Yes to history, no to commemoration

April 2016 4 5

ommemorations for the centenary of

the 1916 Rising are well underway.

This anniversary is being marked in

a much less sanitised way than pre-

vious significant Easter Week

commemorations. This is very welcome. For far

too long, ceremonies celebrating the 1916

Rising were based on a highly simpliﬁed, mono-

chrome account of history: Rebels good, Brits

bad, civilians ignored. We did not see pictures

of dead bodies. Few ofﬁcial accounts men-

tioned the deaths of women and children

caught in the crossﬁre. This time around, things

are different.

The vital research work of many historians

and others has contributed greatly to the gen-

eration of this more complex understanding of

the 1916 Rising. We now know that approxi-

mately 488 people were killed during Easter

Week. Of these, 40 were children, and over 200

were civilians. There were about 120 British sol-

diers killed, and 60 rebels. These numbers are

as signiﬁcant as the numbers we have tradition-

ally associated with commemorations marking

Easter Week: the seven signatories of the Proc-

lamation, and the 16 men executed.

It is timely to reﬂect on four key themes

which should shape, and to some extent are

shaping, the centenary commemoration pro

cess: de-militarisation; contextualisation;

inclusivity; and humanisation.

Commemorations should not be over-milita-

ristic, nor should any death or killing be

‘celebrated’. This is even more necessary in the

wake of the recent Brussels atrocity which

showed the immense human tragedy of mixing

religion, politics and violence. The events

organised throughout Dublin for Easter Monday

under the ‘Reﬂecting the Rising’ banner were

far more in keeping with an inclusive spirit of

commemoration, than the military parade that

took place on Easter Sunday.

In a similar spirit, commemorations should

reﬂect the context of the time. The rise of impor-

tant social movements, in particular the trade

union and suffragette movements, as well the

Irish cultural revival, should be marked along-

side the nationalist struggle.

The commemorations must be inclusive.

Where ofﬁcial ceremonies include religious ser-

vices, these must be carried out with respect for

humanists, atheists and people of minority reli-

gions. Similarly, commemorations must be

inclusive of both women and men. We now

know, from the great work of feminist histori-

ans, that 77 women involved in the 1916 Rising

were arrested along with their male colleagues

at the end of Easter Week. Inclusivity also means

remembering the many thousands of Irishmen

who fought and died in World War I, but whose

lives and deaths were not ofﬁcially commemo-

rated for many decades after independence.

Commemorations must become humanised.

It is welcome to see this happening in this cen-

tenary year. Many ofﬁcial and unofﬁcial events

have incorporated the telling of individual eye-

witness accounts: some noble, some tragic,

some humorous, and some poignant. These

include stories like that of Catherine Byrne, who

jumped through a side window of the GPO to

join the male Volunteers inside. They include

that of two-year old Sean Foster, who was shot

dead in crossﬁre while being wheeled in a pram

by his mother Katie on Church Street, and

whose father had died on the Western Front the

year before. In bringing these stories to the

fore, we come closer to realising the past and

to remembering the dead in a respectful and

inclusive way.

It is very welcome to see these four themes

informing the 2016 commemoration process. Yet

it appears that they are not embraced univer-

sally. The Glasnevin Cemetery Trust has carried

out hugely important work in compiling accurate

data on all the 488 people killed during the 1916

Rising. It is constructing a Necrology wall to

mark all of their deaths in a non-judgemental

fashion. It is unfortunate that some of the 1916

Relatives Association do not support this

approach to commemoration. And that there

was some scufﬂing at the recent unveiling.

It seems that, for them, even 100 years on,

there is still a hierarchy of grief. Those who still

seek to elevate some deaths over others are

themselves harking back to the old mono

chrome view of Easter Week. Their view should

not prevail.

The reality is that the concept of ‘commemo-

ration’ is always problematic. Ultimately, we

should not seek to replace ‘history’ with ‘com-

memoration’. Commemoration is a largely

artiﬁcial concept, itself tending towards saniti-

sation. History is messy, complex, ambiguous

and contradictory. The history of the 1916 Rising

should be marked and remembered in a way

that is appropriate to that reality. Accurate his-

torical research, inclusive contextualised

events, and vivid eye-witness accounts should

replace empty commemorative ceremonies.

Our process of marking the 1916 Rising

should be de-sanitised, to reﬂect the real com-

plexity of the history of the struggle for Irish

independence.

Yes to history,

no to commemoration

Accurate research, inclusive

contextualised events, and vivid

accounts should replace empty

commemorative ceremonies

by Ivana Bacik

488 people were killed -

40 were children, and over

200 civilians. 120 British

soldiers were killed, and

60 rebels.

Sean Foster was killed on Church St. He was two.