Add to that the fact that he lied. I have gone to the trouble to look up the offending post, here's the relevant quote. "Modern Ireland is hardly the Irish-speaking, devoutly Catholic, anti-materialist nation dreamed of by Pearse". Unless this fool O'Loonsigh is privy to Pearse's dreams, I concur with the other poster in demanding that he withdraw that inane lie and apologize to all decent posters here.

Report abuse

ancavker | Apr 29, 2011, 12:05 PM EDT

Well Dan that is where we disagree. The nationalist struggle was legitimate, IMO and the Unionist reaction to it was not. They could have easily been accommodated in a UI, but they would not even give it a chance. Because of how they came to be in Ulster in the first place, that fact alone did not give them a special right to carve out their own statelet, and take a third of the Nationalists/Catholics with them. And if The Unionists always claim they cannot be forced into a UI, but they had no problem with forcing all of Ireland into a divided Ireland, because they did not like the results. If at some point in the future will they honor a potential UI, if 51% vote for it? Or will the goal posts change? The whites in South Africa who have been there from around the same time ass the Ulster planatation, did not get their own state.

Report abuse

ancavker | Apr 29, 2011, 11:51 AM EDT

Falls: We have had this discussion a number of times, and we go around and round. What is this this Unionist Protestant culture. You and I both know, that much of it revolves around being anti- Catholic. This British nationalism/culture does not exist even in Britain. Never been to the Falls Road, but have been to England and Scotland countless times, and have family in England. I am also intimately familiar with the border regions between north west Cavan,Fermanagh. Leitrim and Monaghan. The COI folks are nothing like the fundamental hardcore Orange men, and more than a few I know have no problem with being Irish. I bought up Brian Keenan because contrary to your outright dismissal of him, he is a well respected writer, not blinded by sectarianism, plus I believe his experience in Lebanon makes him uniquely qualified to speak on the subject.

Report abuse

maireadinmelb | Apr 29, 2011, 07:30 AM EDT

Dan you miss the point, a democracy by definition revolves around elections. Being born to a position does not equate to democracy! I see a democratic republic by definition requires all positions in government ie head of state to be elected!! to me a monarchy is not an appropriate head of state if you claim to be a democratic country and/or a republic!!

Report abuse

seanomelbourne | Apr 28, 2011, 07:40 PM EDT

Dan "no war" is a noble sentiment but not always realistic.It takes all sides in a conflict to prevent war and that rarely happens.

Report abuse

hancock | Apr 28, 2011, 05:15 PM EDT

The Prods do know The English would drop them in New York minute if they could, don't they?

Report abuse

FallsRNat | Apr 28, 2011, 03:44 PM EDT

ancavker - i know what the loyalist view is because i have attended many cross community projects with them, i certainly would get their/unionist viewpoint from Brian Keenan who has the distinction of being in the 0.01% of Ulster prods who hold the view that a UI is the best way forward, though i can see why his point of view is held in great esteem by yourself. Come up to belfast & i'll quite happily give you some names to take you on a tour of the shankill. I'm afraid that Keenan talks b*llshit, the prods do know what their culture is & more importantly what their national identity is. If u are advocating the american solution to the vietmanese problem that 'a gook is only an american trying to get out' then u are sadly mistaken & don't understand the prods at all, also history shows us that the US lost in vietnam, i wonder why, maybe u can enlighten me?

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | Apr 28, 2011, 01:04 PM EDT

anckaver – My argument is against the view that the Nationalist struggle was totally legitimate, BUT the Unionist reaction was totally wrong and illegal. I compared the US Civil War, where many hundreds of thousands were killed to maintain a union which the southern states had decided to try to leave...and where the State of West Virginia was created as a ‘non secessionist’ state, leaving Virginia to its attempt at secession...that is what NI did, they seceded from a secession, and were they not entitled to have their wishes implemented too? The then UK was legally constituted in 1801, by Acts of the two parliaments rather than the gun, the fact you cannot accept this does not change facts..

Report abuse

ancavker | Apr 28, 2011, 11:59 AM EDT

sirpeter: The whole argument that Ireland was part of a legally constituted state is to me nonsense. The Irish had the right to independence, regardless what the rest of the UK wanted. It is so sad to see Irish people apologizing for asserting that right, yet still not enough for the ultra revisionists.

Report abuse

ancavker | Apr 28, 2011, 11:53 AM EDT

Dan: We know nobody got to vote on 1916? But they did in 1918? What is your point? As a student of history, surely you know, that most rebellions ore revolutions are started by a small minority, and it goes from there. The American Revolution was only initially supported by a minority. And at then do the war, the large loyalist minority were in many cases driven from their homes, or fled to Canada. So it appears that to me at least that much as you argue otherwise, somehow Ireland's struggle for real Independence and self-determination form 1916- to 1921/22, is somehow tainted or illegitimate. It is OK for other countries or people to wage their struggle, but somehow the Irish struggle was not valid, because it was against England.

Report abuse

ancavker | Apr 28, 2011, 11:44 AM EDT

Dan: You seem obsessed with the UK monarch, and the Commonwealth. And yet this same UK monarch/royal family did not invite Blair or Brown to their bid shin dig tomorrow; how petty. If Ireland did rejoin the Commonwealth, what would that accomplish? Would the unionists of the north offer something in return?

Report abuse

Next Page 1 of 7 pages