conflict + architecture

Home Forums Ireland conflict + architecture

Viewing 29 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #709631
      Starch
      Participant

      Hi, I am wondering if you guys could lend me some of your knowledge…. I am writing a paper on the theme of conflict & architecture, more precisely in the realms of the destruction of architecture (of a culture under threat) for ideological reasons. The destruction of physical culture is becoming increasingly viewed not only as a crime against the respective culture/society but also as a crime against humanity. … okay so what does this have to do with Ireland? I would like to know whether this has happened on the island of Ireland?
      From my research so far, it seems that the paramilitary organisations only occasionally specifically targeted ‘cultural buildings’ and so it doesn’t appear if they concerned themselves with cultural cleansing also. Yes of course they damaged many fine buildings and streetscapes in NI but it seems that the idea was to cause as much disruption as possible and so mostly this can be written off as collateral damage, of course there are exceptions such as the IRA’s firebombing of the linen hall library.
      I am reluctant to use this as an example but perhaps the destruction of the landlord housing stock, prior to the treaty, during the civil war and indeed through benign neglict up until recent history can be seen as act of destruction in order to forget a past? Georgian Dublin also?
      So I am interested to know whether it has happened elsewhere, did the Republic actively remove or demolish remnants of protestant history. Did the British engage in opposite, probably most likely during the ethnic cleansing of the plantation, but after that?

      Ok perhaps I’m looking for a past that doesn’t exist, but I’d be interested to hear you thoughts .
      all the best

    • #793553
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I have’nt a notion really, although it’s an interesting topic. There was never an official policy to destroy remnants of Anglo architecture in Ireland (how could there be, it would mean destroying most of the buildings in the country) but doubtless there was a contempt for it, manifesting in neglect. Of course this attitude was utterly inconsistent,ignorant and thoughtless (if the new Ireland wanted to dissasociate itself from symbols of British rule why were they meeting in Leinster House..how was one Georgian building acceptable and another one not) but that did’nt seem to occur to people then. But it would be interesting to see a study of this subject , comparing it to similiar cases in, say, Eastern Europe or the Balkans.

    • #793554
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Belted Earls:

      “I can understand that the consortium of belted earls and their ladies and left-wing intellectuals who can afford the time to stand and contemplate in ecstasy the unparalleled man-made beauty of the two corners of Hume Street and St. Stephen’s Green may well feel that the amateurish efforts of Mother Nature in the Wicklow Mountains are unworthy of their attention.”
      – Kevin Boland, Minister for Local Government, defending the destruction of Dublin, 1970.
      Also expressing an official line of hatred of all of Ireland’s actual surviving architecture, and a bleak harking back to dull nature and an imaginary Celtic past.

      from

      http://humphrysfamilytree.com/Herbert/dublin.estate.html

    • #793555
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Even after 36 years there is great pleasure to be got from sneering at the moronic pig-ignorance of Boland and his kind. I wonder, did he think the Irish people should have office buildings modelled after Round Towers or have the Government housed in wooden halls?
      Seriously, the only example of an “anti-colonial” campaign to deface or destroy the architecture of an occupying or Colonial power that comes to mind is that of the Balkans and Greece where many Turkish buildings were destroyed afer those nations got their independence. More recently during the last years of Communist rule in Bulgaria some fortresses had Turkish inscriptions removed to make them more ‘Bulgarian’ looking.

    • #793556
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      The Japanese built a substantial numbers of buildings in the center of Seoul during their occupation of Korean in the first half of the century, they were all demolished afterwards.

    • #793557
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      At least a case could be made that they were new,or new-ish and and had no historical, if not architectural value. This would be comparable to destroying Nazi buildings in Europe. But the Irish attitude towards buildings hundreds of years old was particularly stupid. As has has been pointed out before:how does one draw the line between an “Irish” and “Colonial ” building since all buildings were built in a kind of ‘lingua franca’ of the time. Unpicking what was ‘Irish’ from what was ‘British’ would be a bizarre task comparable to unpicking a tapestry. Would a house constructed by, say, Robert Emmet have been considered Irish by Minister Boland while a house built for a Lord Lieutenant be fair game for demolition? Or perhaps it’s the architect that counts,in which case fellows coming over from England like Gandon would be considered colonial. Or would continentals working here like the Francinis or Cassels be regarded as acceptable? As for Castletown House, perhaps the bits attributed to the designs of Alessandro Galilei would be more acceptable than the rest.
      Unfortunately nobody in 1970 seemed to be around or willing to subject Boland and his sort to the kind of mockery and derision they deserved.

    • #793558
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I agree Hiivaladan, but I was nonetheless shocked at the extent of this destruction: as far as I could see Seoul has no stone or brick built older buildings, everything is either very old and wooden, though re the old part the wood is regularly replaced, or concrete and modern. Demolishing the Japanese buildings removed a whole historical layer of the building stock.

      The loss of the big houses, although perhaps understandable, is a sad part of our history.

    • #793559
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Indeed.The way you describe it Notjim,The Korean atitude was extreme to an insane degree. After all buildings are just stone, wood,brick etc. Everything doesn’nt have to be a symbol all the time. And come to think of it, even the Germans didn’t demolish everything built under the Nazis. They had a pragmatic atitude. I notice the Indians made no great effort to demolish buildings constructed under the Raj. The ‘Gateway to India’ still stands.

    • #793560
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      hmmm. slightly irrational argument there hiivaladan. the japanese did terrible things to the koreans under the short amoiunt of years they occupied them. this made their destruction highly symbolic after the war. i don’t think they have still forgiven the japanese.
      nelsons pillar was blown up.
      i don’t think boland was too wrong. Dublin is a living/working city and old housing stock of whatever era gets torn down to be replaced. if the ballymun flats were more than 50 years old would you be crying over them too??? just because something is old doesn’t mean it has to be preserved. of course preserve some of it so we can go and see it… in most cases point and laugh at how anyone can live like that but buildings have to work for the present. how can a disabled person get into a georgian house? or are our laws now nto applicable to these ‘ national treasures ‘.
      both sides of this debate think they have the moral authority to demand things. i think a rational debate would be much better than this chest thumping one for starch, who is writing the thesis.
      by the way i was under the impression that the indians were in favour of the raj. why would they demolish there buildings?

    • #793561
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Starch: I don’t know if you know this thread:

      https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4353

      It is largely about the removal of british symbols from Irish buildings.

    • #793562
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Hi guys….firstly thanks for all your responses. I am not too concerned about chest thumping! It’s only natural to feel angry when you read about this stuff, but what I am looking for is balance…without a doubt there is no comparison between aggressive or benign neglect of some representations of a previous occupier and say for example the bulldozing of the Aladza mosque and it’s occupiers in the Cehotina river in Bosnia….the idea of dealing both the people and their physical representations with the same judgement- annihaltion, is what I am interested in.
      So do you think it’s fair to say that the government of the new Irish state, the IRA, UVF etc were not architectural critics in any sense ( and i don’t mean this jokingly) but they were certainly aware of the fact that to kill people was one thing, but to destroy cultural property represented another step to barbarism. why does the destruction of Mostar’s famous Ottoman bridge, Sarajevo’s National library and contents or the Buddhas of Bamyan hurt as much as the killing of people….. for me it feels wrong to admit it.

      I think the only pieces of architecture I will cover for Ireland will be the destruction of the big houses because they coincided with the need to terrorise their inhabitants and some analysis of events in NI which could be deemed as cultural cleansing

      I wasn’t aware of the Japan / Korea example, so far I have identified these other incidences of urbicide(etc)
      during and continuing…

      the creation of the state of Israel (and the occupied territories)
      the Amernian genocide
      the Balkan wars
      Kristallnacht
      China in Tibet
      area bombing of British and German cities
      fall of the Twin Towers
      certain activities of WWII – Jewish ghettos, destruction of synagogues
      IRB, Fenian, IRA attacks outside of Ireland

      are there any other examples that you can think of?

      again much appreciated!

    • #793563
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Slightly bonkers argument,Fin.Demolish old buildings difficult of access for disabled? That would justify the demolition of everything from the Crescents of Bath to Lincoln Cathedral.
      As for Boland, he was wrong. In the normal way,of course,but what was repugnant was the nasty mixture of anti-English,anti-Anglo-Irish,anti-left and anti-urban prejudices he larded his “argument” with.Although these were common in the Fianna Fail of his day, as well as in other parties to a degree.
      As for Korea:The japanese occupied Korea for roughly 45 years (I may be wrong about the exact period) so an enormous amount of building must have gone on in that period. While it perfectly natural that structures that symbolically represented Japanese rule or structures that directly served Japanese occupation (centres of administration,police buildings, military installations, residences of governors or bureaucrats etc ) would be the object of Korean fury after liberation,to destroy practical buildings like housing, schools, warehouses, railway stations, post offices, hospitals,.whatever… is a bit daft and is really cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    • #793564
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Hausmann?

      Slum clearance in the Gorbals and the inner city of Dublin? Many residents (of a certain age) of Jobstown, Neilstown, etc. still do their Saturday night socialising and Mass-going in the city centre- Thomas St, James’s St, etc., i.e. where they grew up before they were shunted out in the name of progress.

      Or does the destruction of one’s own culture not fit the bill? (More contentiously, perhaps, it can be argued that this was the destruction of a working class culture by the non-working classes.)

      If you’re going to go down the road of ‘ethnic cleansing’ then the treatment of the Gypsies in central and Eastern Europe thoughout history, but particularly in the 20th century (perhaps I say ‘particularly’ only because it has been better documented) should be mentioned. Isabel Fonseca’s Bury Me Standing (a fantastic book, that bafflingly lives in the Travel section of bookshops) details countless examples of Gypsies being exiled from their villages by mobs destroying their homes with the complicity of the state authorities- a perfect example of cultural cleansing via the destruction of physical fabric. And then the ignominy of being forcibly settled in appaling concrete towers in urban areas that are alien to everything you’ve known up to that point…

      Am I understanding you correctly?

      On the subject of Korea, I have considerable sympathy with the Koreans in this regard. Yes, sure, it’s great when cultures can be ‘big enough’ to keep the remnants of a colonising/dominating culture, but bear in mind that, for example, the Japanese turned the sacred temple at Changgyeonggung in Seoul into a zoo. I’m not sure how I’d react to that. Can anyone be sure?

      Changgyeonggung- taken in April ’07:

      *** *** ***

      As an aside, the attitude towards built heritage in the far east is difficult to understand for westerners (I do not pretend to be an expert at all at all- it’s an area I keep meaning to explore), and probably influenced the Korean approach to the heritage of the Japanese. As notjim notes, the replacement of parts of buildings is commonplace and is not seen as in any way inauthentic in heritage terms. The cultural value resides more in the site than in the phyiscal fabric of the building that stands on the site, and it was said to me occasionally that such and such a building was, say, 800 years old, when in truth parts of it might have been only 5 years old. This is in sharp contrast to the attitude of ICOMOS, where ‘inauthentic’ repairs have to be shown as such by deliberately highlighting what’s new, lest anyone feel they’ve been deceived. :rolleyes:

    • #793565
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      The Far-Eastern atitude to historic buildings seems to be similiar in essence to the case of the man who showed another an axe which had been in his family for generations during which time it had got seven new handles and two new heads.The essence of the structure is deemed to be preserved if there is continuity.
      What you said about the Gypsies, Ctesiphon, being decanted into tower blocks…. that is exactly what Ceaucescu in Romania did to them. In a way by destroying their physical culture and community and dragging them back to zero, so to speak, he was commiting a type of genocide.
      Starch’s example of Armenia is interesting.There are often accusations-justified or not, I’m not sure-that Turkish archaelogists and administrators are insensitive or reckless in their treatment of ancient Armenian remains in places like Ani, for instance, indulging in ignorant or inaccurate restoration and demolition.

    • #793566
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Hiivaladan,

      i didn’t quite say to demolish because of the disabled. i said that in todays’ environment why do we keep buildings that don’t suit our needs or as with that case that i was trying to highlight don’t conform with our laws. do we keep them because they are perfect examples of architecture or because they are old. i am not a fianna fail person but you argue about their attitude without giving a real example of what they said apart from one line. and in any case he was dead right. the environment of the dublin mountains is beautiful and those socialites probably didn’t give a shite about it but when you threatened an old building they were out in force. so who has the slightly bonkers argument.
      45 years and they were well within their rights. occupation is still occupation. any and probably all buildings built in that period are a remainder of that brutal force much the same as 800years is a long time and basically all buildings in ireland are occupation buildings and not everything was knocked. you have also to remember that in the 70’s we didn’t have this ‘special’ relationship with Britain. we were in effect still at war with an occupating foreign country. after bloody sunday in 69 we nearly went to war only jack lynch got cold feet and most would say luckily he did.
      To dismiss what they were doing as anti-british or whatever else it was called is slightly naive. they probably was a lot of that but maybe it was an attempt to push the country forward building wise. maybe, just maybe to attempt to drag the country out of a 50 year depression. i don’t know and unless you have an insight into the mind of whoever it was ( and by this i mean not what he says as politicians usually say one reason as a means for the public and votes but do it for an entirely other reason ) then all the bigotry is really on your part against him.

      More conflict destruction i can think of:
      muslim architecture in spain,
      catholic architecture in Britain,
      the burning of cork city by the tans,
      the destruction of galway by cromwellian forces – or indeed most of ireland
      the destruction of castles after the english civil war – saw a programme a few months ago. very interesting
      destruction of native temples by the spainish in central/south america

      the list is endless to be honest…

    • #793567
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      The Spanish attacks on Mayan and Inca culture are good examples because they were part of an explicit strategy to destroy the enemy moral by destroying their culture, all but four Mayan books were destroyed, a huge piece of vandalism.

      Conversely, in the Second World War an informal pact preserved the university cities of Cambridge, Oxford, Heidelberg and Gothengen from bombing.

      Cromwell’s iconoclasm was felt in the England as well as here, a huge fraction of England’s religious art was destroyed, the obvious comparison was the destruction of Buddhist artefacts by the Taliban.

    • #793568
      Anonymous
      Inactive
      FIN wrote:
      Hiivaladan,

      “….apart from one line. ” I don’t need more than one line, their actions spoke for themselves for decades. Why should I care what his inner meaning was? Why should’nt I consider what he said was what he thought? If he acted like a fool and spoke like a fool, I don’t think its bigotry to regard him as a fool.As they say “If it walked like a duck….”.
      Anyway,How in the name of God would you , or anybody,know anything about how so-called ” socialites ” thought in 1967?
      “occupation buildings”?”still at war with an occupying foreign country” Maybe in your mind, Nobody else I know was except those eejits we all know. There were plenty of derelict sites available if Boland and his cronies wanted to push the country forward. Yes, what was commented on before here is true. When you go into some threads some server problem ensures you’re likely to get directed to the An Phoblacht website.

    • #793569
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      not completely sure what you said to be honest hiivaladan. that was very disjointed, kinda like your argument to a certain degree. i know what you are trying to say. yes you should need more than one line to judge someone. if you don’t then maybe you should have a long hard look at yourself and how you interact with other humans.
      you consider he acted like a fool. why is that exactly? because he sanctioned old houses to be demolished. do you consider the demolition of the Ballymun flats to be foolish also as they were old when they came down or do you not consider modern architecture to be worth saving? is your ire just saved for georgian/victorian or whatever other ‘ian’ architecture that is around.you must be young or naive to think that anything anyone says is what they really think.
      i don’t pretend to know what they thought, as being young and good looking i wasn’t around at the time. however the famous line you qouted indicated exactly what. i do remember hearing that some people chained themselves to the doors of buildings that were scheduled for demolition and seeing as there wasn’t and still isn’t a major drive on the environment in this country then one puts 2 and 2 together.
      ha,ha.. again your age is coming through. of course we were little person. our own constitution even stated it by claiming the 6 counties as part of ireland until very recently. even members of this particular government or previous members i should say were caught up in a gun running scandal. it never came to fisticups much down in the free state but we were still at war. we were lucky a few times to still have this little state to hold on too. we were very close to being invaded during ww2 by the brits and we nearly started a war were of course we would lose after bloody sunday in Derry.
      i don’t know what you are talking about in the last sentence but i blame the ducks.
      i have always been suspicious of those ducks.. with their wings and feathers and those beady eyes….

    • #793570
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      ….and you put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5.
      His actions were disgraceful because there was no thought,sense or rationale behind them, just an inchoate bitterness and spite against a whole culture which he then expressed against harmless buildings in a way totally unworthy of a minister, or even a cultured man. Not that his kind needed the excuse of a so-called “British” building to wreck things. They’d have demolished a round-tower quick enough if enough moola was involved, despite all their bleatings and lip-service about out glorious past.
      And you’re right ,we were at war then. The real Ireland was at war against a bunch of fanatics who arrogated to themselves the right to call themselves the Government of Ireland and to wage “war” on Irelands behalf.
      As for the last line, you know exactly what I mean.
      Showing my age, Eh? Excuse me while I get the zimmer frame.

      On the actual subject, another example occurs to me: the iconoclastic rage against Hindu temples in India by Mohammed of Ghazni.

    • #793571
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      FIN: this is satire surely, you are “in character” preparing for some performance?

      back to the thread: . . . and as another example, the cultural revolution in China involved incredible destruction of cultural artefacts and building. This hasn’t finished, the contemporary redevelopment of Shanghai and Beijing involves a huge destruction of vernacular architecture, this could well express an anger at the old hierarchical way of life in China. I certainly feel that was the case when the Victorian centers of British towns were destroyed after the second world war, beautiful squares and handsome corn exchanges demolished in favour of second rate concrete shopping precincts. It could only have been done in anger.

      I am glad the Rromani were mentioned, I have just read Ian Hancock’s book and was shocked to learn of the extent of the Rromani holocaust, which they evocatively referred to as _Baro Porrajmos_: the Great Devouring. I was also surprised I didn’t know the Rromani were slaves in Romania until 1862.

    • #793572
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Anyway it’s nonsense to suggest that the types who would knock a terrace of ‘British’ Georgian houses have this wonderful mystical appreciation of the Wicklow mountains: they’re precisely the types who’d quite happily build one-off bungalows all over them.

    • #793573
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      notjim-

      I presume you’re referring to the destruction of the hutongs / siheyuans? I have a great quote at home somewhere from a former Mayor of Beijing about cultural destruction that I must dig out- pretty relevant to this debate.

      Also, what’s the Hancock book? I started with Garth Cartwright’s Princes Amongst Men– interesting, if a lottle ‘blokey’ in writing style, and more concerned with Gypsy musicians than the broader social and cultural issues. Hancock gets plenty of mentions in the Fonseca book, but I’d appreciate a tip on where to start with Ian Hancock.

    • #793574
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Apologise for the off-topic post.

      Ian Hancock: We are the Romani people

      It is a guide to Rromani culture and history written for teachers and social workers who have contact with the Rromani, as a consequence it is quite light and quite polemical, it doesn’t take long to read, but I found it interesting. I bought it out of interest after hearing a song by Esme Redzepova which I found really beautiful. I haven’t read the other books you mentioned, they are on a list.

      Ian Hancock himself is interesting, he is a British Rromani who worked as a spray painter, he roomed with some people from Sierra Leone and picked up their language, as a consequence he got some work as a research assistant to a linguist at UCL and ended up doing a PhD in linguistic even though he had no primary degree. He is now a leading linguist and rights-activist.

    • #793575
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Perhaps a good example of what your talking about would be the destruction of Nelson’s Pillar in Dublin in 1966 by the IRA. The Pillar woul have been quite an imposing symbol of english rule as you can see in the attached pictures. No official attempt was made to reconstruct the pillar, in fact,the army was called in to remove what remained of the pillar by way of a “controlled” explosion, which caused far more damage to the surrounding buildings than that of the IRA.

    • #793576
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      One of the (unselected) entries in the Berlin Holocaust memorial competition proposed the destruction Brandenburg Gate.

    • #793577
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @notjim wrote:

      Apologise for the off-topic post.

      Ian Hancock: We are the Romani people

      And I apologise for asking. 😉

      Thanks for the info.

    • #793578
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      whoops: apologise -> apologies.

    • #793579
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      FIN – read the Destruction of Dublin – covers the Hume street saga appropriately

    • #793580
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Hiivaladan wrote:

      ….and you put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5.

      to you maybe but to me i got 4.

      @Hiivaladan wrote:

      His actions were disgraceful because there was no thought,sense or rationale behind them, just an inchoate bitterness and spite against a whole culture which he then expressed against harmless buildings in a way totally unworthy of a minister, or even a cultured man.

      he probably did have thought and rationale behind his decision. well for him anyway. sense is the difficult one. it may have made sense at the time just as it might not make sense now. your assination of the character of the man is based solely on your rationale which is as flawed as his because you put up no argument as to why these building should have remained. i don’t know the area in question- were they particularily beautiful specimens of what period they were from or are you just angry that they were torn down? i think it’s time you started backing your chest thumping with some facts rather than trying to shout down anyone. if you presented a valid argument as to why he shouldn’t have demolished then then that’s one thing.

      @Hiivaladan wrote:

      Not that his kind needed the excuse of a so-called “British” building to wreck things.

      there is no doubt they are ‘British’ styles and so i think, can be called ‘british’. have you another name for them?
      and what exactly are his kind?

      @Hiivaladan wrote:

      They’d have demolished a round-tower quick enough if enough moola was involved, despite all their bleatings and lip-service about out glorious past.

      this i am in agreement with you. look at what is happening in Meath for instance.

      @Hiivaladan wrote:

      And you’re right ,we were at war then. The real Ireland was at war against a bunch of fanatics who arrogated to themselves the right to call themselves the Government of Ireland and to wage “war” on Irelands behalf.

      that’s exactly what the brits said in 1916. you are now living in and enjoying the freedom of the result of that. only very recently did we give up our claim to the rest of the island.

      @Hiivaladan wrote:

      As for the last line, you know exactly what I mean.
      Showing my age, Eh? Excuse me while I get the zimmer frame.

      afraid not. i can’t remember it now to be perfectly honest. and i was calling you young not old.

    • #793581
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Well, I hadn’t thought of assinating his character, but since he made an ASS (sorry for raising my voice, but I’m already guilty of shouting you down apparently) of himself then, and later in many other ways, I don’t need to do so now.
      I wasn’t aware of the controversy at the time…I was too young,. but I know this:if you want to make an argument about demolishing anything or making any drastic alteration to an urban environnment, it’s up to you to make a reasoned case for it, to justify yourself, If your so-called case is based on spite,ignorance of the past, contempt for, and misrepresentation of, whole sections of the population and so forth, your case is shaky to begin with. I may not agree with, say, Summerson in FitzWilliam Street but at least he made a case based on his belief in the low quality of the buildings .Bolands raving about “belted Earls” was nothing more than off-the cuff prejudice of the most moronic kind and belongs in the long tradition of Irish populist political tomfoolery,playing to the most base instincts of certain bigoted sections of the populace…like, for instance, some Kerry politicians we know today who shall remain nameless.
      To talk about “British” architecture is beside the point. As I said above, the architectural culture of both islands were similiar and even if Ireland had been independent that wouldn’t have changed much. Even before the Normans came we were building in Romanesque and the coming of the Normans merely intensified trends that had already begun. In the late medieval period there was little difference-if any-between religious architecture in the Pale,in the Anglo-Irish realms and in native Irish lordships. We are not dealing with some irruption of alien architecture into another culture like the Moguls into India, the Ottomans into Byzantium or the Spanish into Mexico. The USA after independence continued building in the same manner as before.Most buildings was designed by Irish people, and in fact one could say that the fine qualities,human scale and magnificent plasterwork (such as michael Stapleton’s) was a specifically Irish contribution to a common architectural lingua franca-and one that we should have been proud of instead of having contempt for. And, as I also said before, the said Minister continued to work happily in Leinster House which goes to show his grievance was thoughtless and opportunistic.
      “and what exactly are his kind” Well, since you asked…I think “half-witted,ignoramuses fighting yesterdays battles” says it nicely.
      What the “Brits” ( that phrase says it all ) said in 1916 is irrelevant.The people of Ireland passed judgement on these “gentlemen ” long ago. They gave them the finger. Even in this recent election.

Viewing 29 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Latest News