94 Comments

• 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.

• 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!!!

• 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’

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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!!

• 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.

• 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?

• 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?

• 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..

• 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.

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.

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

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

• 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!!

• 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!!"

• 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!

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.

• 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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

• 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!

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

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

• DanOLoingsigh | Apr 27, 2011, 05:19 PM EDT

  Dear Mr Woo-nded-nee, do you mind if I call you Mr Woo? How do you know Patrick Henry Pearse never said those words? Were you with him for some or all of his life? Did you witness every word he spoke? I replied to your post and asked you if the O’Donovan Rossa oration did not spring from a deep Catholic well, but you did not reply to that. Calling for others to be prevented from exercising the right to free speech is the first sign of totalitarianism, Mr Woo. I think you may be bi-polar, otherwise known to you as ‘The Chinese laundry blues’

• WoundedKnee | Apr 27, 2011, 03:53 PM EDT

  DanOLOingsigh is a liar. He made up a totally false and spurious quote, to the effect that Patrick Pearse expressed a desire to have a "devoutly Catholic" Ireland. I knew this to be lying garbage, since Pearse never said such a thing. It is an invention of a liar, so I called out OLOingsigh to offer evidence for his falsehood. Being a liar, he slunk away, as he always does. OLoingsigh, You should be kicked off this site for being a liar.

• DanOLoingsigh | Apr 27, 2011, 12:47 PM EDT

  sirpete – I have agreed that the Act of Union was not passed by ‘the people’, democracy being a rarity at that time. Progressively through the 19th and early 20th century the franchise was enlarged, so that by 1918 all males and many females had the vote. That does not alter the fact that over the then UK, as a whole, there was no mandate for Irish independence in 1918. That does not mean that Ireland could not make the break, as happened, but it can be argued that the Unionists could claim some legitimacy for their position, which was to stay in the Union by seceding from the secession. The unionists had made their opposition quite clear, and some ‘temporary’ partition was inevitable. Nobody got to vote on 1916 either, but that was OK?

• MAYOLAD | Apr 27, 2011, 12:21 PM EDT

  I THINK THE BOYS OF THE OLD BRIGADE would clean this mess up, i wonder if any of thes crooks will go Mountjoy?

• sirpeter | Apr 27, 2011, 11:53 AM EDT

  Dano.""The 1918 election was NOT merely an All Ireland matter; it was an ALL UK Election so if it was a referendum on Irish independence it was outvoted."" Dano Dano Dano..I can also say the Act of Union of 1800 was a bullsh*t act.Only Anglicans were permitted to become members of the Parliament of Ireland,the great majority of the Irish population were Roman Catholic. Where do you want to go with your argument now?

• sirpeter | Apr 27, 2011, 03:42 AM EDT

  Seanomelbourne – An interesting comparison, I agree. But secession from a legally constituted state can never be a simple matter. The converse argument would be that Ireland was equivalent to Western Australia, and the UK was the equivalent to the Australian Commonwealth as a whole. Possibly if WA citizens had begun a campaign of shootings, and provoked the Federal Australian State into ill-thought out reprisals, we would have a very different Australia today? I’m still not sure why you would prefer a war in the north of Ireland, but that’s the problem with history, it doesn’t always turn out the way it was planned.

• seanomelbourne | Apr 26, 2011, 07:35 PM EDT

  Dan federation happened in Australia when all states voted to form an independent nation and that was accepted by their British masters as the will of the majority(1901).In 1934 a plebiscite in the state of Western Australia voted to secede from the Federation and was rejected by Fed government. W.A. took their claim to the privy council in Britain only to have it rejected as the other states must agree also. Comparing the British upholding the will of the majority in Australia and their willingness to ignore the will of the majority in Ireland(1918)I find it reprehensible.And I repeat what I said earlier on this blog a war with the north would have been preferable to the civil war that ensued.

• Towngate | Apr 26, 2011, 07:17 PM EDT

  The Comments on here have been posted longer than the Easter'rising'. Time to admit defeat and Surrender!

• DanOLoingsigh | Apr 26, 2011, 03:02 PM EDT

  Ancavker – I’m not hostile to independence, but to the notion that 1916 was the exclusive instrument of that independence. Canada, Australia, New Zealand are all independent now, with no legacy of bitter civil war politics to poison future generations. The deliberate choice to take that path had consequences we are still living with.

• DanOLoingsigh | Apr 26, 2011, 03:02 PM EDT

  Ancavker – My reference to how the USA dealt with a breakaway movement was that compared to the US Civil War, involving over 600,000 deaths, the ‘war of independence’ was a Sunday morning skirmish, rather than the calamity it’s often portrayed as.

• DanOLoingsigh | Apr 26, 2011, 03:01 PM EDT

  Ancavker – re 1918 election. Another poster claimed that it was the first all island election, my point was that it was not; in fact it was the last…for the foreseeable future.

• DanOLoingsigh | Apr 26, 2011, 03:01 PM EDT

  Ancavker – There was an Act of Union – I agree not sanctioned by democratic vote, democracy being somewhat rare in 1801. My argument is not that Ireland had no right to leave the union, but that this move was bound to push the pro-union North East corner into seceding from the new state. In most ways Belfast had more in common with Glasgow than with other parts of Ireland. The unionists made no secret of their intent.

• ancavker | Apr 26, 2011, 01:21 PM EDT

  Dan So Redmond was a democrat, and Arthur Griffith and De Valera, and Collins were what fascists? And what did Redmond get for all of his effort, nothing, no home rule, nothing. And please keep in find Dan, that the home rule he was striving for, was an incredibly limited version, with little real decision making power at all. What Collins and Griffith got after fighting, (yes Dan, many people have had to fight to get their rights, and to claim their independence) was real independence with real decision making powers, including complete control of their financial affairs. Collins fought Churchill tooth and nail for that and got it. Real independence, with a real chance for the Irish people to control their own destiny. That was the difference between Sinn Fein and Redmond's home rule talking shop. And it was worth fighting for, rather then heed Redmond's call to die for England in yet another one of her wars. Perhaps if the Irish had to fight another country rather than England you might not be so hostile to the Irish struggle for independence and self determination 90 years ago.

• ancavker | Apr 26, 2011, 01:05 PM EDT

  Sean Democracy for Dan only counts if it portrays the British in a sympathetic light. If applied to the Irish side it is explained away, or deemed insignificant,or just too complicated. He is of the uber revision school of O' Toole and Spain among others.

• ancavker | Apr 26, 2011, 12:58 PM EDT

  patriot: What a load of nonsense and silliness you post. I do not know where to start. I will leave it with the civil war. The Irish themselves sadly were responsible for the civil war. Although I am sure more than a few in the British establishment relished Irish men fighting Irish men. As for Collins he may have been duped, but sadly he was not around during the boundary commission proceedings as another Irish man killed him.

• ancavker | Apr 26, 2011, 10:37 AM EDT

  Dan the 1918 general election was the first all Ireland election in which the Irish people voted for independence. How are you going to argue that away?

• ancavker | Apr 26, 2011, 10:35 AM EDT

  Niall: Collins was a pragmatist, but he never would have accepted the long term partition of Ireland. he and Griffith were convinced (or fooled) by Lloyd George that the boundary commission would ensure that partition was temporary, and would not work.

• ancavker | Apr 26, 2011, 10:32 AM EDT

  Dan: Can you tell me when the Irish freely elected to join the U.K.? You present yourself as a pragmatist,, and yet your pro the British can do no wrong sympathies always appear. So now we are to believe that Ireland was a constituent part of the u.K. and hence had no right to independence? Look like you have been hanging round with Fintan and John too long.

• maireadinmelb | Apr 26, 2011, 06:41 AM EDT

  Rights belong to all people does not matter where you are from United Nations Human Rights Charter sets it out!!

• maireadinmelb | Apr 26, 2011, 06:39 AM EDT

  And the difference between Mountbatten and Connolly is that the British claim to be democratic and fair and they follow laws and procedure - but only when it suits them!!

• maireadinmelb | Apr 26, 2011, 06:38 AM EDT

  In 1966 Northern Ireland did not have one person one vote!!!!! The poor were disenfranchised and the Catholics were kept poor becuase the protestants owned the industry adn therefore controlled employment! Those in Northern Ireland did not have the same rights as UK citizens in England or Scotland hence the commencement of the civil RIGHTS movement.

• maireadinmelb | Apr 26, 2011, 06:34 AM EDT

  Dan I again point out that in 1918 the majority voted for Sinn Fein and no veto to any one!!

• sully1167 | Apr 26, 2011, 02:09 AM EDT

  marieadinmelb,refugees and immigrants are equal as far as having civil rights. They are not culturally Irish. Religion,sex,sexual orientation,class pertains to "Irish People".

• moygannon | Apr 25, 2011, 11:55 PM EDT

  The leaders of the 1916 rising were patriots fighting for a solution that could not be settled politically. It then bacame religious and political and has remained until this day - mess of religion, politics and organized crime. England cannot get rid of Northern Ireland and southern Ireland can't afford it.

• DanOLoingsigh | Apr 25, 2011, 08:25 PM EDT

  McSpartacus – keep your hotdogs, bud. The difference between the colonies in 1780 and Ireland in 1918 was that the former were colonies, whilst Ireland was a constituent part of the UK. The U.S. confederate states tried to break away in 1861, and were prevented by the remaining Union states – are you arguing that Lincoln should have sat down and negotiated with Jeff Davis? Or are only some separatists worthy? American unionists had Canada, Irish unionist got Northern Ireland…nobody got totally what they wanted, both were compromises…its simply untrue that Catholics were disenfranchised, many chose abstenionism, but they won 10 seats in the 1929 NI elections.

• DanOLoingsigh | Apr 25, 2011, 08:23 PM EDT

  Maireadinmelb- the reason why they have a so-called veto is because that’s what the Irish people north and south voted for

• DanOLoingsigh | Apr 25, 2011, 08:19 PM EDT

  Patriot – Not sure why you think the 1918 election was the first all island election? The franchise used was common throughout the then UK, including male householders over 21, and women over 30. Your argument that it was OK to murder Mountbatten, while professing shock at the treatment of Connolly is standard Republican double speak. Would your promotion of more murders not make you a legitimate target for some equally twisted nutters of the other persuasion?

• maireadinmelb | Apr 25, 2011, 08:06 PM EDT

  You need to all stop twisting this into a religious conflict. Some of the greatest REPUBLICAN heroes were protestant! True republicans recognise the equality of all people regardless of religion, culture, sex or sexual preference adn that includes refugees and immigrants!! Why should the unionist MINORITY (include the whole of ULSTER) have veto over the rest of the country in 1918 and again today????

• seanomelbourne | Apr 25, 2011, 06:54 PM EDT

  Dan you are endeavoring to twist historical facts to pigeon-hole them into your narrow view. You fail to convince because your counter arguments are weak and lack credibility.

• FallsRNat | Apr 25, 2011, 04:49 PM EDT

  patriot - keep taking the tablets, nobody caused the civil war in the 26 counties, but the irish themselves. It's time we stopped playing the blame game & owned up to our own repsonsibilities. Today we have had a legitimate referendum on both sides of the border based on a peace agreement introduced by a US senator underwrote by a US president. The vote was passed by a large majority in both countries - however, a tiny minority of Irishmen cannot accept this & have vowed to continue the war, where is there support - Ireland - no, Ulster - no, EU - no, US - no. I'm afraid that what their fighting for is a UI ireland that has never existed apart from their own fantasies, after all is we go back to the only time in living memory when the country was united, it was under the brits.

• patriot | Apr 25, 2011, 02:50 PM EDT

  The first all island election was purposefully designed by the departing brits to exclude women and the young, the Irish constituency who were the most radically anti-brit. This assured that the protestants (who had all the money) would lead the new government. DeVelera was a catholic figurehead for all the nation's british Capital. The women especially knew the truth of the situation and wanted to kill every brit in Ireland. Mores the pity they couldn't vote or there would have been no partition. Collins was duped by Churchill and the brits got the civil war they wanted. Connolly, who was the actual and true leader of the rising, wanted a full-on socialist Celtic tribal country with full rights for all minorities and the people owning all the means of production. he was hard core and very brave and that was why the brits murdered in cold blood by firing squad while he was still badly wounded in the ankle and had to be strapped to a chair. The shame of the british race in Ireland can NEVER be overcome and that is why their bloody queen is a legitimate military target. Mountbatten found that out.

• McSpartacus | Apr 25, 2011, 02:17 PM EDT

  @DanOLoingsigh And another thing, Danny Boy - "Neither group could be described as paragons of democracy" - oh no, no, no: you're not getting away with _that_, fella. The _Republic_ of Ireland never disenfranchised an entire ethnic, religious, or racial underclass the way that the overclass ruling Northern Ireland, and that of the US American South, and that of South Africa did. You _don't_ get to hide under the cover of calling it a "tradition" to pretend that there was an equivalence of governing institutions. The Ku Klux Klan had a tradition too.

• McSpartacus | Apr 25, 2011, 02:07 PM EDT

  @DanOLoingsigh The United States of America didn't win an all UK election either (in fact, they probably had far less support in the then colonies than Ireland did). So what? The very point of contention in both cases is whose country it was to rule - you could not seriously expect either to allow Britain a veto! All Americans must be dinosaurs too because they celebrate the 4th of July. Good luck with that tradition. No hotdogs for you.

• curranart | Apr 25, 2011, 10:47 AM EDT

  Be under no illusions, Ireland still belongs to England, open your eyes.

• Lynch68 | Apr 25, 2011, 10:38 AM EDT

  Wouldn't most "founding fathers" disapprove of their countries current status?

• DanOLoingsigh | Apr 25, 2011, 08:22 AM EDT

  Thanks Billy, you're dead right...signing off now.

• billyjustin | Apr 25, 2011, 05:14 AM EDT

  very aggressive views so early in the day ( 10.14am) i think u guys should take your families out for a good bit of fresh air..... happy easter.limerick

• DanOLoingsigh | Apr 25, 2011, 05:01 AM EDT

  WoundedKnee - Are you saying that the O’Donovan Rossa oration did not spring from a deep Catholic well?

• WoundedKnee | Apr 25, 2011, 04:00 AM EDT

  DanOLoingsigh: Where in his writings does Pearse speak of wanting a "devoutly Catholic" Ireland? I've read a lot of Pearse, unlike you, and I have never seen any reference of the type you allege. Why don't you withdraw it and admit you made it up?

• DanOLoingsigh | Apr 25, 2011, 03:24 AM EDT

  Sirpete – Facts are not always so simple…The 1918 election was NOT merely an All Ireland matter; it was an ALL UK Election, so if it was a referendum on Irish independence it was outvoted. When the US Confederate States decided to leave their union, the Union States conducted a long, ferocious campaign to prevent this. Yes, the NI unionists were prepared to fight to maintain their way of life, no different to the men of 1916. Neither group could be described as paragons of democracy, so it is reassuring for true democrats to have the outright endorsement achieved following the GF Agreement. Anti-democratic extremist dinosaurs may choose to live in 1916, the rest are moving on, COMPROMISE is NOT a dirty word!!

• sully1167 | Apr 25, 2011, 03:18 AM EDT

  Well said GeorgeDillon & sirpeter,The founding fathers are turning over in thier graves. They never intended for Ireland to become a multicultural soceity like the United States,Canada,Australia,NZ,or South America. corrupt politicians and bussiness people who brought on the economic crisis should be punished accordingly;however the real threat to Ireland is the EU and Ireland's own politically correct politicians who don't care what happens to Ireland as long as they stay in power. Ireland was sold out to the EU. Now Ireland is ruled by the EU instead of the British. Irelands patriots of 1916 would have declared war on these spineless parasites.

• DanOLoingsigh | Apr 25, 2011, 03:17 AM EDT

  Sirpete – Reassuring to see that my selective ‘manipulating bullsh*t’ has flushed out your TRUE opinion on fellow Irishmen of a different tradition. Whatever happened to ‘Parity of Esteem’?

• Realist | Apr 25, 2011, 02:26 AM EDT

  sirpeter: It is clear that you hate Unionists (and probably all Protestants too). It is also clear that you advocate violence against all those who do not share your 'views'. My friend you are badly out-of-step with the decent people of Ireland, North and South of the border. I think I speak for the majority of contributors to this site in stating that your comments are offensive, infantile, and low class. Martin McGuinness, Easter Sunday 24th April 2011: "The Irish people are united in support of the Good Friday, St Andrews and Hillsborough agreements, attempting to overturn the will of the Irish people is not only futile it is stupid and selfish. "....a united Ireland can only be achieved peacefully and democratically and with unionist support...."

• sirpeter | Apr 25, 2011, 12:55 AM EDT

  The men of 1916 would be disgusted ..BUT not with a temporary economic situation.They didn't concern themselves with people fumbling in the greasy till. They had one goal and that was to KILL every British soldier on this island.As General Tom Barry said..If you ask a man to leave your home and he refuses to go you are justified in using whatever force is necessary. They would have pissed on the Treaty and the GFA. Because like the Treaty and the GFA.They were born out of a compromise.The leaders of the Easter Rising of 1916 would have the Irish government shot for treason and then head North to kill British soldiers. Pearse would say Ireland partitioned will never be at peace.If he had the military power he would shoot the British soldiers down like dogs and scare every loyalist and anglophile out of the country. Our population would drop by 1.5 million.But it would be worth it.Bring back some of our real Irishmen and women from the states.NO!! The leaders of the Easter Rising of 1916 would not welcome Lizzy the Hun either.

• sirpeter | Apr 24, 2011, 11:32 PM EDT

  Dano..Stop the lights. Didn't I tell you before you are not going to get away with your manipulating bullsh*t here. Let's clarify things a little bit.So people understand.The Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP)were a nationalist party and were for Irish self-government just like Sinn Fein.It the Irish Parliamentary Party vote that collapsed and those votes went to Sinn Fein.They were not against!! Sinn Fein as you put it.(Nice Try)Sinn Fein did not contest 4 seats in a deal with the IPP. See they were not against!! eachother at all.They were AGAINST THE UNIONISTS. Just to put things simply. The Nationalists got 79 seat's and the Scumbag Unionist's got 25 seat's. This was an ALL IRELAND election. 79 beats 25 every time don't you think? The wanted all of Ulster but they had to leave three counties go because they were top heavy with Nationalists. They wanted a safe scumbag unionist majority so they could treat the trapped Nationalists like dogs.Which they did. Like the slave owners in America in 1865 and the scumbag unionist's in the north their main fear is that they are going to be treated like the way they have treated their captives. The unionist's are just a bunch of frightened Rednecks that's all.

• JimMcGarity | Apr 24, 2011, 10:41 PM EDT

  Yeah, and we dont like it when one country talks over another.

• seanomelbourne | Apr 24, 2011, 10:13 PM EDT

  Dan your figures are rubbery and your argument weak.Bums on seats in parliament is what counts no loose chard's here to manipulate a result.FYI S.F. had an electoral pact with the nationalists(they dropped the IPP) not to contest certain seats the estimated SF vote in uncontested seats was over200,000(refer Brian walker) One must remember that the nationalist also stood on a 32 county parliament(home rule)and we know where the unionist stood on that mantra.So all in all democracy failed as I stated below and which you fail to comment on. I must only conclude that Democracy is not an important issue for you to discuss.

• maireadinmelb | Apr 24, 2011, 07:36 PM EDT

  DAN - if they were so sure of their democratic majority why did they only take 6 of the 9 ulster counties?? Seats equate to votes in parliament, more americans voted for Gore than Bush in 2000 Gore did not win! 78 of 105 seats in Westminister on a platform of not taking those seats is a clear democratic win to Sinn Fein! Stop trying to manipulate the figures!! Britain still does not recognise true democracy!!

• DebsBELFAST | Apr 24, 2011, 07:32 PM EDT

  I'll let James Connolly speak for himself If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country Ireland without her people is nothing to me, and the man who is bubbling over with love and enthusiasm for ‘Ireland’, and can yet pass unmoved through our streets and witness all the wrong and the suffering, the shame and the degradation wrought upon the people of Ireland, aye, wrought by Irishmen upon Irishmen and women, without burning to end it, is, in my opinion, a fraud and a liar in his heart.

• DanOLoingsigh | Apr 24, 2011, 07:27 PM EDT

  Seanomelbourne – WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, - The Irish people actually voted as follows – 46% Sinn Féin, 25% Unionist, 21% IPP, 4% Labour parties - a majority against Sinn Féin. The oft quoted 70% was the seat count, not the votes cast – BUT if you want to talk about seats won, then the unionists took 23 out of 37 Ulster seats. So in fact the nationalists achieved their desired outcome in the areas where they had a majority, and the unionists ditto…a rough and ready democratic outcome…not the oft pedalled myth of republicanism.

• seanomelbourne | Apr 24, 2011, 06:52 PM EDT

  Over 70% of the Irish people voted at the 1918 BRITISH general election that included a majority in all 4 provinces.The British refused to accept the mandate of the Irish people and created a gerrymandered statelet.The minority in Ireland rejected the will of the majority and may have armed themselves to violently resist the will of the majority.It would then behoove the army of the democratically elected government to quell such a rebellion.The final outcome would probably have been a 32 county republic.

• OurselvesAlone | Apr 24, 2011, 06:16 PM EDT

  Can't speak for the other 1916 folks, but the literary genius who was Padraig Pearse would be embarrassed by the low standard of journalism on IC, OF THAT I HAVE NO DOUBT!

• OurselvesAlone | Apr 24, 2011, 03:10 PM EDT

  Agree with Searlit & FallsRnat

• Searlit | Apr 24, 2011, 01:05 PM EDT

  Sinn Fein means we ourselves. It is the fight you choose and how you fight it that decides whether you are a violent criminal or a fighter for justice. Random acts of violence are the work of criminals, as they do nothing to further the cause of justice.

• Monsoonman | Apr 24, 2011, 12:52 PM EDT

  I think the forefathers of America, would not recognize what a nanny/welfare state the U.S. has turned into. Almost 1/2 of the population is receiving some sort of payment and aid from the state.

• FallsRNat | Apr 24, 2011, 12:39 PM EDT

  barneyjo - it's not 900,000, you blithly assume that if a referendum was held tomorrow in the 26 counties for a UI based along the lines of 'a military strategy that hasnt been attempted before, that will force that number of people to either be part of a 32 county soverign state, or give up their birthright to do so' that the people would vote for it. Fine Fael, Fine Gael or Labour party say that they wouldn't accept a UI on coerced grounds, also where does it end, the prods stay & fight an armed campaign to withdraw from a UI, who fights them? Wake up, there's no stomach for an armed campaign, the irish may privately want a UI, but they sure as hell are not going to die fighting for 1. A mass emigration of protestant peoples out of ireland so the Catholics can have their own private state will not go down well with the rest of the EU, the french want the Hugos to return from the UK (after being forced out over 2 centuries ago), the catholic status of the country is in freefall, the Italians are turning away in droves - somebody is going to have to pay billions in repatriation costs to the UK for the mass relocation, 70% of the NI catholics will probably go as well on purely economic grounds - explain to me why the enforced relocation of nearly the whole of NI is a fair proposal - I always thought it was about uniting the people of ireland not the land, after all what does the orange on your flag represent.

• DanOLoingsigh | Apr 24, 2011, 11:40 AM EDT

  The distorted version of history that traces Irish independence solely to 1916 has provided ideological cover for an anti-democratic minority in successive generations who have tried to ‘bomb’ the North into a UI. Leaders of the 1916 Rising who seized control of Irish nationalism from democrats such as Redmond would be less than happy with how things turned out. Modern Ireland is hardly the Irish-speaking, devoutly Catholic, anti-materialist nation dreamed of by Pearse, or the dictatorship of the proletariat envisaged by James Connolly. Today’s anti-democrats still take comfort from 1916, conveniently forgetting that the people have spoken loudly and clearly…not in 1916, or 1918, but in the ratifying the current GF (No change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland unless majority vote of the citizens in both NI and RoI) agreement by 94% (South) and 71% (North).

• barneyjo | Apr 24, 2011, 10:47 AM EDT

  @anybody - It was the late David Ervine who said it best of all; "I am part of the British presence in Ireland. I was born here and I am not leaving at any stage in the future" Now, multiply that by a factor of almost 900,000. Define a military strategy that hasnt been attempted before, that will force that number of people to either be part of a 32 county soverign state, or give up their birthright to do so.

• oldboreen | Apr 24, 2011, 10:38 AM EDT

  Let's face facts. The bottom line is, one million of the population of the island of Ireland, insist on being British, indeed their forebears threatened an armed uprising against the Crown forces should a 32 county Free State be imposed by the British.We must live with that legacy, however imperfect it might be. What we have now is the best we will ever have.That's not defeatism, that's pragmatism. Does anyone seriously think that the one million British subjects in the north are likely to opt for a united Ireland any time soon? And what about the remaining half-million in the six counties who DO regard themselves as Irish? Is a united Ireland their priority? If it is,I don't see much evidence of it. Let us all dream of a United Ireland-but pray that it never happens!

• GeorgeDillon | Apr 24, 2011, 10:06 AM EDT

  One thing Pearse and Connolly could never have predicted is that by the early 21st Century fully a quarter of those resident in the 26 Counties would be foreigners. I note that the 1916 Proclamation speaks of cherishing all the children of the NATION equally, not all the children of the world. Specifically, Mass Immigration spells the end of Pearse's dream of an Irish-speaking Ireland, while Connolly the socialist would not be too happy with the Irish capitalists' importation of huge numbers of cheap labor units from abroad.

• GeorgeDillon | Apr 24, 2011, 10:01 AM EDT

  FallsRRat: Go learn some history. Collins wasn't "murdered:, as you ignorantly claim. Collins was killed in a gun fight with anti-Treaty Irregulars on a country road in West Cork. He was armed at the time, indeed he was in a military convoy. The Republicans were firing at him, and he and the other Free Staters were firing back. Have some sense.

• christinamaria | Apr 24, 2011, 09:50 AM EDT

  Ireland joined the EU willingly, therby handing over home rule to Europe. Since then everything went wrong; we can only blame ourselves....

• FallsRNat | Apr 24, 2011, 07:00 AM EDT

  the brave soldiers of 1916 certainly didn't fight the war of independence to have the likes of the PIRA, CIRA & RIRA campaigns that have left this country more divided then ever, Collins was a pragmatist, he knew that the protestant dominated 6 counties shared a wish to remain with a british identity & foresaw the failures of the armed campaign in the future. The irony is that any notion of a UI free state died the day that Collins was murdered, you have to understand the people who are opposed to you on ideological grounds & achieve peace with them through democratic means, not at the end of a gun, which patently hasn't worked for the last 100 years. The CIRA/RIRA are now not only despised by the majority in NI, they have managed to alienate 99.9% of the pop of the 26 counties - Sinn Fein 'ourselves alone' has more resonance today then evermore.

• warrenpoint00 | Apr 24, 2011, 02:13 AM EDT

  The brave men and women of 1916 did not sacrifice their souls for two thirds of a country and as for the feeble words of John Hume and his now extinct party and the actions of Michael Collins and his partitionist party...one word.Shame.And shame on those who promote the ideals of these contemporaries, over the ideals of OUR founding fathers of our nation of IRELAND