Fair play to whoever did this, I don't think anyone should let their Republican sympathies blind them to the disgrace of Russell's actions.

A shame it took so long before anyone did this, still better late than never!

Fair play? By vandalising public property?
It's fine if someone disagrees with the presence of the statue but there are ways of going about things. This is the wrong way IMHO.

It's a difficult one - were they wrong to topple Saddam's statue ?

"were they wrong to topple Saddam's statue ?"
Not comparible. That can hardly be described as valdalism.

Not comparible

Very comparible. Both were affronts to decency and represented evil. IMO .

It would be better to go through the official channels and get the statue taken down properly.

Saddams statue was toppled in a wartime situation which is different to Dublin which as far as I know is not in the middle of a war and ruled by this man.

Fair play to them.I back them.
They shouldn't fix it though.

What should happen is the statue should be replaced by one honouring the brave Irish people who enlisted in the British army to fight the Nazi scum.
These people are forgotten about and it is wrong.

Incidentally, the statue was damaged before, and was repaired with one difference. Originally Russell's hand was raised in a form of "Hitler salute".
Anti-fascists behead statue of Russell
It had previously been vandalised by communists in the Fifties as the original statue erected by Sinn Fein after the Second World War was raised in a Nazi-style salute.
In a statement admitting responsibility, the people behind the incident referred to the fact that Sinn Fein's MEP Mary Lou McDonald had "paid homage" to Russell in a ceremony in October last year.
The statement said: "As Europe prepares to commemorate the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp 60 years ago, citizens of this state can no longer tolerate the shameful presence of a memorial to the Nazi collaborator Sean Russell in a public park in our nation's capital city."

Young Irelander

For once, I agree with you, that would be a very appropriate replacement for the statue and a good reminder about the forgotten men from Ireland who fought against fascism.

Dav
UO said what I was thinking.
There are ways of going about things. Why not highlight the issue properly? Generate some publicity, start a petition, write into papers, local TD's, make it an issue and make people aware that such a statue actually exists. Vandalising the statue makes them just look like a bunch of ... well ... vandals, eejits.

Its surprising that Mary-Lou came out against the statue though and came out so hard against it, this must be part of new SF trying to distance themselves from old SF.

maca

Generate some publicity...make people aware that such a statue actually exists.

Well, hacking off its head and one arm should publicise its presence :o)

I can't imagine that anyone will try to repair it, because if anyone did, focus would be put on Russell's despicable collaboration with the Nazis.

As long as they don't put up another feckin' spire in place of it :o)

I do not visit the Sunday Independent web site often. Occasionally, though you can pick something up from the reactionaries. This time I came across two gems.

The first of which was a jpg of Kevin Myers looking as it a canary would fly out of his mouth at any moment. This I have sent to my many Irish friends who cannot stand the sight of the man. I can just hear that blood pressure on the island rising with my Merck stock.

The second was a tidbit in the article covering the statue event that the Guardian also carried. The commies vandalized the first stature built by Sinn Fein just after WWII which had the arm raised upwards in a Hitler-style salute. The arm was hacked off (Thank God Russell wasn't a sexual offender) as already mentioned by Davros.

The implication here is that the recently vandalized statue is the second statue that the Shinners have put up. Now even the commies managed to de-Stalinize the Communist Party, so why the hell can't the Shinners equal the CCCP and practice a little de-Nazification? Should they decline my suggestion, my alternative advice is to coat it's replacement with Titanium Carbide or Cubic Boron Nitride and let the sparks fly where they may.

It's a difficult one - were they wrong to topple Saddam's statue ?

"They" was we, US PsyOps. The freedom-loving masses of Iraq, all 150 of them, in the square at the time were props.

Maca, people had been unhappy about it and nothing was done.

U-O - Has Mary Lou spoken up , or have you misunderstood the reference to her ? She was eulogising Russell at the ceremony Which caused offence to many.

A cruel forgetfulness

No-one raises an eyebrow as we celebrate an Nazi sympathiser

Henry McDonald
Sunday September 7, 2003

>
>
>
It is 1940 and somewhere under the sea off the Irish western coastline the chief-of-staff of the IRA lies dying in a German U-boat. A plan to disrupt Britain's war effort, a democracy, albeit flawed and imperialistic, is fighting for its survival. Between the outbreak of war and the death of Sean Russell more than 300 IRA bombs have exploded in Britain and Northern Ireland. Six British civilians are killed in Coventry, a city the Luftwaffe pulverised. The IRA is in league with one of the vilest regimes in human history. England's difficulty may be Ireland's opportunity but their Nazi friends intend to enslave the whole of Europe. And in less than two years they draw up a death list of every Jewish man, woman and child, including 3,700 Irish Jews - an unprecedented inventory of evil.
Fast forward then 58 years to the twenty-first century on a Saturday afternoon at the end of August in a park overlooking Dublin Bay. Sinn Fein EU candidate for the capital Mary Lou McDonald is sharing a platform with IRA veteran Brian Keenan, who at one stage praises Sean Russell as someone who preferred freedom to slavery. The crowd who have come to hear the speeches gather round Russell's statue, a man trained by the Nazis in Berlin, an ally in Hitler's project to conquer all of Europe, a chief saboteur of the war effort aimed at defeating this vast bloody experiment in racial purification. An Phoblacht/Republic News reports the Sean Russell commemoration without any irony let alone a reference to the IRA/Nazi alliance of 1939-45.

James : I came across this gem from 2001:
SPECIAL BRANCH REPORT ON SEAN RUSSELL MEMORIAL UNVEILING

In Budapest they placed politically unacceptable statues in a special Park.

"SPECIAL BRANCH REPORT ON SEAN RUSSELL MEMORIAL UNVEILING"

My God, that is a blast from the past.

I was at a dinner party in New England during the early 70's with my Swedish host. There was another couple from Manchester at the table with us.

The English kid (who was in competition with the Swede for a research job at work) slagged the hell out of the Swedes because of their neutrality during the war. I had never really considered this. I had also never thought of the Swedes as potential allies any more than bothering to sign the Finns up because they couldn't bring much to the table (this was before I found out about the Viggen). The two of them, though, went at it hammer and tongs while I monopolized the dago red: their loss and my gain.

It's the same way with the Irish neutrality thing. It's a color I just don't see. When things get around to the Nazis, however, I get a little thornier.

Maybe it's just a color they could not see.

Lordy, lordy, as time does go by.......

31. Rory Brady [Ruairí Ó Brádaigh]

36. Brendan Behan

"In Budapest they placed politically unacceptable statues in a special Park."

The Group W bench?

James, I have just spent 2 months reading about museumology and statues ! I have some cracking articles ranging from one about Statue Park in Budapest through statues in Germany, the changes in Dublin and a terribly depressing one about the problems faced by addressing the past at Buchenwald.
I interested , e mail me. It's a fascinating subject.

If we are in to vandalising public statues, first on the list should be the many celebrating the British butchers who murdered thousands across Ireland- as well as many other lands in pursuit of their bloody empire.

Statues of the Famine Queen -like the one in the hospital named after her on the Falls Road- should recieve a similar fate, methinks (if it has indeed survived the renovation.)

Regarding Russell, surely he was simply honouring the ancient tradition of using England's difficulty as Ireland's opportunity?

Those who would condemn him as 'fascist' for seeking such an alliance must themselves accept the label when they seek to honour the butchers in British uniforms who first brought concentration camps to the twentieth century through their employ as a British tactic in the Boer war.

What about it then, Davros and young Irelander? Care to join me in toppling the many hundreds of statues in the north 'honouring' those who served king/ queen and country ensuring Britain's bloody reign stretched across the globe? Didn't think so.

Vintage ugly 1970's Noraid rhetoric from irishman :)

By 1922 these monuments had been moved from Dublin or destroyed.

1. King William III
2. King George I
3. King George II
4. Queen Victoria
5. Lord Gough
6. Earl of Carlisle
7. Duke of Eglinton and Winton
8. Lord Nelson

It's interesting that rather than deal with the spectacle of supposed socialists in the 21st Century commemorating a man who would have had entrusted the people of Ireland to Hitler you whine about "the Famine".

irishman

"Regarding Russell,surely he was simply honouring the ancient tradition of using England's difficulty as Ireland's opportunity."

Ancient tradition?I wouldn't call it that since I believe it was the IRB that coined the phrase you mention.
The fact is in WW2,England's difficulty was Europe's difficulty.
The IRA in their collusion with the Nazis during WW2 put the Irish people at risk.
That's why de Valera dealt with them as harshly as he did.
60,000 Irish people in the south(including a relative of mine)enlisted in the British army to fight the Nazi scum and twice that amount worked in munitions factories for the Brits and yet this man,who colluded with people that were arguably the most vile in the history of mankind,gets a statue?Crazy!

What about the Irish people who contributed just as much as any other nation in fighting off the threat of Nazism?Why are they forgotten and why are SF eager to shower praise on those who clearly were on the wrong side?

Ancient tradition?I wouldn't call it that since I believe it was the IRB that coined the phrase you mention.

YI : It was Wolf Tone who coined the expression during England's spot of bother with the French.

"James, I have just spent 2 months reading about museumology and statues"

Oy vey!!! We gotta get you a bottle and a broad.

I'd like to see you after you called any of the Derry weemin a "broad" James. LOL

It's nearly 3 on the prime meridian. Isn't it time for Mommy to tuck all nice little Kaledic gargoyles in bed?

I was younger and better-looking in those days ;)

This is an interesting one, as it does highlight the gap between the young anti racists who damages the Russell statue and the younger members of SF, as epitomised by Mary Lou who would probably also themselves claim to be anti fascists/racists. Having said that does Russell's behaviour during WW2 negate all else he did in his lifetime. As a soldier Russell would claim I suspect that he like the members of the German armed forces during WW2, was just carrying out his orders.

As to would the US army personal who were members of the PsyOps unit who pulled down the Statue of Saddam and in the process deceived much of the world. (See the photo taken at the time of the whole square) As the world gets smaller, do we not all have a duty at such times to just say no when invasion, occupation and oppression is so obviously against international law.

Having said that does Russell's behaviour during WW2 negate all else he did in his lifetime.

That's a good question, and I think the answer has to be that overall he should be remembered for what he is most famous- being a Nazi Stooge, and as such he should not be commemorated. After all Hitler was fond of children and dogs, would we accept a statue to him commemorating the animal-lover? He was a committed vegan, would we accept it if he was memorialised by the Vegan Society ?

As a soldier Russell would claim I suspect that he like the members of the German armed forces during WW2, was just carrying out his orders.

Soldiers have responsibilities. I don't accept that British Soldiers who committed crimes in the course of their duties should be excused, neither should he.

This is a re-run of Adare. Just as SF say that any IRA man should be forgiven for anything BECAUSE his "heart was in the right place" ( i.e. he or she was on "our" side )over the early release scheme, they say that monsters such as Pearse and Russell should be placed alongside decent men like Wolf Tone,Thomas MacDonagh, Paddy Devlin and I would go so far as to say Bobby Sands. I won't accept that, any more than I would accept that because Unionists should overlook the crimes of Lenny Murphy because he supported the Union.

Was thinking about this last night:
Were the Taliban "wrong" to destroy the statues of Buddha? If so, where do we stand on Moses and the Golden Calf and the slaughter of the 3000 idolaters ?

Davros
What justification do you have for calling Pearse a monster?

Welcome back to the Land of Slugger and Happy New Year cg.

Right wing zealot, egotistical, perverted, blood-thirsty. Inconceivable that an organisation that venerates people like Tone and Connolly could treat this man with anything but contempt.

Same to you Davros

I believe you are being way to harsh. Pearse was an Irish patriot and if you read his writings what he hoped to achieve he did achieve.

I will admit that he was a bit eccentric but if we start doing character assassinations of people there will be no body left to like.

Where did you get that info from Davros? From what I remember from my history A-level studies Pearse was a school master who upon occasion wrote poetry, his brother was also imprisoned for playing a part in the Easter Rising.

It's a huge and complicated subject cg. What did he achieve ? He ensured partition and he sent the 26 counties along a path that led to civil war, a right wing state that was perilously close to being all but in name a theocracy that thankfully de Valera rescued from fascism and his rebellion inflicted wounds that have yet to heal. If your party is left of centre, by all means celebrate Griffith and other people who influenced a history that you can endorse. But 1916 wasn't a SF action.Griffiths wasn't involved. SF piggy-backed onto the Easter Rebellion. If all that it takes to be in the SF hall of fame is anti-British sentiment, why not go the whole hog and venerate Hitler ?

On which aspects of my characterisation would you like more detail U-O ?

Right wing zealot, egotistical, perverted, blood-thirsty

the above!

Pearse was an Irish patriot

There's more to it than that cg. After all, nobody on my side of the fence venerates Pearse's equivalent of my generation, William McGrath. At root he too was a patriot. Orange Order - his Lodge even had an Irish name on it's banner. Should we look past his "eccentricities" and ignore his links to sinsiter organisiations like Tara ? No. He should never be commemorated.

Yikes U-O :)

He had a messianic complex that verged on blasphemy.
Father Shaw, a Jesuit, wrote a fine article on this in 1966 (anniversary) that was considered to sensitive to be published until the '70's

some quotes from Pearse:

'We must accustom ourselves to the thought of arms, to the sight of arms, to the use of arms. We may make mistakes in the beginning and shoot the wrong people; but bloodshed is a cleansing and a sanctifying thing, and the nation which regards it as a final horror has lost its manhood.' Of the European war he wrote in December 1915: 'The last sixteen months have been the most glorious in the history of Europe. Heroism has come back to the earth.... The old heart of the earth needed to be warmed with the red wine of the battlefields. Such august homage was never before offered to God as this, the homage of millions of lives given gladly for love of country.'.

And I have yet to see anybody explain how the below Poem, by a schoolmaster, can be viewed in an innocent light.

LITTLE LAD OF THE TRICKS

Little lad of the tricks,
Full well I know
That you have been in mischief:
Confess your fault truly.

I forgive you, child
Of the soft red mouth:
I will not condemn anyone
For a sin not understood.

Raise your comely head
Till I kiss your mouth:
If either of us is the better of tha
I am the better of it.

There is a fragrance in your kiss
That I have not found ye
In the kisses of women
Or in the honey of their bodies.

Lad of the grey eyes,
That flush in thy cheek
Would be white with dread of me
Could you read my secrets.

He who has my secrets
Is not fit to touch you
Is not that a pitiful thing,
Little lad of the tricks?

Davros

"What did he achieve?”

He changed the entire mentality of a nation. Before the Easter rising there was little talk of Independance only home rule but he changed that through blood sacrifice. He ignited the heart of a nation and that candle is still lit.

"But 1916 wasn't a SF action. Griffiths wasn't involved"

I never said it was. I know perfectly well Davros the history of the period as I was blessed with having a teacher who was also the chief examiner of history in the north and who did his PhD on the elections on the 1918 elections so save the history lessons ;)

"SF piggy-backed onto the Easter Rebellion"

Wrong the British media and other foolish politicians called it the Sinn Féin rebellion. Afterwards however republicans accepted the need for one voice that could speak for the country and that was when Sinn Fein came onboard in 1917.

"If all that it takes to be in the SF hall of fame is anti-British sentiment, why not go the whole hog and venerate Hitler?”

Stop being flippant Davros
I couldn't like Hitler, apart from being a mad fascist nut, he loved Britain. Before I hear the daggers been thrown if you read Dr Ian Kershaw you will find that Britain was a country Hitler respected immensely and wished to have an alliance with.

"It was with poignancy that Hitler was at war with the country he respected the most and allied with the country he hated the most"
(Nazi-Soviet pact)

Perhaps it's only those with a dirty mind who don't see the innocent sde of the poem? ;)

hmm, hadnt seen that poem before, its a bit disturbing!!

Its interesting though, to what extent people usually ignore the les savory elements of a persons character if they did something very agreeable.

I think Wolfe Tone is a very underappreciated figure in history, he was the only person ever to found a non-sectarian group, and although I don't agree with his aims, I think it is more worthy of veneration than any other republican in history.

Rebecca
There are many male and female republicans worthy of remembrance from Davis to Mitchell but Pearse and Connolly will always be special because of there actions on Easter week and the document they gave us.

Davros, quoting that poem is straight out of the "pathetic loyalist republican character assassination handbook" - I'd have thought better of you.

cg, Pearse said that a nation couldn't be a nation until loads of blood had been spilt all over it, the more the better. He was an insane psychopath, in the same class as Cromwell or Napoleon. "but he's *our* psychopath and we love him" doesn't really cut it. Still having fun being a "Queen's Republican" ?

Roger W. Christ XVII

"Pearse said that a nation couldn't be a nation until loads of blood had been spilt all over it, the more the better"

Not for the first time Roger you are way off mark.

"Still having fun being a "Queen's Republican" ?"

You see Roger that would be an oxymoron I am however a Republican at QUB there is a difference, stop being childish.

cg

I wasn't saying that I thought Tone should be the only republican to be venerated, I simply said that in my opinion he is the most worthy. I am entitled to my opinion.

Rebecca
I wasn't saying you weren’t entitled to your opinion but merely giving my opinion.

In light of the comparison between the statues of Russell and Sadam Hussein and bearing particular reference to Rodger’s "But he's our psychopath and we love him" theory and Mick’s “Does Russell's behaviour during WW2 negate all else he did in his lifetime”?, may I expand a wee bit and ask people what they think about the statue to Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris erected in 1992 outside St Clement Danes church in London?.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/dresden/harris.html

www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v08n3p15.htm

I think the comments that this posting has elicitated have been way off the mark and in many cases quite hysterical. So it might be useful to consider exactly what Sean Russell was up to when he tried to enlist German help in 1940. The greatest charge that can be levelled at Irish Republicans at this time is that they were myopic, being so obsessed with their own campaign that they remained blind to the wider conflict in the world around them. Russell sought military assistance from Germany in the same way as an earlier generation had done in the 1st World War - England's difficultly is Ireland's opportunity.

I doubt Russell was open to specifically Nazi ideology. Remember Russell died in 1940 - 2 years before the Wannsee Conference in January 1942 when the plans for the 'final solution' were drawn up. So I think contributors need to ease off on the vitroil.

Neither did the Wannsee Conference mention Irish Jews specifically, or even Ireland come to that. I think the pro-zionist terrorists who defaced the statue were actually thinking of Kenneth Brannagh who played Reinhardt Heydrich in the film Conspircy, and who did make a comment about a Jew-free Europe from Vladivostock to Belfast.

The consequences of this action will be counter productive and will stir up the latent anti-semetism that lies within Irish, English, and European society. The Jews have milked the Holocaust for all that it's worth to gain public sympathy and support for Israel but i think they've exhausted their credit, and actions like defacing statues will work against them.

The thing I hope people realise is that independence is very important to us. It's not hard to understand that. Pearse is one of the men we owe our independence to.

Quoting Pearse to show he's an "insane psychopath" doesn't really show anything. Afterall Churchill is one of the most respected men from the last century yet was an absolute racist.

Assuming i can trust this source:

"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes." -- Writing as president of the Air Council, 1919

"I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place." -- Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937

"One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations." -- From his Great Contemporaries, 1937

mfm,

Why do you say it was pro zionist terrorists that damaged the statue? myself I am not sure who did it, but zionist terrorists is a new one for me and a very emotional statement to make, Do you really regard someone who damages a statue as a terrorist?
As to is the following quote by you,

"The consequences of this action will be counter productive and will stir up the latent anti-semetism that lies within Irish, English, and European society. The Jews have milked the Holocaust for all that it's worth to gain public sympathy and support for Israel but i think they've exhausted their credit, and actions like defacing statues will work against them".

What latent anti-Semitism are you talking about that "lies within Irish, English, and European society." Myself I have rarely experienced or witnessed such sentiment in my 56 years, either in Ireland, England or a number of other European countries, beyond that is the odd Christian in Ireland commenting that the Jews killed Jesus, which always amused me as the poor chap was Jewish himself. Whilst I do not doubt it may be present amongst a minority, thankfully these day's it is so unacceptable, these people are forced in the main to keep it to themselves.

'The 'Jews' have never milked the holocaust for all its worth, if you mean Zionists who are Jewish, then say so, as many Jewish people are not Zionists nor do they agree with the current policies of the Israeli government. If you seriously believe that the majority of people, Irish or otherwise would compare damaging a statue with the murder of six million human beings, then you have a very low opinion of the human race.

Finally Russell was well aware of the nature of the Nazi State by the time of his death, as many of his close comrades had left or been expelled from the IRA to fight fascism in Spain and else where. Kristallnacht had been in the Irish and British newspapers in 1938, along with the earlier Nazi suppression of political parties and organised Labour and the arrest of political activists, homosexuals, gypsies, etc.

Weapons Of Crass Instruction

If people approve of statues for the British political leaders during WW2, Churchill, Attlee, etc, it is difficult to see how the same people can condemn statues put up to military leaders like Harris, who were after all under the command of these politicians. Whilst Harris may have put forward the strategy of blanket bombing German cities, it was Churchill and his cabinet who OK'd it.

Even worse in my mind is that governments and those who attempt to use military means to take power, still use this strategy today. There is no better example than the recent US bombing of Falluga and before that Baghdad to highlight this fact. Yet history tells us that in the main, far from cowering the targeted populations, it does the opposite and brings them together in their determination to resist. (did not this happen with the Unionist community in the north) Oh and just in case anyone mentions it, Precision bombing my arse.

maca,

Good point.

maca: 1937. A lot had happened by 1940 when Russell was in that Nazi Submarine. I would have a lot of sympathy with republicans if they wished to
replace the Russell statue with one in honour of the man he was on that sub with, Frank Ryan.

Roger: care to address the issues the poem raises rather than "dodge" ? ;)

cg- careful me old chum ! HQ won't be pleased, you are skating on thin ice with -

He changed the entire mentality of a nation. Before the Easter rising there was little talk of Independance only home rule but he changed that through blood sacrifice. He ignited the heart of a nation and that candle is still lit.

The problem was that he DIDN'T change the entire mentality of a nation. Or have SF reverted to thinking us unionists/prods are cuckoos in the nest ? ;)

He guaranteed partition.

Nobody has addressed the equating of the two "patriots" ...Pearse and McGrath.

No history lessons cg, but as we have strayed into the party celebrations, it was worth pointing out that Pearse was not of Sinn Féin. And the claim that Pearse and SF changed the heart of the nation is open to discussion.What changed "the heart of the nation" on independence was the Conscription issue, which was nothing to do with Pearse and his blood sacrifice. And even then the heart of the nationalist North was set against Sinn Féin and Independence.

The blood sacrifice thing sits uncomfortably post 9/11 and the suicide bombers.

Pearse was no paedophile.
Davros I believe you and I have discussed this in great detail.
The fact is Pearse was a very devout man and as Ruth Dudley Edwards pointed out in a screened RTE documentary on this matter,he likely didn't know anything about such things.
She suspected he may have had homosexual tendencies but did not accept he was a paedophile.

I found a good article which focuses on this aspect.It can be found here.

Oops the link didn't work!
Try here.

YI- We'll never know. That's a better article than the one you last linked, but It still does not ease my doubts re that poem.

I agree we'll never know so is it right to therefore blame Pearse on those grounds?
I know today such sentiments would be looked on very differently but we have to remember this was a very different period in history.

Surely there's plenty of ways to criticise Pearse without the accusation that he was a paedophile?

Have to call it as I see it YI.

Well you are entitled to your opinion.

I mentioned the RTE documentary on Pearse.I remember on it they mentioned that in the seventies I think,plans for a statue to Pearse were shelved.
I'm surprised Pearse can be denied a statue yet Russell's statue went for decades without very much controversy.

YI- I suspect that Joe public didn't know a lot beyond the "gilded" version of Russell. Irish patriot and all that. Ireland and it's actions during the 30's and 40's have been heavily editted over the years.
A good example would be that plenty of people were prepared to talk about the Heroes who went to fight against fascism in Spain, but far more went from Ireland to fight For Fascism in Spain? Sssssssshhhhhh.

"I suspect that Joe public didn't know a lot beyond the "gilded" version of Russell. Irish patriot and all that"

I suspect that Joe Soap (or Public) doesn't know who the heck Russell is, to be honest. And I don't think Joe Soap would be too bothered if the statue was torn down tomorrow and made into footpath slabs.

Christ, I can't leave you guys alone for a day without something major going amuk. Where the hell is Mom?

"I know today such sentiments would be looked on very differently but we have to remember this was a very different period in history."

Tim Jeal in his biography of Bayden-Powell has the first scout and his chums passing around albums in which some of the photos were of boys diving and swimming in the nude. That would get him soooo busted soooo fast these days.

Serendipity: Reading Ferriter's book, The Transformation of Ireland 1900-2000. Just hit the period in the 1960's when the IRA turned on Germans in Ireland. And a savage, horrible bit of poetry by Kinsella.

Posted by: Davros at January 3, 2005 01:51 PM

'We must accustom ourselves to the thought of arms, to the sight of arms, to the use of arms. We may make mistakes in the beginning and shoot the wrong people; but bloodshed is a cleansing and a sanctifying thing, and the nation which regards it as a final horror has lost its manhood.'

The same statement could just has easily been uttered by any other revolutionary nationalist such as Nelson Mandela, Che Guevara, etc.

The same statement could just has easily been uttered by any other revolutionary nationalist such as Nelson Mandela, Che Guevara, etc.

and the same crap could be used by the UDA and UVF when they slaughtered innocent people they thought were someone else ... does that make it acceptable ?

Davros wrote,
A good example would be that plenty of people were prepared to talk about the Heroes who went to fight against fascism in Spain, but far more went from Ireland to fight For Fascism in Spain? Sssssssshhhhhh

Davros,

I do not have the numbers to hand of those who fought for Franco, but I doubt it was many more people than who fought for the Republic; (Spanish) and those who did so nearly all came from the pro treaty side, this being so very few Irish Republicans of the 1930s trod this path. One of the reasons for the silence in Ireland on this was that the Catholic church, along side
General O'Duffy acted as a recruiting sergeant for the pro Franco forces and by the 1960s did not wish to be reminded of this.

Mick- circa 800 sailed with O'Duffy. I splashed out £4.99 for Irish Volunteers For Spain,The Belfast Cultural and History Group © 2004, which tells me that 275 Irish volunteers, of which 61 were Northerners, fought on the Republican side. By no means were all these men IRA, and yes , they include those who served in the British Batallion. My point is that the IRA and it's politics , as with Sinn Féin and it's politics, did not follow a simple linear path.

"but bloodshed is a cleansing and a sanctifying thing, and the nation which regards it as a final horror has lost its manhood."

No - neither Mandela nor Che Guevara would have come out with anything quite so sanctimonious, theist and patriarchal.

The same statement could just has easily been uttered by any other revolutionary nationalist such as Nelson Mandela, Che Guevara, etc.
-------------------------
Posted by: Davros at January 3, 2005 11:12 PM
'and the same crap could be used by the UDA and UVF when they slaughtered innocent people they thought were someone else ... does that make it acceptable?'

The argument isn't a question of acceptability, it is one of consistency. If you're going to condemn a revolutionary nationalist like Pearse for espousing violence, why not Guevara or Mandela?
-----------------------------------------
Posted by: Alan at January 4, 2005 07:17 AM
"No - neither Mandela nor Che Guevara would have come out with anything quite so sanctimonious, theist and patriarchal."

So it is just a question of phrasing then, or is there no argument over the three sharing a common belief in the use of violence to achive a political end?

The argument isn't a question of acceptability, it is one of consistency. If you're going to condemn a revolutionary nationalist like Pearse for espousing violence, why not Guevara or Mandela?

Red Herring time Hector ? Mandela and Guevara aren't the subject of discussion.

Shocking that there is a statue of an IRA man in Dublin – even more shocking that it is of a Nazi-collaborating IRA man! How was this allowed?

cg

There are many male and female republicans worthy of remembrance from Davis to Mitchell but Pearse and Connolly will always be special because of there actions on Easter week and the document they gave us.

Those who instigated the Easter rebellion should be condemned, not venerated. They established the terrible legacy of unaccountable, unmandated republican violence.

*So it is just a question of phrasing then?*

No, it shows up Pearse's malign and exclusivist ideology.

They were all wrong in their avowal of militarism.

The argument isn't a question of acceptability, it is one of consistency. If you're going to condemn a revolutionary nationalist like Pearse for espousing violence, why not Guevara or Mandela?

Posted by: Davros at January 4, 2005 10:05 AM

'Red Herring time Hector ? Mandela and Guevara aren't the subject of discussion.'

Pearse wasn't the subject either but that didn't stop you from bringing him up. Now why condemn Pearse's militancy but not Mandela's or Guevara's?
-------------------------
*So it is just a question of phrasing then?*

Posted by: Alan at January 4, 2005 10:32 AM

'No, it shows up Pearse's malign and exclusivist ideology.
They were all wrong in their avowal of militarism.'

Judging by the Easter Proclamation I dont see anything "malign" or "exclusivist" about his ideology. Though, I suppose that, like militarism, is something we all come to our own conclusions about.

Rather narrow to judge Pearse merely by the Easter proclamation, surely?

Good Point WF. By Hector's logic "Common Sense" means that the UDA should be regarded as a force for good. Besides, was Pearse the author of the Proclamation or merely the showman who read it ?
Clarke was the first signatory and the tone (bad pun) is of Connolly.

"Right wing zealot, egotistical, perverted, blood-thirsty"

Davros,
there is a huge difference between blood thirst and blood sacrifice.
One is spilling blood for the sake of it, one isn't.
Read any of the accounts about Pearse's behaviour in 1916 and none of them would call him cruel or murderous. It's a bit like you bringing up Fred West a lot of the time you mention militant Irish republicans. Sad really.

As for perverted, what evidence do you have for that pretty heavy accusation?

On topic,
not sure about the beheading of the statue in the current climate where such images have taken on a new symbolism.
Why didn't they just hack the whole bloody thing down or just the arm.

George: Pearse and co' chose targets that would guarantee heavy civilian casualties.Their casualties were light. IF they had wanted to make self-sacrifice, and bearing in mind their "traditionalism" why didn't they just go on hunger strike ?

SF press office - still closed, but the Irish news, page 3, reports a SF Spokesman as saying the decison as to whether the statue is repaired is a matter for
the former IRA leader's "family and friends".

Davros
"Pearse and co' chose targets that would guarantee heavy civilian casualties"

I never heard it put like that before!

The idea was to cordon off the city, the locations were chosen to command the main routes into the capital and also because of their strategic position in relation to the major military barracks.

"Pearse and co' chose targets that would guarantee heavy civilian casualties.Their casualties were light. IF they had wanted to make self-sacrifice, and bearing in mind their "traditionalism" why didn't they just go on hunger strike"

Davros,
To say they should have starved themselves to death rather than fight is absolutely ridiculous.
He like most of those who fought in 1916 came from the Certa Bonum Certamen school - Fight the good fight.

And I recommend you read up on the 1916 Rising, especially Pearse's reasons for surrendering, before you come out with the he wanted heavy civilian casualties guff.

Maca- why do you think they avoided attacking military targets ?
In this respect there IS a similarity to the Provos.
They wanted ordinary people to suffer in the hope it would radicalise the public who would blame the British. Just as Ed Moloney pointed out that Adams allowed his area in Belfast to suffer so that public support would grow for those that they would see as their 2guardians" when they did go into action. Just as the IRA targetted businesses and investors in Nationalist areas to deliberately make the lives of their own community as miserable as possible. remember who destroyed any possibility of Grundig bringing hundreds of jobs to Newry. The IRA.
Quote:
The military council's decision to rebel in the certainty of military defeat, though incomprehensible to most Volunteers as well as administrators, was in keeping with a familiar theme of republican rhetoric. Joseph Mary Plunkett and Thomas MacDonagh, like Pearse, revelled in the vulgar wartime lie that the shedding of blood was 'a cleansing and a sanctifying thing', and imagined that a race of resurrected Gaelic heroes would emerge out of the bloodied gutters of Sackville (alias O'Connell) Street. To achieve 'bloody sacrifice' they employed diverse tools of deception in order to mobilize the Irish Volunteers and Irish Citizen Army. The location of buildings chosen for occupation in Dublin served to maximize injury to persons and property rather than to immobilize the key institutions of Irish government. No serious attempt was made to occupy Dublin Castle or even Trinity College, whose strategically sited and stoutly walled campus was virtually empty of soldiers and students. Instead rebel headquarters were established at the General Post Office, a building hitherto without symbolic connotations but at the heart of Dublin's main shopping zone. A medley of parks, factories, bridges, and public buildings, mainly south of the Liffey and in no sense constituting an encirclement, were also seized and defended by small parties. Only about 1,600 members of the Irish Volunteers and Irish Citizen Army turned out in Dublin, while activity elsewhere (apart from minor incidents in a few country towns) was restricted to route-marching and parading. Troops were promptly shipped from Liverpool and Aldershot, carnage and devastation ensued, and after six days Pearse called upon his forces to surrender; 132 soldiers and policemen were killed and 397 wounded, whereas civilian deaths amounted to 318 and woundings to 2,217. Only about 64 rebels were killed in action (excluding 15 executed 'martyrs'), a minuscule loss by comparison with the 25,000 Irish recruits who died from war injuries. The main victims of the 'proclamation of the Irish Republic' were thus unarmed civilians, whose suffering was compounded by the wreckage of central Dublin, widespread looting, disruption of employment, and interruption of postal services.

The Oxford History of Ireland, ed R.F. Foster.
P 198, David Fitzpatrick.

Davros,
To say they should have starved themselves to death rather than fight is absolutely ridiculous.

Why George ? If as you say their aim was self sacrifice rather than cause misery to the civilian population..... and near as dammit 5 times as many civilians were killed as participants in the rising.

Davros,
I could hand you a very hefty list of historians who cite the mounting civilian losses caused by Britain's shelling of the city centre as one of the main reasons Pearse called off the Rising.

I believe you are putting out a pointless slur and I've yet to get an explanation of the "perverted" claim.

Is your man Fitzpatrick right or are Pearse's own words as to why he surrendered ( “To prevent the further slaughter of unarmed people and in the hope of saving the lives of our followers”), accepted by the British at the time and most historians today?

Was Pearse lying when he said this? Why was he a pervert in your view?

Those who instigated the Easter rebellion should be condemned, not venerated. They established the terrible legacy of unaccountable, unmandated republican violence.

Can anyone answer my earlier question - how was the statue of an IRA man - and a Nazi-collaborator to boot - permitted to be erected in Dublin?

"To say they should have starved themselves to death rather than fight is absolutely ridiculous."

There were a lot of other options available. Mind you, Gandhi went on hunger strike to stop hindus and muslims fighting and it worked!

The issue is that violence should not be an option when you intend to change people's minds. Violence and militarism ( which is only organised violence)harden attitudes. They also infect the humanity of the perpetrator with the requirement that unspeakable acts be justified. You'll recognise that that cuts all ways and is not just a criticism of nationalism.

Pearse's quotation is such a justification, just as Russell had his own justification in bending the knee to Hitler.

I could hand you a very hefty list of historians who cite the mounting civilian losses caused by Britain's shelling of the city centre as one of the main reasons Pearse called off the Rising.

And the casualties were foreseen. And deemed acceptable. But be honest George. Pearse and Co thought there would me a mass uprising in support of them. They realised it wasn't going to happen and THAT's why they said enough. I note you don't address the point raised by Fitzpatrick. The targets they chose were in areas designed to lead to involvement of civilians.

I have made my reasons clear as to why I consider Pearse to have been suspect. If you read a poem such as he wrote written by a teacher about your son would you not be contacting the authorities?
Ireland has been covering up paedophilia for generations. How likely is it that generations brainwashed to venerate the loathesome Pearse would entertain the idea that he was a monster ?

Willowfield,
it's an unofficial statue erected without permission which is why nobody is particularly bothered about it's being partially removed without permission.

Very much like the "unofficial" memorials north of the border to fallen Provos, nobody went in and pulled them down. That's the way things are on this wonderful island of ours.

Thanks, George.

If it was erected without permission, why did the authorities not remove it?

Willowfield,
I would assume for the same reason that the northern authorities don't remove their unofficial memorials - less grief.

Posted by: willowfield at January 4, 2005 11:25 AM
'Rather narrow to judge Pearse merely by the Easter proclamation, surely?'

Yes it is, but this isn't an argument for a doctoral thesis. The proclamation nevertheless is a clear statement of political principles that Pearse signed, publicly proclaimed, and picked up a gun in support of. All of which suggests that he shared those principles, which to my mind are neither "malign" or "exclusivist"

Posted by: Davros at January 4, 2005 11:35 AM
'Good Point WF. By Hector's logic "Common Sense" means that the UDA should be regarded as a force for good. Besides, was Pearse the author of the Proclamation or merely the showman who read it ?
Clarke was the first signatory and the tone (bad pun) is of Connolly'.

How is your statement logical when I haven't argued that something, or someone, is, or was, a force for good?
The arguement was that to condemn Pearse's advocacy of violence, to be consistent one must also condemn other revolutionary nationalists use of violence (e.g. Mandela, Guevara).

Hector

Yes it is, but this isn't an argument for a doctoral thesis. The proclamation nevertheless is a clear statement of political principles that Pearse signed, publicly proclaimed, and picked up a gun in support of. All of which suggests that he shared those principles, which to my mind are neither "malign" or "exclusivist"

He had no right to "pick up a gun" in support of them. The Provisional IRA "picked up guns" in support of them.

The arguement [sic] was that to condemn Pearse's advocacy of violence, to be consistent one must also condemn other revolutionary nationalists use of violence (e.g. Mandela, Guevara).

That wouldn't necessarily be consistent, since the contexts in which each were operating were all different. Mandela didn't have access to normal democratic politics, for example.

Also Mandela and, certainly, Guevara were not nationalists.

In my book, an ideology that demands a blood sacrifice is malign, while an ideology that also requires the promotion of a nation state to the exclusion of others is exclusive.

Willowfield,
Ireland didn't have access to democratic politics either. You seem to forget that the "democratically elected" (universal suffrage only came later) representatives of the Irish people had already patiently waited 40 years for their own parliament and got nothing.

That's a quare democracy if what you vote for gets ignored for decades. If that's British "democracy" give me Irish "tyranny" any day of the week. The Rising taught Dubliners that the British didn't give a toss about their lives.

The doomsday plan to forceably resettle 550,000 Northern Ireland citizens (surprise, surprise 400,000 of whom would have been minority Irish) against their will in 1974 shows that certain things will never change.

Alan,
you cannot compare the nationalism of the oppressor with that of the oppressed. Where is the exclusiveness in the 1916 declaration?

Davros,
Pearse is generally accepted as having penned the Proclamation, which is hardly the writing of a zealot, pervert or blood thirsty civilian murderer.

Still waiting for you to explain why you would consider him a pervert.
The rest I've heard his detractors come out with before but the pervert piece is new.

Not everyone reads from your book Alan ;)

willowfield

"Those who instigated the Easter rebellion should be condemned, not venerated. They established the terrible legacy of unaccountable, unmandated republican violence."

That is your opinion but for the majority of Irish people the Easter rising is a key point in their history.

The legacy they left was the fight for freedom, independence and justice.

They fought the terrible legacy of unaccountable, unmandated Crown violence.

George

Ireland didn't have access to democratic politics either.

It did. There were elections held regularly. The absence of universal suffrage did not prevent Pearse and his cohorts from seeking an electoral mandate.

That's a quare democracy if what you vote for gets ignored for decades.

It wasn't ignored.

If that's British "democracy" give me Irish "tyranny" any day of the week.

It is appalling that you prefer unmandated bloodshed to a democratic system that was relatively advanced for its time.

The Rising taught Dubliners that the British didn't give a toss about their lives.

There was no "rising".

cg

That is your opinion but for the majority of Irish people the Easter rising is a key point in their history.

For the majority of German people the Nazi dictatorship was a key point in their history. "Key points" do not require veneration and should be condemned if appropriate.

The legacy they left was the fight for freedom, independence and justice.

The legacy they left was unmandated violence: an appalling legacy that has cost the lives of thousands.

They fought the terrible legacy of unaccountable, unmandated Crown violence.

They didn't. But, even if they did, they had no right to do so.

Maca,

Alas, all too few read from my book - I blame that (unnecessarily) on the education system.

George,

I didn't compare oppressor and oppressed. I would ask you to search for the inclusive sections within the 1916 proclaimation that might reach out to Irish people who would not consider themselves as Gaels, and also to explain Russell's actions, bearing in mind the section on foreign rule!

Willowfield,
as Pearse himself said about why breaking the British law in Ireland was perfectly acceptable:

"Who shall take what ye would not give. Did ye think to conquer the people,
Or that Law is stronger than life and than men's desire to be free?
We will try it out with you, ye that have harried and held,
Ye that have bullied and bribed, tyrants, hypocrites, liars!"

He certainly lived up to his word and tried it out with the British and it appears they weren't up to the fight that followed. A common weakness with bullies.

Alan,
where does the 1916 Proclamation exclude anyone? Where does it mention Gaels?

"We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible."

Pretty all-inclusive to me. That's what we call self-determination in the trade. Or is the simple wish to be Irish in Ireland now considered exclusive?

I more like to think that unfortunately there are still those on this island who would like to see their fate determined by others.

They are still too feeble and fearful to have the courage to stand up and demand power and to take responsibility for their own lives.

Davros,

What is your evidence to proclaim Pearse as perverted and an equivalent to Orange nonentity William Mc Grath, a unionist paramilitary who sexually abused children in his care?
When challenged on this claim you simply stated that you call it as you see it. What exactly is it that you see?

willowfield

"They fought the terrible legacy of unaccountable, unmandated Crown violence.

They didn't. But, even if they did, they had no right to do so."

Who are you to talk about rights; they had every right to fight for freedom and to smash tyranny and nothing you say will ever change that.

George

as Pearse himself said about why breaking the British law in Ireland was perfectly acceptable:
"Who shall take what ye would not give. Did ye think to conquer the people, Or that Law is stronger than life and than men's desire to be free? We will try it out with you, ye that have harried and held, Ye that have bullied and bribed, tyrants, hypocrites, liars!"

Pearse was wrong. If he wanted a republic he should have put himself up for election and argued for it.

He certainly lived up to his word and tried it out with the British and it appears they weren't up to the fight that followed. A common weakness with bullies.

Your support for unmandated violence is disgraceful. He had no right to go start a rebellion, killing hundreds in the process. The fact that you support him in this is appalling.

The legacy that he left has led to thousands killed and murdered. It remains with us today in the shape of nationalist paramilitary death squads.

Pat- you are right,there is a difference. Unionism made McGrath an outcast. That's the difference. And if Stitt is found guilty then SF will press for his early release under the terms of the GFA ?

cg

Who are you to talk about rights; they had every right to fight for freedom and to smash tyranny and nothing you say will ever change that.

I am myself. And, contrary to your absurd claim, Pearse and his cohorts had no right to do what they did. I note you are unable to offer a source for this right!

Pearse left an appalling legacy, which can be seen in the graveyards across Ireland, and which remains with us today in the shape of the nationalist death squads.

Davros,

so you have no evidence on the Pearse accusation and even less on your ludicrous suggestion over Stitt. Time was you were a serious contributor.

Already posted a poem written by Pearse that can only be suggestive of unhealthy desires. Dare you answer the question Pat? If you found a teacher had written that about or to a son of yours would you not contact the School ?

As for Stitt, according to SF criteria, he would be a qualifying prisoner if found guilty of one of the charges which pre-date the GFA.

Davros,there is no conclusive proof that Pearse sexually abused anybody so I think it is unfair to criticise a man for something that has not been proven.

Pearse was an intelligent man.What intelligent person would write a poem about doing improper things such as child abuse?
Poetry can be interpreted in many ways.
Patrick Kavanagh in The Great Hunger when using the character Maguire calls the maidens "brambles to hooked treachery".
Are we therefore to assume Kavanagh hated women and perhaps even beat them?

I choose to believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Pearse wasn't proven guilty of any child abuse and indeed many of his former pupils have spoken of how much they enjoed their time at St.Enda's.

Kavanagh was being honest about what was happening in Rural Ireland at the time. Rape, Incest, Misogyny, Violence, temptation. That's why the Poem was banned. To me it's one of the great 20th century poems.

Please note This - I haven't said that he was an active paeophile. I suspect that today he would be one of the teachers who have never attacked a child, but have child porn on their computer.

As regards speaking out... even now people who suffered abuse in the 1940's are having difficulty talking about what happened. Considering attitudes , especially when researchers looking at Casement's homosexuality were threatened by the IRA, how likely was it that anybody abused 100 odd years ago would have dared discuss the matter ?

I choose to believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

So Billy Wright wasn't a murderer and Gerry Adams was never in the IRA ?

Davros,

you made a ludicrous accusation over Pearse and have patently failed to back up your assertion. You simply have no evidence and to bandy accusations of paedophilia about cheapens the thread completely.

Again on Stitt (if convicted) you stated that SF will seek seek his release. What evidence do you have to suggest that SF will seek his release? Given that you have stated the SF Press Office is closed what evidence are you acting on?
Personally I find you recourse to all this a bit sleazy.

Pat- please address the question. If a teacher wrote a poem like "little lad of the tricks" to or about a child of yours would you contact the authorities?

Re Stitt: SF's position on prisoners is that if any member of a paramilitary group on cease-fire is jailed for an offence committed before the GFA then they are qualifyng prisoners. True or False ?

Pat, the sleazy thing is that the RM is prepared to stand over monsters. At least McGrath was disowned.

You shouldn't compare him to people who are known paedophiles though as in my opinion it is disrespectful.As I said,there's plenty to criticise him about without criticising him for something that has not been proven.

I also think you are out of line in SUSPECTING that he would've been someone with child pornography on his computer if he were around today.
You must really hate this man to hold such opinions.

"So Billy Wright wasn't a murderer and Gerry Adams was never in the IRA?"

Well Wright directed murders.There is much evidence supporting the fact Adams was in the IRA,even from Ahern,I think.
There is not nearly such evidence to claim Pearse was a paedophile.
I've read no accounts by the kids who were taught by Pearse.
The only evidence is these poems and as I've said Ruth Dudley Edwards,who I think it's fair to say knows more about him than either of us,is of the opinion he was not.
I therefore come to the conclusion he was not.

Again on Stitt (if convicted) you stated that SF will seek seek his release.

Bollix :) Read it again man...

"Pat- you are right,there is a difference. Unionism made McGrath an outcast. That's the difference. And if Stitt is found guilty then SF will press for his early release under the terms of the GFA ? "

See that ? It means that it's not a statement but a question :) And one that has you bricking yourself as Stitt would have as much right to ask for SF help as the Adare murderers.

Pearse's poem certainly sounds bad but as with any poem it's open to interpretation. Anyone find any critique of it on the web?

Well Wright directed murders.There is much evidence supporting the fact

Was he convicted of conspiracy to murder ? No.

answer me this - if a teacher had written that to or about a child of yours would you be concerned ?

And when was this RDE interview ?

Yes,I would be concerned if a teacher had writen that about a child of mine but bear in mind the poem was written almost 100 years ago!
Times have changed alot since then.
You couldn't claim today a man of Pearse's age would not know about issues of sexuality as we live in a world dominated by sex.
This was not the case in Pearse's day as many,including RDE,have stated.

The RDE interview was shown on Discovery Civil and was made,I believe,by RTE.I really wish you'd seen it as I know you would've found it very interesting as I did.

I accept the basis of your argument but do you not accept mine?I thought we came to a consesnus earlier in this thread when we acknowledged we'll never really know?

maca,read my January 3rd,6:47 pm post for a critique of it.

When girls laughed; when they screamed he knew that meant
The cry of fillies in season. He could not walk
The easy road to destiny. He dreamt
The innocence of young brambles to hooked treachery.

YI, I read that as inwardly directed, at his own frustrations which tempt him, rather than him
labelling the maidens ....

Times have changed alot since then.

Yes, we now know that there were major problems. Abuse is nothing new.

Re RDE- I would like to see the documentary. Rough I dea of when it was made ? Mick blogged an article by RDE in July 2004 from the Irish Times, where she reviewed Sisson's book.

Quote:

The second objectionable aspect was that I pointed out the bleeding obvious - that Pearse, although almost certainly chaste, was turned on exclusively by young male beauty. That - like his legacy to Ireland - is still today a hot topic, argued over inter alia by academic followers of fashion.
Elaine Sisson is an academic, and her otherwise readable style is occasionally marred by litcrit buzzwords (no, dammit, "gender" and "privilege" are not verbs; worse, there's a "may" on page one where there should have been a "might"), but hers is a well-researched, honest and thoughtful exploration of Pearse and his school within their historical and intellectual context from which I learned a great deal.
Pearse wanted the St Enda's boy to be a macaomh - a word literally translated as "youth" but which for him was imbued with imagery of Celtic scholars and pagan warriors. Drawing on inspiration from sources as various as Belgian educationalists, British public schools, Richard Wagner and Norse sagas, Pearse - who saw himself as the boys' fosterer - set about fashioning the ideal, nationalist boy with the help of Gaelic games, literature, mythology, drama, pageantry and, increasingly, militarism. He was a wonderful teacher, not least because - like so many other great pedagogues - he was in love with his boys. Emotionally and sexually stunted, he wanted to be a boy.
"St Enda's secured national identity to the body of the male youth and paraded youthful male bodies as a visual metaphor for the nation state", says Sisson, but adds that to label the school as an embryonic fascist organisation would be historically lazy. Nonetheless, it "promoted certain troubling ideologies about the symbolic relationship between power and display".
Sisson handles the subject of Pearse's sexuality sanely and sensitively, concluding that while he was not a practising paedophile, it was the innocent sublimation of his sexuality that eroticised his macaoimh. That sublimation too was an element in his desire for his own martyrdom and sometimes, in his imagination, that of individual pupils.

It's not exactly a clean bill of health. When I get time I'd like to read Marianne Elliott's book about Emmet to see if Eoghan Williams was talking nonsense when he made some especially unpleasant claims about Pearse in the Irish Independent Sept 2003.

Davros,I was told that the line was supposed to highlight his sexual frustration and that he was uneasy around the opposite sex.

As for the documentary,actually I might have taped it and I think I might still have it lying around unless I've taped over it.
I might go look for it now...

Davros,

let me get this clear, you are bandying terms like perverted about and comparing people to convicted paedophiles solely on YOUR interpretation of a poem. Well that says a lot about the unionist benchmark regarding innocence or guilt.

On your question,' If a teacher wrote a poem like "little lad of the tricks" to or about a child of yours would you contact the authorities?

The simple answer is no, i'd be afraid of being laughed at. But then again my benchmark re guilt and innocence is a good bit higher than is evident on this board re a range of offences, Northern Bank etc.

'Re Stitt: SF's position on prisoners is that if any member of a paramilitary group on cease-fire is jailed for an offence committed before the GFA then they are qualifyng prisoners. True or False ?'

As long as that offence can be attributed to the IRAs' campaign. Are you seriously suggestiong that to be the case re Stitt?

'See that ? It means that it's not a statement but a question :) And one that has you bricking yourself as Stitt would have as much right to ask for SF help as the Adare murderers.'

Try and be clearer in future. As pointed out above the basis for your question(sic) is totally ludicrous and has no basis or precedent. As for 'bricking it'. If Stitt is jailed . keep him in. I simply query your assertions and questions(sic). You are on record praising certain SF politicians and their political acumen. Would they use this acumen to ask for such a release?

Really Davros wise up, you are showing worrying signs of frustration yourself.

Must remember to log in to Slugger at some stage this evening to see if theres anything of interest or impoertance happening in the world.

(30 secs later)

Now lets see..theres an enormous 118 thread about statues..and Shinners and then ..lets see....

Sean Russell preferred freedom to slavery, because of this he willingly shook hands with the devil. I would much prefer to be a slave than a nazi pawn, for I believe that honour and justice go hand and hand with freedom. Irish freedom tainted and haunted by the faces of tortured and murdered Jews would not be the freedom I seek, and is proof that hatred destroys the hater as surely as the hated. Sean Russell was a dedicated freedom fighter and he like many others held the view that the enemy of England was the friend of Ireland. However, his being associated with nazism was illconsidered, bringing as it did, eternal shame upon his name and that of Ireland. He, and we all must pay the price, and I would strongly support those who advocate the demolition of his statue and overlaying of concrete on the site, for shamrocks would be too ashamed to grow there.

As long as that offence can be attributed to the IRAs' campaign. Are you seriously suggestiong that to be the case re Stitt?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear pat.... are you saying that the Adare murderer's WEREN'T freelancing as claimed by Sinn Féin and the IRA ? Are you saying that the Adare Robbery WAS part of the IRA campaign ?

LOL :)

Try and be clearer in future.

Tantrum time from pat .. I think putting a question mark at the end of a sentence is pretty clear Pat.

You are on record praising certain SF politicians and their political acumen. Would they use this acumen to ask for such a release?

I'm also on record as saying your leadership are slipping. Who would have thought they would have been so stupid as to raise the Adare issue ?
Adds credence to the reports that they were being blackmailed over revelations about the alleged head of Munster IRA and SF :)

The Little Lad Of The Tricks:
My grandmother had a saying, "Dirty minds think dirty thoughts", and an old friend once said, "From the heart proceeds all sort of imaginings and evil".
Clearly when a poem is misunderstood the imagination fills in the blanks, and in so doing says more about the reader than the author poet!

when a poem is misunderstood

it's hard to misunderstand

There is a fragrance in your kiss
That I have not found yet
In the kisses of women
Or in the honey of their bodies.

Lad of the grey eyes,
That flush in thy cheek
Would be white with dread of me
Could you read my secrets.

He who has my secrets
Is not fit to touch you
Is not that a pitiful thing,
Little lad of the tricks?

But then Irish people have been in denial for decades about all sorts of unpleasant realities.
Girls were sent to lunatic asylums for daring to say they had been abused. If your Grandmother's generation couldn't accept that sort of thing about ordinary people, how could they accept anything unpleasant about a man who had a messiah complex, who wanted to be martyred and generations have been taught to consider him as a messiah-figure ?

Davros,I found the famous documentary!I had it on tape after all.
Dr.Elaine Sisson who you mention above appears in it along with RDE,and many others including Danny Morrisson.

The documentary is called 'P.H. Pearse' and was made by Mint Productions for RTE,2001.

Pearse's politics are touched on early on and Professor Joe Lee from University College Cork states that,"When the proposal for partition comes along,Pearse begins in a sense to lose faith in the constitutional process and to say,'If the only way to get results in this country is through threat of rebellion,then let us too begin preparing for rebellion."

Also shown is an old interview with Bulmer Hobson who says he tried to help Pearse's fiancial difficulties by organising a lecturing tour to America and Hobson says he swore Pearse into the IRB before he left and says it certainly helped him.
RDE says that,"I think it's true to say when Pearse went to America he was still a schoolteacher but when he came back he was a revolutionary."
She also comments on the influence Irish America had on Pearse,"They didn't want to hear about St.Enda's or bilingual education,they wanted to hear alot of British throats were going to be cut."
She says Pearse "had fed off Irish America" and that "he'd promised he'd lead a revolution and it had become a matter of pride" to him.

On the subject of Pearse and children,the poem "Little Lad of Tricks" which you quoted is mentioned and Dr.Elaine Sisson states that:

"In late Victorian/Early Edwardian times there was a culture commonly known as the 'cult of the boy' which fixated on youthfulness and youthful beauty".She asks us to judge Pearse "in the context of the time"

Here is word for word what Ruth Dudley Edwards says on him:

"He did have homosexual inclinations.He was not a practising homosexual.I don't think he understood what homosexuality was.You could even say it was more that the people he found attractive was young boys.
But Pearse's behaviour was utterly proper at all times.He was a man of the highest ideals.
That is the way he was.An interesting man.An extraordianry man in many ways."

So there you have it.I don't know if the programme has been shown recently on Discovery Civil but that is where I caught it.
If it is on try and watch it as it is a great programme.

I really will be very keen to see it - Especially as it has Bulmer Hobson- he went to Friends School at same time as my Grandfather. Quakers don't like to talk about him :)
Have just ordered RDE Book on Pearse and The Elliot book on Emmet- Will be interesting to see what Elliott actually says about Pearse.

You might find this interesting: Robert Emmet uninscribed: Marianne Elliott

An interesting read alright and that documentary touches on Pearse's admiration of Emmet as Pearse writes about how some of the children were moved to tears upon hearing Emmet's speech.

I don't recall learning much about Emmet in school.I can remember learning about Tone but not really Emmet.

What is your own opinion on Emmet?

Pearse's politics are touched on early on and Professor Joe Lee from University College Cork states that,"When the proposal for partition comes along,Pearse begins in a sense to lose faith in the constitutional process and to say,'If the only way to get results in this country is through threat of rebellion,then let us too begin preparing for rebellion."

Also shown is an old interview with Bulmer Hobson who says he tried to help Pearse's fiancial difficulties by organising a lecturing tour to America and Hobson says he swore Pearse into the IRB before he left and says it certainly helped him.
RDE says that,"I think it's true to say when Pearse went to America he was still a schoolteacher but when he came back he was a revolutionary."
She also comments on the influence Irish America had on Pearse,"They didn't want to hear about St.Enda's or bilingual education,they wanted to hear alot of British throats were going to be cut."
She says Pearse "had fed off Irish America" and that "he'd promised he'd lead a revolution and it had become a matter of pride" to him.

He showed militant tendencies long before he went to America. Talked of Crushing poor mad Yeats in 1899! But to be serious - he went to USA in 1914 and had already published his "shoot the wrong people" in Nov 1913.
Speaking of Simmons :
from PGIL
“Little lad of the tricks”
(Quoted in Elaine Sisson, Pearse’s Patriots: St. Enda’s and the Cult of Boyhood, Dublin: Four Court’s Press 2004, pp.142-43, noting that the last two stanzas are omitted in Ruth Dudley Edwards’s life of Pears