President & Taoiseach to attend Somme ceremonyPresident Mary McAleese and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern are to attend ceremonies in Dublin at noon to mark the 90th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme. More than 3,500 Irish men were among the half a million soldiers who died in the battle in north eastern France which began on 1 July, 1916.
The Minister for Education, Mary Hanafin, will represent the Government at the ceremonies taking place in Thiepval and Guillemont.
There are several controversial schools of thought on this cermony.
On Easter 1916 those who took part in the 1916 rising unfurled a banner
saying, “We serve neither King nor Kaiser”. This was a statement that their
revolt was part of the resistance to the 1st World War, a war between the
imperial powers of the day, as well as a blow for Ireland’s independence and
for an end of the oppression and occupation of Ireland by the British
Empire.
The 1916 rising was the first in a series of revolts that swept across
Europe against war and the empires. Kings were deposed and the carnage of
the war was brought to an end by mutinies in the armies and rebellions
against governments.
From the Sovereign Nation (with permission)
Quote: Commemorating With Deceit
In commemorating the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising we are actually reminding ourselves of our collective failure to use those ninety years to realise the rebellions objectives. One of the more salient reasons for this failure, and an explanation for the ninety years, rests with the fact that a political entity on the island, parented by a British Act of Parliament eighty four years ago, argues that it is representative of what the insurgents strove to create. In making this claim, and more so in defending it, that entity has proven to be the greatest political obstacle to realising the establishment of a thirty two county sovereign republic as envisaged by the Proclamation. This is why the British created it. When the hypocrisy of a State commemorating an historical event, whose very existence is an anathema to that event, is lost on the general body politic concerned one wonders have the revisionists prevailed. When the State commemorates the event for party political gain one wonders have the British finally succeeded in convincing the Irish body politic that our history is only relevant to our political and democratic development so long as it does not question the present constitutional status quo. Indeed given the motives behind the commemoration one wonders have the British appointed themselves to the stewardship of that development. Although it is depressing in both witnessing and analysing these events a grain of comfort, and a basis for forward movement, can be found in the undeniable fact that 1916 cannot be ignored. This makes the event uncomfortably relevant for the present status quo.
In relegating the events of 1916 to the role of Opinion Poll influencer, good to support one day, bad for another, clear indicators emerge as to just how uncomfortable 1916 is for constitutional nationalism. In its long and continued occupation of Ireland the British have always insisted that the constitutional status of the island must be fabricated on a British template and it was within this framework that constitutional nationalism practised its politics. A British presence and or influence were seen as intrinsic for the governance of Ireland. 1916 rejected this approach. When Pearse read aloud the Proclamation from the steps of the GPO he expressed, to both the British Empire and Irish constitutional nationalism, the totality of our sovereignty and the rights which that sovereignty afforded us. The Rising was initiated to defend that sovereignty and not, as the State would erroneously contend, to give to the Irish people sovereignty which they did not already possess. The conflict arose from the British violation of Irish sovereignty. As Commander in Chief of the Irish armed forces, raised to defend Irish sovereignty, Pearse was legitimately in the field during Easter Week. Constitutional nationalism, during the same week, condemned fifty thousand Irishmen to a foreign field fighting for the very same power which violated their sovereignty and conspired to undo the political arrangement, Home Rule, which motivated them to that conflict.
What demonstrates the contention that Constitutional Nationalism views a British dimension to its practice as intrinsic are the calls being made from several of its quarters for the commemoration of 1916 to be organically linked with a commemoration of those who fought in the Somme and by extension the First World War itself. These calls are not new nor indeed are efforts to have it realised. We can remember PSF personnel laying wreaths at cenotaphs in the occupied area honouring the army which effects that occupation. We can equally remember other PSF personnel sitting bewildered at Islandbridge War Memorial Gardens in Dublin only to see the same person waltzing through the white crosses in France hand in hand with a member of a Loyalist political grouping. Bewildering indeed. We are told that these acts and others are to honour the Irish who died in that conflagration and are not per se an honouring of the war itself. This is untrue. When you don the uniform of a given army you become de facto a representative of that army’s government. Nationality is set aside as you become an armed instrument of that government’s policy. That policy in relation to Ireland was to deny us that which the ‘Great War’ was supposedly fought to achieve, namely ‘the freedom of small nations’. Citing and exploiting the undoubted bravery and sincerity of those Irishmen cannot mask the fact that they were instruments of British Imperial Conquest. The true honour that can be afforded these men is to expose their actions to historical truth and demonstrate that those actions were as a result of deceit, betrayal and manipulation by the political forces which sent them to that slaughter, the British Government and Irish Constitutional Nationalism.
The 1916 Rising and events at the Somme are polar opposites. Indeed they both represent the protagonists opposing positions in the rebellion. And this represents the clear and unambiguous choice which Pearse recognised had to be made if our sovereignty meant as much to us as their own did to the British; Which uniform should we wear? Which government should we be an instrument of? If we agree with Pearse’s answer that it should be our own then honouring any aspect of the Somme with 1916 is injurious to realising the Irish government envisaged by 1916. Perpetuating the fallacy that there exists common political or ideological ground between either event perpetuates partition. This maybe a fitting memorial to the Somme but it is an obituary for 1916 and all that it stood for.
Along with any political event which involved a military aspect to it a military dimension to its commemoration is both fitting and warranted. This is not to be confused with militarism but with the legitimacy upon which an armed force is founded. A country’s army is an expression of the sovereignty of that country’s people and the use of that army for commemorative purposes is an expression of the legitimacy of the event which it commemorates. This truth holds for 1916. Yet, as we have seen the misrepresentation of 1916 to justify constitutional nationalism’s attempts to legitimise a British dimension to it, we again see such misrepresentation on behalf of the Free State government to afford their armed forces a status concerning 1916 which they patently do not hold. This issue has been reduced to electioneering centred on the soccer style mantra ‘there’s only one Oglaigh Na hEireann’. Whilst this is a factual statement blatant revisionism and untruths have sought to disguise the basic implications and onerous responsibilities inherent in claiming to be that army. Practices define what we are, not titles. Having defined an army’s primary function as defender of the peoples sovereignty in whose name it is raised can we say this of the Free State army? Are its practices synonymous with what ONH was founded to achieve?
As with those who fought in the Somme those who served with the Free State army after the Civil War did so for the highest motives and served worldwide with great effect and distinction. Their peacekeeping role as an Irish military force is to be much commended but none of this gives its political leaders the right to claim that it is something which it is not. Indeed those very same leaders have no right to exploit their forces sacrifices to mask with emotionalism an analysis of that forces constitutional function. Ostensibly the primary function of the Free State army is to defend the terms of the 1922 Anglo Irish Treaty which brought it into existence. The proof of this assertion is to be found in the actions of that army. This is the army, using British supplied weaponry, which suppressed Oglaigh Na hEireann’s efforts to defend the republic ratified by the democratic will of the Irish people. It is also the army that since its inception has defended the border which illegally partitions our country. There are those who claim that in defending the border they are safeguarding an Irish democracy south of it. But this deliberately incomplete analysis fails to recognise the simple fact that when you defend what a border maintains you defend what it maintains on both sides of it. It is not the function of Oglaigh Na hErieann to defend British Parliamentary activity in Ireland nor was it the purpose of 1916 to facilitate to any degree the legitimacy of such activity. To do so maybe a fitting memorial to the Somme but it is an obituary for 1916 and all that it stood for.
There are those in the Free State political hierarchy who assert that republicanism is more than mere separatism and in so doing believe that this in someway absolves them from pursuing the separatist agenda. Republicanism is more than the sum of its parts it is the totality of its pursuit. To remove separatism from republicanism is to remove republicanism from 1916. This is the objective of both the British government and Irish constitutional nationalism. Separatist politics was the politics of 1916 and formed the very foundation for the social inclusiveness of the republicanism expressed in the Proclamation. Our right to national self determination is as inviolate as the right to equality for all within that determination. We cannot cherry pick 1916 to sustain inadequate definitions of it or to justify derogations from its fundamental tenets. Partition cannot be reconciled with the Proclamation.
There are also those in the Free State hierarchy, its ideologues, who equally assert that in order to claim to be a republican one must be first and foremost a democrat. The assertion is made not to enrich republicanism with a self evident truth but to ritually condemn those who have asserted in arms, like Pearse and 1916, the self evident truth that a national democracy is denied to the Irish people. Again we see the deep differences between word and practice of those claiming empathy with 1916 and yet usurp the democratic ideal it strove to establish. Hiding behind the emotive shield of peace they have reduced democracy in Ireland to a position which must be compliant to British pre conditions as to how such a democracy should function. Having surrendered to this British demand the Free State sought to sanitise this position, along with the assistance of former republicans, to have it popularly endorsed by a partitioned Irish electorate. The British now claim that their Parliamentary activity in Ireland has the endorsement of the Irish people. Concluding Agreements which state that Partition can be legitimately permanent maybe a fitting memorial to the Somme but it is an obituary for 1916 and all that it stood for. The only fitting memorial for 1916 is the realisation of its objectives and only when that is achieved can we truly mourn for the Somme.Non the less we salute all those who fought and died for the liberation of europe, and included below are the words from a fine irish song about Galipoli in which a large group of irish people attended, which sums up the sentimatant of todays 90 year aniversary.
The people of rebel county salute all.
Gallipoli. I remember the day it stands clear in my mindWe stood down at Dunmurey waving goodbyeYour ma was gently weeping there was a tear in my eyeYou were sailing to Gallipoli to die You looked so young as you stood there that glint in your eye
and you sang rebel songs as the streamers flew high
Your ma turned away and I heard her sigh
He's going to Gallipoli to die
You were all that we had you mommy and me
When you marched head erect you looked proud as could be
But it killed your poor ma and it's slowly killing me
You were blown to kingdom come on the shores of Gallipoli
We got only one letter and we knew right away
It said deepest regrets your son was killed and he was brave
You were only nineteen when your mommy and I
Let you go to Gallipoli to die
You fought for the wrong country you fought for the wrong cause
And your ma often said it was Ireland's sad loss
All those fine young men who marched to foreign lands to fight the war
When the greatest war of all was at home
There will be live coverage of the commemorative ceremonies at the War Memorial at Island Bridge in Dublin and at the Somme in France on RTÉ One Television (Irish tv) beginning at 11.30am this morning.
