NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish Pubs 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 Previous Page 2 of 7 pages

ancavker | Apr 28, 2011, 11:41 AM EDT

falls: There you go again. The so called Nationalist, who claims to understand the Unionists, but only critics the Nationalists. Let me put it simply for you. An all Ireland election was held, the unionists did not like the outcome, and demanded their own little state; simple as that. Should we partition countries when part or section of the country does not like an election out come? Should the north of England which typically over whelming votes Labor be able to set up their own little state when the Labor party is defeated? As far as you claiming to understand the unionists and their culture, I suggest you read some of the writings of Brian Keenan the Protestant from Belfast who was held as a hostage in Lebanon in the 80's. he discusses basically th fact that the Unionists/Protestants of Northern Ireland do not know who they are or what they are. British is just a label so they don't have to say Irish. Oh and my many English friends and family refer to themselves as English, and not British; British is just what is on their passport.

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | Apr 28, 2011, 05:22 AM EDT

Sean – thanks for the clarification. No war at all Could have been another option?

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | Apr 28, 2011, 05:16 AM EDT

Mairead – think you’re a little confused over this Head of State business…The REPUBLICS that are members of the Commonwealth have their own Heads of State, whereas some other countries have a monarchy…its still a democratic choice to have or not a constitutional monarchy…however much this obviously sticks in your craw…you really need to get over your distaste for how other countries order their affairs…ps enjoy the wedding!!

Report abuse

maireadinmelb | Apr 28, 2011, 02:57 AM EDT

Casual you forgot the rest "the fools the fools the fools, they have left us our fenian dead and while Ireland holds these graves Ireland unfree shall never be at peace!!"

Report abuse

maireadinmelb | Apr 28, 2011, 02:56 AM EDT

A true republic should not rely on another nation to provide its head of State! The fact that this person is born to the role rather than elected is in itself undemocratic!

Report abuse

seanomelbourne | Apr 27, 2011, 09:51 PM EDT

One's enemies will always object. If you cannot work out why a war to obtain what the electorate voted for is not preferable to a civil war pitting brother against brother I cannot help you.

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | Apr 27, 2011, 08:00 PM EDT

Seano – I thought it was interesting to see a contemporary take on O’Donovan Rossa and his deeds…many commentators of the time felt the London bombing campaign to be counter-productive, but of course those with ‘green tinted specs’ are blind to any view but their own. You still haven’t explained why you think a war in the North of Ireland was preferable to the civil war?

Report abuse

seanomelbourne | Apr 27, 2011, 07:37 PM EDT

Dan1 well you may hark back to the 1880's your loosing the debate (so far) Be careful now or may loose this one. BTW who gives a rats what Marx said about Rossa Marxism has been proven to be a failed philosophy.

Report abuse

FallsRNat | Apr 27, 2011, 07:32 PM EDT

ancavker - i don't remember the people of ulster voting in the 1918 election for a UI

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | Apr 27, 2011, 06:58 PM EDT

‘The London masses, who have shown great sympathy towards Ireland, will be made wild and driven into the arms of a reactionary government. One cannot expect the London proletarians to allow themselves to be blown up in honour of Fenian emissaries’ Karl Marx, decrying O’Donovan Rossa’s 1880’s London bombing campaign.

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | Apr 27, 2011, 06:29 PM EDT

BTW Mairead – Yes I do know AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND and CANADA are part of the Commonwealth, as is the independent REPUBLIC of India, and many others, in fact the majority of former Brit Empire states, also countries like The REPUBLIC of Mozambique, and the REPUBLIC of Rwanda, which were never formerly associated with the UK. And Ireland could rejoin as a republic. I don’t think it’s strictly true that all these countries need to agree any change in succession for the UK Parliament to change UK law…but in practise probably yes. The UK Monarch is not now automatically head of the Commonwealth, and the King/Queen of Australia is a title in its own right.

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | Apr 27, 2011, 06:14 PM EDT

Maireadinmelb – jumping to conclusions again, I see. Firstly, I did not claim that Pearse said those words, that was Mr Woo’s assumption. Secondly, I was quoting the respected Irish Times political correspondent Stephen Collins, in a recently published IT article, who used the phrase ‘devoutly Catholic Ireland’. Thirdly, I do not take kindly to being called a liar. Fourthly, calling for people one disagrees with to be banned is a typical Mr Woo reaction.

Report abuse

casualMBA | Apr 27, 2011, 06:10 PM EDT

"...This is a place of peace, sacred to the dead, where men should speak with all charity and with all restraint; but I hold it a CHRISTIAN THING (capitalization added,) as O'Donovan Rossa held it, to hate evil, to hate untruth, to hate oppression, and, hating them, to strive to overthrow them..." - Patrick Pearse, Oration for O'Donovan Rossa

Report abuse

maireadinmelb | Apr 27, 2011, 05:37 PM EDT

BTW Dan (April 26 3.02pm) AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND and CANADA - Not republics Ireland wanted to be and parts of are now an independent REPUBLIC. Australia New Zealand and Canada still part of the Commonwealth and for UK to change its succession laws all of these parliaments need to consent and amend their laws!

Report abuse

maireadinmelb | Apr 27, 2011, 05:33 PM EDT

Again Dan - cannot produce any evidence so resort to personal attack! Real mature!

Report abuse

Next Previous Page 2 of 7 pages