|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 7, 2015 14:31:56 GMT
I could write so much about my view of Pearse, about whom I also have reservations. But here is why I admire him: 1) First of all, his poetry. "The Fool", "The Wayfarer", "Mise Eire", "The Risen People" and other poems are, in my view, some of the greatest Irish poetry ever written. "The Fool" especially has had a big influence on me personally. A poem like the Wayfarer is astonishingly simple and direct and fresh: The beauty of the world hath made me sad, This beauty that will pass; Sometimes my heart hath shaken with great joy To see a leaping squirrel in a tree Or a red lady-bird upon a stalk, Or little rabbits in a field at evening, Lit by a slanting sun, Or some green hill where shadows drifted by Some quiet hill where mountainy man hath sown And soon would reap; near to the gate of Heaven; Or children with bare feet upon the sands Of some ebbed sea, or playing on the streets Of little towns in Connacht, Things young and happy. And then my heart hath told me: These will pass, Will pass and change, will die and be no more, Things bright and green, things young and happy; And I have gone upon my way Sorrowful. 2) He was an idealist and a romantic. He conceived of Ireland as essentially a spiritual entity. He even wrote an essay called The Spiritual Nation that made this explicit. I don't see any point in a nationalism that does not get this right from the very start; to see a nation as simply a kind of aggregate of individuals isn't very compelling to me. 3) His idealization of the West of Ireland, and of more insular and rural and simple ways of life, seems entirely admirable and correct to me. 4) His educational theories, though naïve, were commendably humanistic. 5) His bravery and chivalry during the Rising-- a far cry from the Provisional IRA and their offshoots. 6) The depth and subtlety of his thought, as seen in his essays. Against all this, there is the fact that he tended to confuse the cause of Irish nationality with Christianity, not to make a necessary distinction between the two things. All very true Maolscheachlann. This shouldn't be forgotten when analysing the Rising, even if I would disagree with point 2.
|
|
|
Post by pugio on Apr 7, 2015 16:08:35 GMT
In reply to Young Ireland, I could give the standard arguments re Home Rule, but to be honest I think there is little point in arguing about whether Home Rule would have been delivered. Historians will argue about this intelligently until the cows come home and neither we nor they will be much the wiser. Even allowing for strong feelings, the comparison with Timothy McVeigh is rather tasteless. There may be a certain logic to it, but it would also apply to the Maccabees or the French resistance. Poor taste it may be, but it does have some validity. Nevertheless, I do take Maolscheachlann's point that Pearse did call for the surrender to prevent further injuries. The big problem with this was that (a) he apparently didn't realise the full implications of his actions until it was too late and (b) if he cared about casualties, why did he order the Rising at all? I don't think the Rising could be compared to the Maccabees or the French Resistance. Britain was not persecuting the Irish Church at the time like it was during the Penal Laws, nor were they under a brutal military occupation at the time before the Rising. I stand by my assertion that Pearse was more similar to McVeigh than he was to de Gaulle, even allowing for the differences between them.I have always had more truck for Connolly than Pearse, so it is strange to find myself defending the latter, whom I have never been able to warm to. Nonetheless, I do not find it scandalous to observe that Cuchulainn is a Christ-like figure in some ways. The same might be said of Prometheus, Osiris, Odin etc. These could be interpreted as demonic phoneys or, more generously, as providential foreshadowings of the true God-man. And surely there is nothing unChristian about modelling oneself after Christ. The problem only arises when this leads to self-aggrandisement rather than genuine humility. I do agree with much of what you say, Pugio, but I think you might be too generous. Pearse didn't merely model himself after Christ, he purported to be the "saviour" of the Irish people, in order to restore their militancy. I think that this could be reasonably perceived as self-aggrandisement.My understanding is that the 1916 Rising was originally conceived as a genuine putsch attempt, hence the focus on seizing strategic centres of transport and communication. Ultimately, the 1916 Rising was indeed a success insofar as it achieved precisely what its leaders (Pearse at least) intended: a radicalisation of public opinion by means of a brutal reminder of the real nature of the relationship between Ireland and Britain. The Rebels had no mandate to act the way they did. Even Eoin Mac Neill, the leader of the Irish Volunteers, was furious when he heard that the Rising had begun without his foreknowledge. Furthermore, Anglo-Irish relations were at levels unmatched for hundreds of years in the years before the Rising, which hasn't been matched until recent years.As countless writers have pointed out, the sanguinary language of Pearse was hardly an eccentricity of militant Irish nationalism; it probably has counterparts in virtually any European country you care to mention. And any Catholic who thinks the notion of blood sacrifice is a dirty 'pagan' idea needs a grim reality check, I'm afraid. What precisely do you think you are doing of a Sunday morning? I'm sorry, but you are misquoting me. The paganism is in comparing Our Lord's sacrifice to that of the Rebels, which is exactly what Pearse did. I am sure that you would agree that such a comparison is deeply sacriligeous and insulting to the Christ who died not just for one nation, but for all nations.Apologies Young Ireland, if I misquoted you it was unintentional. No, I would not agree that such a comparison is sacrilegious (though analogy might be a better word). It is not even especially remarkable. The famous lines about our Lord’s sacrifice, ‘greater love hath no man than this…’ are quoted at soldiers’ funerals to draw just such an analogy. It is no more a sacrilege than the common analogy made between Christ’s love for the Church and a particular man’s love for a particular woman, wretched sinners both. This is the symbolism one would expect from a Christian culture. Ireland was under a military occupation as a matter of fact, though many both then and now seem willfully oblivious to it. The only reason it wasn’t ‘brutal’ was because there was no longer any physical resistance to it. Subjugation becomes a jolly peaceful thing once you finally learn to smile and get along with your masters. To speak of Ireland in 1915 as representing the high-point of Anglo-Irish relations is, with all due respect to you, pretty warped. I was not comparing the Easter Rising with the French Resistance or the Maccabean Revolt; I regard them as different things. But if you blithely equate Padraig Pearse with Timothy McVeigh you may as well toss the others in as well. All self-appointed, self-important, judgmental about so-called ‘collaborators’, no electoral mandate, etc… I think distinctions are worth making. From an advanced nationalist point of view Pearse was something of a saviour. Most such people are rather self-important. But seeing as we are arguing about his legacy nearly a hundred years later, his sense of his own historical importance hardly seems unduly inflated.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 7, 2015 16:31:26 GMT
Apologies Young Ireland, if I misquoted you it was unintentional. No worries.No, I would not agree that such a comparison is sacrilegious (though analogy might be a better word). It is not even especially remarkable. The famous lines about our Lord’s sacrifice, ‘greater love hath no man than this…’ are quoted at soldiers’ funerals to draw just such an analogy. It is no more a sacrilege than the common analogy made between Christ’s love for the Church and a particular man’s love for a particular woman, wretched sinners both. This is the symbolism one would expect from a Christian culture. ‘One man can free a people as one Man redeemed the world. I will take no pike. I will go into battle with bare hands. I will stand up before the Gall [i.e., English foreigner] as Christ hung naked before men on the tree.’ Patrick Pearse
I think that is going beyond symbolism, and he is in fact calling himself the saviour of Ireland here. Notice that he also praises Wolfe Tone as a saint, even though the Church condemned the latter's rebellion. Ireland was under a military occupation as a matter of fact, though many both then and now seem willfully oblivious to it. The only reason it wasn’t ‘brutal’ was because there was no longer any physical resistance to it. Subjugation becomes a jolly peaceful thing once you finally learn to smile and get along with your masters. To speak of Ireland in 1915 as representing the high-point of Anglo-Irish relations is, with all due respect to you, pretty warped. Have you evidence that Ireland in particular was under military occupation between 1900 and 1915? I would have seen that as a relatively peacful time for Anglo-Irish relations compared to both before (the Famine, the Land War) and after (1916-23) that period. I certainly don't think that such a view is "warped".I was not comparing the Easter Rising with the French Resistance or the Maccabean Revolt; I regard them as different things. But if you blithely equate Padraig Pearse with Timothy McVeigh you may as well toss the others in as well. All self-appointed, self-important, judgmental about so-called ‘collaborators’, no electoral mandate, etc… I think distinctions are worth making. This is what you said:Even allowing for strong feelings, the comparison with Timothy McVeigh is rather tasteless. There may be a certain logic to it, but it would also apply to the Maccabees or the French resistance. It's fair to say that you are comparing these events, Pugio. Come to think of it, I think the comparison is even more apt, as both Ireland in 1916 and the US in 1995 were not suffering from internal violent turmiol at the time, and both protagonists sought to awake the population, as they saw it, into fighting back against what they perceived to be tyrannical regimes. Pearse succeeded, fortunately, McVeigh did not.From an advanced nationalist point of view Pearse was something of a saviour. Most such people are rather self-important. But seeing as we are arguing about his legacy nearly a hundred years later, his sense of his own historical importance hardly seems unduly inflated. Pearse is indeed a pivotal figure in Irish history. The difference between us was whether that role was for good or for bad. I strongly disagree that he "saved" Ireland, if anything, he (indirectly) inflicted tremendous suffering on the Irish people at the hands of the British.
|
|
|
Post by pugio on Apr 7, 2015 20:11:59 GMT
What I wrote earlier was unclear. I meant that if one accepts the logic behind your equation of Pearse with Timothy McVeigh, the same logic would include the Maccabean revolt, French resistance, etc. As for Ireland being under British military occupation, I am not sure what evidence in particular you require. I think it is generally understood that British forces were the commanding army in Ireland in 1916. They were garrisoned throughout Ireland as they had been ever since they pacified it for the Crown in 1798...
Ireland before the Rising may have been more internally peaceful than previous periods, especially if we ignore the army mutiny and the proliferation of militias importing arms and marching up and down the country preparing for a showdown. But it is misleading to suggest that the absence of armed resistance to British rule meant Ango-Irish relations were somehow on the right track. From a nationalist point of view one might even be inclined to draw the opposite conclusion. I'm sure Ireland was marvellously peaceful in 1799.
We could wind each other up indefinitely. But the real nub of the question, as you rightly point out, is whether Pearse and the tendency he represented was a positive or negative force in Irish history. We are obviously in disagreement about this. But I am not certain why.
Is it purely a question of violence? If so, is it opposition to violence in principle, or to violence in these particular circumstances?
Or is it the end rather than the means that is problematic? Or perhaps the ideological currents within advanced nationalism that you find objectionable?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 7, 2015 20:24:57 GMT
Pugio, I think you put the question well. The Easter Rising in 1916 was hardly breathtakingly violent by the standards of history, especially by the standards of the carnage taking place on the Western front at the time. It's hard to understand why it's regarded with such horror-- horror that seems excessive, and if applied to the whole catalogue of human history would render almost every government and every ideological movement indefensible. I do understand that the campaign of the Provisional IRA has a lot to do with it, but we really can't blame the 1916 Rising for that. I think Pearse and the other leaders would have been horrified by the Provos.
|
|
|
Post by pugio on Apr 7, 2015 20:42:22 GMT
Of that there is little question. It is very easy to sniff at concepts like chivalry and honourable warfare. But the cowardice and cruelty of the PIRA really ought show just how important these concepts are and evoke a contrary admiration for Pearse and his comrades, not a lazy equation of the two.
Of course one can legitimately ask whether the Rising was just or prudent or whether its legacy has been positive or negative etc, or indeed whether some of its individual participants were sane. But there is a rank hypocrisy in the way that the Easter Rising is singled out for moral opprobrium. Europe was ablaze with war. Thousands were slain every morning and every afternoon for vague causes of dubious merit. In the midst of all this carnage, a couple of hundred people get shot in Dublin in a puny anti-imperial revolt and we republicans are all supposed to be beating our breasts, rubbing ashes in our hair in atonement for our bloodlust and 'extremism' etc.
Give me patience, please.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 7, 2015 20:44:43 GMT
What I wrote earlier was unclear. I meant that if one accepts the logic behind your equation of Pearse with Timothy McVeigh, the same logic would include the Maccabean revolt, French resistance, etc. As for Ireland being under British military occupation, I am not sure what evidence in particular you require. I think it is generally understood that British forces were the commanding army in Ireland in 1916. They were garrisoned throughout Ireland as they had been ever since they pacified if for the Crown in 1798... There were garrisons throughout the Empire and indeed in Britain itself. Your argument would imply that Britain itself was under martial law during this time.Ireland before the Rising may have been more internally peaceful than previous periods, especially if we ignore the army mutiny and the proliferation of militias importing arms and marching up and down the country preparing for a showdown. But it is misleading to suggest that the absence of armed resistance to British rule meant Ango-Irish relations were somehow on the right track. From a nationalist point of view one might even be inclined to draw the opposite conclusion. I'm sure Ireland was marvellously peaceful in 1799. Whatever about the mutinies and secret societies, 1916 had the effect of turning a smouldering campfire into a destructive forest inferno. I might add that the Church condemned the 1798 rebellion.We could wind each other up indefinitely. But the real nub of the question, as you rightly point out, is whether Pearse and the tendency he represented was a positive or negative force in Irish history. We are obviously in disagreement about this. But I am not certain why. ExactlyIs it purely a question of violence? If so, is it opposition to violence in principle, or to violence in these particular circumstances? I would only agree with violence as an absolute last resort, e.g. in response to something like The Cromwellian invasion or a hypothetical genocide, where people would be killed simply for being Irish or Catholic. In those circumstances, if all peaceful attempts at quelling the situation, I believe armed rebellion might be necessary. Otherwise I believe that civil disobedience would be more preferrable.Or is it the end rather than the means that is problematic? Or perhaps the ideological currents within advanced nationalism that you find objectionable? This too. Irish republicanism has always been highly authoritarian, be it from a fascistic or communistic point of view. I also find the Anglophobia that one sees in such quarters to be putrid and off-putting. This is one reason why I believe that Sinn Fein in government would lead Ireland to disaster (I don't believe that they will openly persecute their opponents until after a United Ireland has been achieved, but there may well be soft repression, such as the removal of Catholics and those who dissent from the SF view of Irish history from the civil service, tightening control of RTE and other media and possibly introducing conscription. Once their primary objective has been achieved, I could see them trying to repress Unionist opinion, leading to a Loyalist revolt, British intervention and reoccupation of the entire island). What I have said in the brackets is highly speculative, but I do believe that the threat is very real. Furthermore, there is always the danger that glorifying 1916 may fire up tensions in the North. Finally, I find that many Irish nationalists tend to see their views as self-evident and not open to debate, and a minority active seek to impose their Gaelic Ireland on others who might not necessarily agree.
I feel that a lot of liberal opinion in Ireland is in denial about the storm that is gathering in this country at the moment. Just remember that in 1966, nobody could have possibly imagined what would come three years later. I believe that Ireland may be sleepwalking into a dark period of its history. Anyway that's my view, some might find it over the top, but everyone has their own opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 7, 2015 20:47:00 GMT
Of that there is little question. It is very easy to sniff at concepts like chivalry and honourable warfare. But the cowardice and cruelty of the PIRA really ought show just how important these concepts are and evoke a contrary admiration for Pearse and his comrades, not a lazy equation of the two. Of course one can legitimately ask whether the Rising was just or prudent or whether its legacy has been positive or negative etc, or indeed whether some of its individual participants were sane. But there is a rank hypocrisy in the way that the Easter Rising is singled out for moral opprobrium. Europe was ablaze with war. Thousands were slain every morning and every afternoon for vague causes of dubious merit. In the midst of all this carnage, a couple of hundred people get shot in Dublin in a puny anti-imperial revolt and we republicans are all supposed to be beating our breasts, rubbing ashes in our hair in atonement for our bloodlust and 'extremism' etc. Give me patience, please. Two wrongs don't make a right.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 7, 2015 20:49:50 GMT
Of that there is little question. It is very easy to sniff at concepts like chivalry and honourable warfare. But the cowardice and cruelty of the PIRA really ought show just how important these concepts are and evoke a contrary admiration for Pearse and his comrades, not a lazy equation of the two. Of course one can legitimately ask whether the Rising was just or prudent or whether its legacy has been positive or negative etc, or indeed whether some of its individual participants were sane. But there is a rank hypocrisy in the way that the Easter Rising is singled out for moral opprobrium. Europe was ablaze with war. Thousands were slain every morning and every afternoon for vague causes of dubious merit. In the midst of all this carnage, a couple of hundred people get shot in Dublin in a puny anti-imperial revolt and we republicans are all supposed to be beating our breasts, rubbing ashes in our hair in atonement for our bloodlust and 'extremism' etc. Give me patience, please. Two wrongs don't make a right. I might also add that this argument is regularly trotted out by SF to justify its armed struggle :"But everyone was doing it", "What about Bloody Sunday/Ballymurphy/ some other British atrocity?" "It was a war", etc. Yes, atrocities were committed on both sides. But that doesn't give the victim carte blanche to take revenge on the other side in any way they like. That's what a court of law is for.
|
|
|
Post by pugio on Apr 7, 2015 21:00:40 GMT
Young Ireland, I did not say that the Rising was justified simply because 'everyone else was doing it'. Evidently two wrongs don't make a right. I was merely expressing my perplexity at the way in which 1916 seems to be singled out for opprobrium given that it was a drop in the ocean of blood washing over Europe.
Of course, whether 1916 was justified in its own right, or not, is an independent question.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 7, 2015 21:00:52 GMT
I dislike Sinn Féin as much as anybody else. I just don't see the lineage from 1916 to the modern day Sinn Féin. I don't think there's anything even approaching glorification in the current national attitude towards 1916. And, if Sinn Féin did succeed in getting into government in the Republic, they would be a minor coalition partner who would throw a few tantrums about medical cards or something like that. (I'm not saying medical cards aren't important...)
I'm not at all ruling out the prospect of an explosion in the North, which could always happen. But I don't think it will come from Sinn Féin. It would probably come from yet another faction called Sinn Fein and the IRA, not the current franchise.
The Troubles were not born out of romantic nationalism, or the legacy of 1916. They just co-opted some of its rhetoric. Really it was a very ordinary case of ethnic tension, the same kind of ethnic tension that breaks out all over the world all the time, very often without any warning.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 7, 2015 21:05:33 GMT
I should probably also repeat that I'm not condoning the 1916 Rising. If I could go back in time and press a button to call it off, I probably would. (I'm not entirely sure. What if you did that, conscription was introduced to Ireland a few months after the Rising would have happened, and tens of thousands MORE people died than died in the Rising? What if Ireland had never gained its independence? What if abortion had been introduced here in the sixties and vast numbers of unborn children were slaughtered because of my pressing that button? What if the Irish language had been lost? And a thousand other possibilites.)
I don't condone it, but I am very sympathetic towards the general outlook of those who took part.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 7, 2015 21:06:22 GMT
Young Ireland, I did not say that the Rising was justified simply because 'everyone else was doing it'. Evidently two wrongs don't make a right. I was merely expressing my perplexity at the way in which 1916 seems to be singled out for opprobrium given that it was a drop in the ocean of blood washing over Europe. Of course, whether 1916 was justified in its own right, or not, is an independent question. Fair enough. I take your point.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 7, 2015 21:15:49 GMT
I should probably also repeat that I'm not condoning the 1916 Rising. If I could go back in time and press a button to call it off, I probably would. (I'm not entirely sure. What if you did that, conscription was introduced to Ireland a few months after the Rising would have happened, and tens of thousands MORE people died than died in the Rising? I don't believe that the British would introduce conscription in Ireland successfully. It would meet too much resistance, would provoke a potentially violent reaction and would be more trouble than it was worth. What if Ireland had never gained its independence? I agree that Ireland is better off independent; where we disagree is what an independent Ireland should look like. What if abortion had been introduced here in the sixties and vast numbers of unborn children were slaughtered because of my pressing that button? Northern Ireland was and still is exempt from Britain's atrocious abortion regime. I'd imagine that Ireland under the Union would be have a similar exemption, in the unlikely event that Ireland was not independent by then.What if the Irish language had been lost? These are two different issues. I have no problem per se with the Gaelic revival; what I oppose is attempts to politicise Irish culture and use it for a wider agenda.And a thousand other possibilites.) I don't condone it, but I am very sympathetic towards the general outlook of those who took part.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 7, 2015 21:19:25 GMT
I dislike Sinn Féin as much as anybody else. I just don't see the lineage from 1916 to the modern day Sinn Féin. I don't think there's anything even approaching glorification in the current national attitude towards 1916. And, if Sinn Féin did succeed in getting into government in the Republic, they would be a minor coalition partner who would throw a few tantrums about medical cards or something like that. (I'm not saying medical cards aren't important...) Sinn Fein are the second biggest party (and in some polls the biggest) in the opinion polls at the moment. I don't think that a SF Taoiseach is a far-fetched possibility at the moment.I'm not at all ruling out the prospect of an explosion in the North, which could always happen. But I don't think it will come from Sinn Féin. It would probably come from yet another faction called Sinn Fein and the IRA, not the current franchise. Agreed.The Troubles were not born out of romantic nationalism, or the legacy of 1916. They just co-opted some of its rhetoric. Really it was a very ordinary case of ethnic tension, the same kind of ethnic tension that breaks out all over the world all the time, very often without any warning. But at the same time, the legacy of 1916 did colour the views of those in the South towards the Troubles, even if it did not directly cause it.
|
|