Thread: 1916, what does it mean?

I've an English last surname. Maybe we can shake feet???

Originally Posted by rebbu

I've an English last surname

Dear Mr. Smith,

foot shaking it is.



( I've seen some good stuff about your islands constitution we could have a natter about).

I'm not upset. Lazy posting? Ya I'll give you that. Emotive, yes ask Withnail. Do we not discuss all subjects here? Or must we stick to sum-tam and whores. If it's a boring subject fuck off to the joke section.

Originally Posted by withnallstoke

Originally Posted by rebbu

I've an English last surname

Dear Mr. Smith,

foot shaking it is.



( I've seen some good stuff about your islands constitution we could have a natter about).

The sad thing about Ireland and it's proclamation/constitution is that Ireland is now a failed state in regards to the people. Bankers and imperialist own Ireland outright.

Thank you Mr. Fitz. I've always enjoyed the company of the Huns. Always found them very fair but ridiculously racist.

I think the Easter Rebellion pales into insignificance when compared to the Somme just a few months later

It is a very long time since I did this in History; second or third year secondary. I seem to remember a jailbreak attempt in which the opposite side was blown up..was that in Liverpool? I also vaguely hearing that the Rebellion stalled home rule rather than helping it along.

The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien Government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

Originally Posted by Troy

I think the Easter Rebellion pales into insignificance when compared to the Somme just a few months later

Again, it's not about WW1. The thread is about a period in Irish and British history. Don't change it into 'what happened on this date' If you want to remember WW1 start a thread.

I was cheering for the Zulu's

Mostly Welsh defenders, any Orish?

Nope, Irish were too busy looking inside.

Originally Posted by rebbu

Why no blacks?

^Because they're worth less than New Zealanders.

^

Massacre of Drogheda under Oliver Cromwell

After the massacre, Oliver Cromwell declared to the English Parliament, "I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these babarous wretches, who have imbued their hands in so much innocent blood and that it will tend to prevent the effusion [shedding] of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds for such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret."
Just what happened at Drogheda, Ireland on this day, September 11, 1649 is hard to pin down with certainty. Two groups stood to gain by issuing propaganda against Cromwell. The Irish hoped to inflame patriotic fervor by magnifying the event and certain Englishmen hoped to discredit Cromwell because they feared his growing power.

Parliament had sent the Protestant Cromwell into Catholic Ireland to subdue it and prevent Prince Charles from landing and preparing an invasion from the nearby Island (he used Scotland as his launch pad instead). Aware that previous armies had bogged down in Ireland, usually because of insufficient financing, Cromwell insisted on having the necessary money in hand before he sailed. That way he could pay for supplies as he needed them and not make enemies by robbing the common folk. Once in Ireland, he moved quickly, knowing that a drawn-out war favored the inhabitants, not the invaders.
The situation in Ireland was complex. The Irish were badly divided and several betrayed their own towns. They offered little effective resistance to Cromwell. In fact, he reduced opposition across most of the island within eight months, although subordinates required another decade to complete the work he had begun.
Drogheda was one of the first cities Cromwell faced. He offered fair terms and gave his men strict instructions against excessive violence. However, the situation fluctuated a good deal. As Drogheda's fortunes waned or waxed, the garrison alternately negotiated or stalled. Cromwell's troops broke through the wall before negotiations were complete (possibly with inside help) and rushed through the town, killing virtually everyone in the city. They set fire to St. Mary's church, burning alive those who had taken refuge in it and then butchered women hiding in the vaults below. Some accounts say they used Irish children as human shields and killed every priest, treating them like combatants, because they had encouraged the defenders. According to those tales, only thirty defenders survived and they were sold as slaves to Barbados. At least one of the English soldiers claimed that Cromwell himself ordered the slaughter.

Defenders of Cromwell say that not only did he not order the slaughter but that the massacre of the women never happened. Cromwell himself insisted (even before he left Ireland) that no one in arms was massacred, destroyed or banished. His statement fell short of denying that civilians were slaughtered. Tales of civilian massacres increased at the time of the restoration of the English throne when it was both politically correct and safe to say the worst things one could about the man who cut off the head of King Charles I.
Whatever the truth, Cromwell surely is to blame for not attempting to stop the massacre. By the brutal standards of the time, killing a defiant garrison was acceptable, but butchering civilians was not. By his own statement, it is clear Cromwell hoped that the events at Drogheda (and at Wexford a few days later) would shorten the war. At Wexford, his troops committed another massacre, although apparently without his approval. A priest writing over a century later claimed 300 women were slaughtered beside a cross at which they had taken refuge and seven friars were killed in the performance of their duty. Whether this is true or not, Cromwell considered the victory an unexpected providence and said he prayed that God would have all the glory.
The present religious troubles in Ireland were aggravated by the events at Drogheda and Wexford. British soldiers, for example, are called "Cromwell's lads." However, it would be unjust to leave the impression that Cromwell's campaign was the beginning of the Irish religious troubles. Eight years before Cromwell's invasion, for instance, Catholics slaughtered hundreds of Protestant civilians in Ulster and thousands more throughout Ireland.

Massacre of Drogheda under Oliver Cromwell - 1601-1700 Church History Timeline

Originally Posted by rebbu

^Because they're worth less than New Zealanders.

That British trait has obviously washed off on you.

Originally Posted by Neo

Emotive for you perhaps, but clearly no one else here gives much of a fuck. The major issue of sectarian and state sponsored violence in NI have all but been resolved. Bloody Sunday will always been a contentious issue, but history is full of those. Are there other forums out there where this issue is being discussed? I doubt many if any are ex-pat and travel forums. It's a subject with little mileage once the details have been raked over for the 100th time, find something more contemporary and inclusive (and perhaps positive) about Ireland to talk about.

You seem to have a quite limited focus on more recenthistorical events. This is surprising because my very English primary and secondary education tended to ignore contentious issues and concentrate on the large parts of the world that were coloured pink in the atlas.
The issues of apartheid and Irish nationalism, among were studiously ignored and we were taught about everything else between the stone age and world war two.

I guess the education ministry of the day tried to protect our sensibilities from any issue which portrayed the British (English) in a less than favourable light. I knew all about William Wilberforce but nothing of the Easter Uprising.

Suffice to say I am grateful for the gift of an enquiring mind and parents who did not shield me from honest answers to difficult questions as I grew up.

I can fully understand why the contentious issue of Irish history might be seen as a lesser issue for many of my peers, but you seem to have at least a modicum of intelligence at your disposal and for you to dismiss the troubles as insignificant seems at odds with your general demeanor on here.

Originally Posted by chassamui

You seem to have a quite limited focus on more recent historical events.

1916 Chas, that's 100 years ago. Not recent. The miners strike is contemporary by comparison, though hardly relevant and anyone still banging on about it needs to get over themselves. Recent historical events are the annexing of Crimea, the intervention in Syria, mass shootings in the US, the collapse of Greece, food banks and El Nino.

Originally Posted by chassamui

I can fully understand why the contentious issue of Irish history might be seen as a lesser issue for many of my peers, but you seem to have at least a modicum of intelligence at your disposal and for you to dismiss the troubles as insignificant seems at odds with your general demeanor on here.

If you want to claim some kind of intellectual/moral high ground here, why don't you explain to me why the events of 1916 are still pertinent to modern Irish society and how that affects my sphere of interest, why I should take more interest in it.

I believe the Catholics had legitimate grievances, and I know that through years of resistance they have been able to get a fair deal in their own society. But I don't have time for Nationalism in any guise, or the feckless lazy followers that dress hatred up as history while wallowing in self pity.


Over to you Chas...

I have obviously credited you with a greater level f intelligence than was warranted. All history is relevant, not just contemporary influences.
Why does it surprise you that some people might want to mark the 100th anniversary of a significant political event?
Perhaps we did not learn the lessons from history, and that is why we are mired in more contemporary issues. Things that might have been prevented if our minds, like yours, weren't too focused on recent events, to learn the significant lessons of historical events.

Like I said before, you are too focused on recent events to accept that lessons can still be learned from history. Repeat the same errors you failed to learn because you believed it was too long ago. A nationalist conflict driven by an influential neighbour determined to exercise that influence with a big stick. Am I talking about 'the troubles' or the Crimea?

Dope on a rope. Carry on.

That's a cop out Chas and you know it.

So 1916 is not a recent historical event now, and this thread doesn't have the decaying stench of Nationalist rhetoric.. at all?

Am I too focused on recent events to accept that lessons cannot be learned from history..? what an incredibly fatuous extrapolation you seem able to make from such an unambiguous statement.. what part of it did you refuse read correctly?

I believe the Catholics had legitimate grievances, and I know that through years of resistance they have been able to get a fair deal in their own society. But I don't have time for Nationalism in any guise, or the feckless lazy followers that dress hatred up as history while wallowing in self pity.

What's the real issue here Chas?

Originally Posted by Neo

That's a cop out Chas and you know it. So 1916 is not a recent historical event now, and this thread doesn't have the decaying stench of Nationalist rhetoric.. at all? Am I too focused on recent events to accept that lessons cannot be learned from history..? what an incredibly fatuous extrapolation you seem able to make from such an unambiguous statement.. what part of it did you refuse read correctly?

You were the one who said you were more interested in recent events like the Crimea, and also why would anyone be interested in a little Irish event of a 100 years ago.
If you can't understand the basic flaws in your statement you will never be willing or able to apologise for it.
No, you have just demonstrated how shallow and limited your intellect really is.

Deleted