Speech by the Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern, T.D., at the launch of “1916 in 1966”, in the Royal Irish Academy, Dawson St, on Wednesday, 12th December, 2007 at 6 p.m.
I am delighted to be here this evening to launch 1916 in 1966: Commemorating the Easter Rising. At the outset, I want to congratulate the Editors, Mary Daly and Margaret O’Callaghan, for this fine book which sheds new understanding on the Golden Jubilee celebrations of the 1916 Rising.
The 1916 Rising was a seminal event in 20th century Ireland. Pearse and Connolly, as the leaders of the Republican and Labour movements, came together in Easter Week to proclaim a free Irish republic in which the egalitarian idea was centrally enshrined. The foundation stone of this State was laid down in 1916 and its commemoration is both natural and desirable.
The parade which was organised for the 90th anniversary may have aroused controversy in some quarters, but the spirit in which it was held, together with the extraordinary public reaction to it, spoke eloquently of the fact that 1916 is not a sectional memory. It also showed how the idea and impact of commemoration has progressed dramatically.
This book edited by two of the country’s most respected academics is both illuminating and timely. It shines a light into Irish society in the 1960s and also offers a valuable guiding perspective on the politics of commemoration.
The value of history is not just about enriching our understanding of the past but also crucially about the lessons we can draw from it. Mary Daly is one of Ireland’s most active and respected historians. I was interested to read her assessment that while President DeValera was the most prominent figure in 1966, the intellectual character of the official commemoration was determined by Taoiseach, Sean Lemass. Mary perceptively notes and I quote :
“Lemass despite being a veteran of the Rising interpreted 1966 in terms of the present and the future. The message of the commemoration was that what Ireland needed was…. a new and different form of patriotism designed to enhance the statehood won by the 1916 Rising. At the press conference setting out the official programme of commemoration, Lemass presented the golden jubilee as an opportunity to further enhance the status of our nation in the eyes of the world, emphasising both our pride in the past and confidence in our future.”
We could all benefit from reflecting on Lemass’s theme of remembering the past but keeping an eye firmly focused on the future. My Government is firmly of the view that in commemorating 1916, we have a duty to those to whom we owe so much; their patriotism, vision, sacrifice and commitment.
Without them, we would not have our independence. But, we also have a solemn and even more imperative duty of citizenship to vindicate the living generations who will come after us, to leave to them, as was left to us, a country that has profited from the continuing dedication, generosity and commitment of its people. Active citizenship is the sign of a good patriot.
I want to mention Michael Laffan’s excellent article, entitled “Easter Week and the historian.” Michael explores how history is often viewed through the prism of current events and he notes and I quote :
“Naturally, historians (like everyone else in Ireland) were affected by the violence that re-emerged at the end of the 1960s, and naturally it influenced the way in which some of them interpreted past events.”
This touches on the perennial struggle for historians to explain the past in its proper context. The converse is, of course, reactionary history. In the 70s and 80s in particular, clearly as a consequence of the intensity of the conflict in Northern Ireland, there seemed at times to be a concerted effort to question the standing of those who fought for Irish independence in the 1916-21 period. The deeply political reading of history which often came from both extremes was rejected by the public and I believe that the last decade has shown that the peaceful yet republican tradition of the majority was central to winning historic progress for peace and reconciliation on this island.
In his recollections of 1916, Sean Lemass always talked about how proud he was of the different traditions that he fought alongside. He mentioned in particular the Leader of the Irish Labour Movement, James Connolly, the future Head of the Provisional Government, Michael Collins, and Desmond FitzGerald, later a Cumann na nGaedhael Minister and the father of a future Taoiseach.
Lemass always took the generous view that irrespective of later political affiliations, when we consider our successful struggle for independence, we should honour the achievement of all those who took part. This is a view that is strongly shared by my Government and as we move forward towards the Rising’s centenary, all of our actions must be inclusive and should operate on the first principle that commemoration should unite people of different backgrounds - it must not be allowed to become a political tool which divides.
Diarmaid Ferriter’s article in this book shows how in the formative years of the State, Civil War bitterness made commemorations divisive affairs with regular efforts to appropriate the memory of 1916 for narrow political ends. This was, of course, not unusual in international terms.
In our more mature democracy, we are hopefully arriving at a situation where all parties accept that Ireland’s history belongs to every Irish person and is beyond political posturings. I have no difficulty in saying that any truly national commemoration of our independence should honour both the statesmen who founded the Free State, as well as those who stood by the Republic, recognising that they were all patriots, who shared the same ultimate objective of full national freedom by one route or the other.
To ask today “what side would you have been on?” is a sterile and superficial question which ignores the fact that personal experiences and connections were central to most people’s actions. We simply cannot know how we would have reacted in similar situations. What matters today is their idealism and what we have built on the foundations they laid.
I want to mention Margaret O’Callaghan and Catherine O’Donnell’s essays on the 1966 commemorations in Northern Ireland. This island has moved along way since then and we are now on a new plane where we can view history in its totality, not in a one-dimensional or a partisan manner. This is as true of the widespread interest in the events of the early 17th Century, on which we focused this year, as in our more recent history.
As part of our overriding aim to build reconciliation and a shared future for everyone on this island, my Government has sought to recognise the historical Unionist contribution and tradition on this island. In the coming years, we need to acknowledge openly that there are also positive aspects to our long interaction with Britain.
It is becoming easier to do this now with the prevalence of a more ecumenical writing of history and consequently a mutual respect for both traditions grows.
To return once again return to Lemass, who in 1966 spoke of the decent and highly motivated purpose of so many heroic young Irish people, Unionist and Nationalist, who gave their lives in the First World War. We cannot ignore that essential part of our history.
As Taoiseach, I have been privileged to visit the Somme Museum in Belfast and I, for one, am determined that an integral part of our 1916 commemorations will be respect for the Irishmen fromevery county on this island who fought in that conflict. Their bravery was no less than that shown by the insurgents of Easter Week.
Today, we should remember 1916 as an inspiration to help the people of this island to fulfil their potential. Pearse, Connolly and the other leaders shared a desire for the Irish people to be free to shape their common future for the benefit of all. As we move towards the centenary, this remains a touchstone. We should recognise and celebrate achievements, but the biggest challenge is always to remain focused on the future.
Irish history has never been boring and neither has the profession which dedicates itself to writing about it. A united approach is neither possible nor desirable. A living history requires argument – but equally it requires respect and an end to using our past for political point-scoring.
The 50th anniversary commemoration of 1916 had an impact on anyone old enough to remember it. For the subsequent generation, it became an interesting footnote at the end of the textbook, somehow representing the end of an era.
While we are a different country today in so many ways, the resurgence in public interest in 1916 which we saw so dramatically demonstrated in recent times on the streets of this city proves that our history is becoming something used to unite rather than divide. It is in this spirit that we have begun the planning for the 100th anniversary.
I see 2016 as an opportunity to us to both celebrate and reflect. While the foundation of this State will be a core element, so too must be the individual stories of people and traditions in Ireland at the time.
ENDS