The Afterlives of the 1966 and 2016 Easter Rising Commemorations

The Afterlives of the 1966 and 2016 Easter Rising Commemorations Vojtěch Halama ABSTRACT National commemorations are historical events, too. While re-imagining the past to correspond with contemporary sentiments, they are themselves open to reinterpretation by future observers. The 50th anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising was intended to be aliminal event, paying tribute to the veterans of the revolutionary generation while recalibrating the national narrative to be more conciliatory and less militaristic. Yet, the anniversary later became neglected as one of the sparks of the conflict in Northern Ireland and subsequently served as the grand negative example of what needs to be avoided during the preparations for the Easter Rising centenary in 2016. The organisers of this centenary eventually introduced ahighly diverse programme that held inclusivity at its centre. Nonetheless, with Brexit or Covid-19 in mind, one might wonder what the afterlife of the centennial mosaic of narratives will look like. Will the popular success of the event last, or will it be overshadowed or even neglected in the future? KEYWORDS Ireland, Easter Rising, commemoration, afterlife, founding myth, narrative INTRODUCTION The 1916 Easter Rising was an event of symbolic significance far exceeding its military and political results. Directed against the British rule in Ireland, it was carried out by over athousand insurrectionists concentrated in Dublin. It was quickly defeated, its leaders executed, and the declared Irish Republic failed to materialise, but both its radical ideology and rich symbolic repertoire became areference point for the subsequent struggle for independence, as well as many narratives that emerged afterwards. It has effectively become the founding myth of the modern Irish state. Moreover, its defeat, the subsequent executions of its leaders— often intellectuals and artists— and the fact that most of its admirers only retrospectively took interest in what happened and why, created avacuum ‘into which multiple motives and messages have been projected.’1 Apotent multivocal symbol, 1 R.HIGGINS, Transforming 1916: Meaning, Memory and the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Easter Rising, Cork 2012, p.7. OPEN ACCESS VOJTěCH HALAmA 65 the ‘1916’ can act as areference point in cultural, social and economic agendas, and often symbolises wider emancipatory processes (or their failure) during the Irish revolutionary decade. Official commemorations of the event have thus always been achallenge. National commemorations, in general, are about the present rather than the past, and they are about identity rather than memory.2 They are present-centred and present-motivated acts organised by specific actors with specific agendas, in this case, the state. They help to shape national identity, asubjective identification representing only one of many identities that each person has, that often relies on asense of shared history.3 The relation with this past, nevertheless, is prone to change, and as sociologist Brad West puts it, ‘for the national past to be re-enchanted in the contemporary age both the ritual engagement with it and the meaning which emerges from it must be consistent with contemporary sentiment.’4 The Rising is thus reinvented every time it is commemorated, serving the needs of the contemporary state and society and, simultaneously, reflecting their transformations. However, this article aims to point out that commemorations are historical events on their own. Such as the interpretations of the Rising have changed over the years, interpretations of its commemorations have changed likewise. The afterlives of the commemorative programmes have differed from the contemporary perceptions and the anniversaries will continue to be reinterpreted in the same manner as the original event does.5 This article addresses the afterlives of two major commemorations of the Rising in 1966 and 2016. While the retrospective reception of the 50th anniversary is awellknown story, the afterlife of the centenary commemoration is still forming, and it is uncertain how its legacy will be translated in the future. The article examines how both commemorations appeared in their contemporary contexts and how this contrasted (1966) or may contrast (2016) with their retrospective interpretations. 6 Further, it analyses how the former anniversary influenced the latter— and whether the centenary might experience asimilar afterlife to that of the 1966 event. The 50th anniversary in 1966 seemed to have marked the end of the era, recalibrating the national narrative to make it more conciliatory and rational and less militaristic 2 D.BRYAN, Ritual, identity and nation: when the historian becomes the high priest of commemoration, in: R.S.GRAYSON— F.MCGARRY, Remembering 1916. The Easter Rising, the Somme and the Politics of Memory in Ireland, Cambridge 2016, pp.29. 3 A.BILGRAMI, Identity in: J.M.BERNSTEIN— A.OPHIR— A.L.STOLER, Political Concepts: ACritical Lexicon, New York 2018, pp.159–166; A.D.SMITH, National Identity, London 1991. 4 B.WEST, Re-enchanting Nationalisms: Rituals and Remembrances in aPostmodern Age, New York 2015, p.11. 5 For more on “afterlives” of events and the mnemohistory approach, see M.TAMM (ed.), Afterlife of Events. Perspectives on Mnemohistory. London 2015. 6 Some passages of text on the events in their contemporary context have been meanwhile used in V.HALAMA, From Director to Coordinator: The Irish State and the Official Commemoration of the Easter Rising in 1966 and 2016, in: O.PILNÝ— R.MARKUS— D.THEINOVÁ; J.LITTLE (eds.), Ireland: Interfaces and Dialogues, Trier 2022, pp.53–64 OPEN ACCESS 66 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2022 and emotive. However, this has been overshadowed by what came shortly after: the conflict in Northern Ireland and the violence done in the name of those who signed the Proclamation of the Irish Republic in 1916. The Troubles has brought the myth to the opposite extreme of denunciation and the 1966 event itself, according to historian Roisín Higgins, became ‘as mythical and misunderstood as 1916.’7 Seven years after the Easter Rising centenary in 2016, one might wonder about its possible afterlives. For many contemporaries, it was aremarkable achievement in terms of extent, complexity, richness of the programme, organisational as well as participatory inclusivity, cultural and academic production, and many other aspects. Yet Brexit, COVID-19 or controversies of commemorating the Irish Civil War, among others, loom over its legacy. Will the centenary become “just as mythical and misunderstood” as the 50th anniversary? THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE EASTER RISING The 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising took place in 1966, in the middle of asocioeconomic transformation and opening the country towards European cooperation. Abandoning economic protectionism and anti-modernism of the previous era, the new Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Seán Lemass reformed the Irish economy towards economic planning, free trade, and support of multi-national business. The reforms were intended to transform the traditional rural poverty into industrial prosperity, and if Éamon de Valera, the previous leading national figure, had always prioritised politics over economy, the preferences became reversed in the Lemass era. On the other hand, historian Mary Daly suggests that ‘[f]or many people, including many politicians, economic development and reorienting the economy were seen as ameans of protecting institutions and values that were central to Irish society’.8 Modernisation was to be confined to material living standards and social services, while cultural change was perceived as unnecessary, or rather undesired, by many. The central contradiction of the 1960s Ireland was that economic modernisation did not go hand in hand with asociocultural change. The anniversary commemorations were similarly characterised by both transformations and continuities. It was aliminal event aiming to pay aproper tribute to the past but then turn fully to the future. On the one hand, many veterans of the Irish revolutionary decade were still alive in 1966 and the organisers had to respond to their social memory as well as to demands for recognition and respect, as the living memory of the revolution was slowly fading away.9 Instilling ‘into our youth an appreciation of the value of their heritage and of the sacrifices made for it,’ thus repre7 R.HIGGINS, Transforming 1916, p.1. 8 M.DALY, Sixties Ireland: Reshaping the Economy, State and Society, 1957–1973, Cambridge 2016, pp.371–372. 9 M.DALY, Less aCommemoration of the Actual Achievements and More aCommemoration of the Hopes of the Men of 1916”, in: M.DALY— M.O’CALLAGHAN (eds.), 1916 in 1966: Commemorating the Easter Rising, Dublin 2007, pp.22–23; D.FERRITER, ANation and not aRabble, London 2015, pp.356–357. OPEN ACCESS VOJTěCH HALAmA 67 sented an important task for the programme organisers.10 On the other hand, Lemass had little interest in traditionalist sentiments, even though he was aveteran of the Rising himself. His concept of ‘pragmatic nationalism’ assumed that the differences of the past must be overcome in favour of economic improvement and the modernisation of the country. The focus was on the rational, not the emotional. ‘For the next fifty years,’ he emphasised, ‘the symbol of patriotism is not the armed Irish Volunteer, but the student in the technical college, the planning officer, the busy executive of industry and trade union, the progressive farmer, the builders and workers on whose skills and enthusiasm the country’s future depends.’11 Lemass constantly called for ‘working in harmony on the task of nation-building […] and striving for acommon goal.’12 The state aspired to unite different intra-nationalist groups behind its flag, and to call them to march towards the future of national prosperity: to attend civic duties, to make adifference, to help the country flourish. Lemass desired neither complicating the official narrative nor opening the old wounds. He chaired the organisational committee himself and had set it up from members of Fianna Fáil and civil servants, omitting the oppositional political parties and dismissing the more radical Republicans who had demanded to be put in charge of the planning. Such republicans still overwhelmingly controlled local commemoration in provincial Ireland; the state nevertheless adopted arather non-confrontational stance and the clashes with them were largely contained during the 1966 Easter week.13 The emphasis was on the reconciliation of the civil war cleavage. The pro-Fianna Fáil Irish Press editorialised in 1966 that the Rising brought together ‘diverse elements in the nation’, providing them with acommon purpose and thus common ground. Similarly, the editorial hoped, the ‘jubilee celebrations’ would lead to ‘abetter understanding between the sponsors of all forms of national endeavour and aclearer realisation that their various activities are part of, or could be knit into, auniversal pattern making for unity in national effort.’14 However, the organisers incorporated (as was the case of the labour movement) or omitted (the Irish soldiers who fought in the First World War) other identities; the role of the women was likewise downplayed. Nevertheless, apart from the Catholic Church, which held acentral position in the commemorative events, the government also encouraged the Protestant churches and the Jewish community to mark the anniversary, their ceremonies being specifically included in the official programme.15 The message to the world in amore general sense was that ‘the Rising is the basis of the excellent relations that now exist between Ireland and England,’ enabling the 1965 Free Trade Agreement and ensuring Ireland’s active position in the wider 10 National Archives of Ireland (NAI), Department of the Taoiseach (DT) 2017/12/2, Seán F.Lemass: Cuimhneachán 1916. AMessage from the Government to the School Managers and Teachers of Ireland and to the Children under Their Care. 11 Irish Press, 22April 1966. 12 Ibid. 13 M.DALY, Less aCommemoration of the Actual Achievements…, pp.39–44. 14 Irish Press, 8April 1966. 15 Cuimhneachán 1916, Dublin 1966, pp.4–5. OPEN ACCESS 68 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2022 world.16 In line with this approach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs Frank Aiken promoted good relations with Britain in an article published in The Guardian, eloquently named Our Brother Enemies, and Edward J.Hitzen, the British officer who accepted de Valera’s surrender in 1916, was ‘aguest of honour of the State’ at aceremony in Boland Mills.17 Ireland was presented as astate that had overcome its past enmities and was now amature, trustworthy and active member of the international community. Finally, there was atwofold approach towards Northern Ireland, the bitter result of necessary revolutionary compromises. Éamon de Valera, the President of Ireland and the only surviving commandant of the Rising, was consistent in his traditionalist approach and his aspirations to aunited Ireland, calling for the end of the partition of the island by ‘the uniting of all the people and the forgetting of past differences and dissensions.’ This ‘forgetting’, characteristically, meant ending the fact that the Northern Unionists ‘at the moment do not agree with the views of the rest of the country.’18 Lemass’s attitude, on the other hand, was characterised by putting pragmatism before empty declaratory statements.19 Lemass initiated series of meetings with his northern counterpart, the Prime Minister Terence O’Neill, and furthered mutual cooperation. In contrast to the previous anti-partitionist policies, the new strategy was to mute down provocations towards the North. An example can be eloquently seen in Lemass’ directives to the national broadcasting service, the RTÉ, demanding avoidance of comments on Northern Ireland that might upset the Unionists.20 Nevertheless, too little attention was paid to the possibly radicalising effects of the anniversary itself on the relations with and within Northern Ireland. The promising North-South détente was disrupted by aperiod of political instability in 1966, when O’Neil came under significant pressure from his own hardliners and loyalist radicals. Lemass at least continued to avoid provocations during the commemorations, dodging calls in the Dáil for agreater involvement in events in the North.21 THE AFTERLIFE OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY The outbreak of violence in Northern Ireland in 1969 diverted the development and substantially changed the discourse. The movement against socio-economic inequalities experienced by the nationalist minority led to clashes between the Unionists 16 NAI, Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) 2000/14/81, Letter from P.Keating to Frank Coffey, 17January 1966. 17 NAI, DFA 2000/14/94, Frank Aiken: Our Brother Enemies; R.O’DWYER, The Golden Jubilee of the 1916 Easter Rising, in: G.DOHERTY— D.KEOGH (eds.), 1916. The Long Revolution, Cork 2007, pp.356–360. 18 Irish Press, 18April 1966. 19 M.KENNEDY, Northern Ireland and cross-border co-operation, in: B.GIRVIN— G. MURPHY (eds.), The Lemass Era. Politics and Society in the Ireland of Seán Lemass, Dublin 2005, pp.99–121. 20 R.SAVAGE, Introducing television in the age of Seán Lemass, in: B.GIRVIN— G. MURPHY (eds.), The Lemass Era. Politics and Society in the Ireland of Seán Lemass, Dublin 2005, pp.205–207 21 Irish Press, 4March 1966. OPEN ACCESS VOJTěCH HALAmA 69 and Nationalists and radicalised communities within the already polarised society. The situation was then exploited by the resurgent republican organisation, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), that claimed tradition going back to the Irish struggle for independence. Aiming for aunited Irish republic envisaged by the 1916 Proclamation, the PIRA could— and did— easily draw from the rich well of Irish revolutionary imagery. The Troubles thus revived the physical force republicanism, bringing back the militant, exclusive revolutionary ideology that Lemass hoped to overcome during the 1960s. Typically for ethno-political conflicts, the situation also created aneed for symbols that would express, deepen, and reinforce the psychocultural interpretations of the belligerents and the communities the Provisional IRA aimed to gain support from. The Irish state was suddenly confronted with its own ideal of “provisional” democracy declared by visionary minority.22 Sharing the same ideological source, the large-scale armed campaign in Northern Ireland forced the Irish establishment to either avoid using this legacy for public representation, or risk being viewed as supportive of sectarian violence. Silence, therefore, had become the chief strategy of the state. Abandoning the annual military parade in 1972, it had avoided any major official involvement in commemorating or discussing the 1916 legacy. Political, and to adegree cultural, memory of the Easter Rising was effectively hijacked by the PIRA radicals, deepening the existing cleavages, and preventing not only aconsensus, but also any multi-voiced discussion. Indeed, the Irish people found themselves in asituation in which they could only, to use Declan Kiberd’s phrase, ‘either throw in their lot with the Provos, or go over to the ranks of anti-nationalist revisionism. There was no room for liberal tolerance or intellectual subtlety in these matters, no middle ground to be occupied.’23 This ‘anti-nationalist revisionism’ represented the other extreme of the spectrum. If the IRA based the legitimacy of its armed struggle on the eschatological interpretation of Irish history, referring to the 800 years of unbroken struggle that would eventually lead to a‘united, Gaelic and free’ Ireland without British presence, revisionism aimed to limit, or even mute, historical significance of Irish nationalism and delegitimise the Easter Rising as anti-democratic.24 The doyen of politically motivated revisionists, Conor Cruise O’Brien, claimed in his seminal work States of Ireland that disagreement with the IRA’s violence was not enough: the whole Irish political culture, based on the irredentionist ‘cult of 1916’, was to be rejected in favour of the more democratic traditions within Irish nationalism.25 Many scholars, nonetheless, simply perceived the topic as off limits. Considering all that, the 1966 Golden Jubilee quickly became aneglected, controversial reference point, an example of what was supposed to be wrong with Irish nationalism, and asubject of blame for the violence in Northern Ireland. Unionists certainly had their objections, both during the conflict and the peace process. In the 22 J.M.REGAN, Myth and the Irish State, Sallins 2014, pp.29–30 23 D.KIBERD, The Elephant of Revolutionary Forgetfulness, in: M.NÍ DHONNCHADHA— T.DORGAN (eds.), Revising the Rising, Derry 1991, pp.9–10. 24 For an overview, see R.PERRY, Revising Irish History: The Northern Ireland Conflict and the War of Ideas, in: Journal of European Studies Vol.40, No.4, 2010, pp.329–354. 25 C.CRUISE O’BRIEN, States of Ireland, London 1974. OPEN ACCESS 70 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2022 early 1990s, David Trimble, the representative of moderate Unionism and aco-laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize for his involvement in negotiating the Good Friday Agreement, has denounced the event as ‘an orgy of self-congratulation’ celebrating the ‘bloodthirsty’ and anti-democratic legacy that obscures Ireland’s British heritage.26 Insurrection, the TV series produced for the occasion, remained locked up in the RTÉ vault for fears that the heroic narrative could be seen as supportive of the sectarian violence in the North. Revisionists in the South like Conor Cruise O’Brien criticised the Jubilee as ‘ayear in which ghosts were bound to walk’,27 and the attitude survived well into the 2010s: just ayear before the centenary, journalist Dennis Kennedy denounced the Golden Jubilee for replacing ‘the long slog of democratic politics’ with ‘the false and terrible beauty of violence’ in the official narrative.28 Indeed, historian Roisín Higgins has asserted that the 50th anniversary ‘has been remembered as amoment of unrestrained triumphalism which fuelled divisions between unionists and nationalists,’ that it had become ‘as mythical and misunderstood as 1916.’29 The supposed triumphalism of the 1966 Golden Jubilee constituted the dominant part of the inhabited cultural and political memory. It was present in political speeches of senior politicians as well as among young students in the early 1990s.30 The 2006 re-introduction of state commemoration revived the personal memories of many of those who were young in the 1960s. Catriona Crowe’s recollection of the Jubilee as ‘the golden age of innocence before anything happened in the North’, deeply impressing her as achild, seems somewhat characteristic of them.31 The 1966 references also occurred during Dáil and Seanad debates on the coming centenary, ranging from dismisses of Lemass’s programme as ‘grotesque, triumphalist celebration’ to more balanced reviews: ‘Were we too triumphant in 1966? We probably were. Was there too much militarism about it? There probably was. [But] we were ayoung and emerging nation in 1966 and we had to show alittle teaspach [Gaelic for ‘exuberance’], which is only natural.’32 There was another reason for why the Golden Jubilee resurfaced as asubject of discussion in the 2000s. Following the opening of the governmental archives in the late 1990s, the topic became asubject of academic research. Perhaps the most prominent piece on the topic resulted from an extensive research project by the Royal Irish Academy: Mary C.Daly’s edited book 1916 in 1966: Commemorating the Easter Rising. Published shortly after the 90th anniversary of the Rising, the book gained remarkable popularity, its launch being attended by the then Taoiseach himself. With the centenary in sight, the book hardly went unnoticed by those who would later be involved in the preparations. 26 D.TRIMBLE, The Easter Rebellion of 1916, Lurgan 1992. 27 C.CRUISE O’BRIEN, States of Ireland, p.143. 28 D.KENNEDY, Casting aCold Eye on 1916 (and 1966), in: History Ireland Vol.23, No.5, 2015, pp.10–11. 29 R.HIGGINS, Transforming 1916, p.1. 30 D.KIBERD, The Elephant of Revolutionary Forgetfulness, pp.2–3. 31 Catriona Crowe (1916 and Me— Full Interview), 21November 2016. Available at https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=AVIwkYZRpRA [Accessed 4April 2023]. 32 Senead Éireann Debate, 223:7, 22May 2013. OPEN ACCESS VOJTěCH HALAmA 71 Roisín Higgins notes that ‘the view of those who were young in 1966 has helped to sustain the idea that the jubilee was an occasion of unthinking nationalism.’33 Indeed, in arevealing interview, Maurice Manning, the head of the Expert Advisory Group for the centenary, claimed that after the 1966 event, which he saw as atriumphalist ceremony owned by Fianna Fáil, he had lost interest in the topic, being uneasy especially with the fact that ‘there was no space in 1966 for people who didn’t belong to the mainstream tradition.’34 The strong leadership of the Expert Advisory Group was indeed followed by the organising committee, as confirmed by John Concannon, the much younger director of the official centennial platform Ireland 2016. It was in opposition to this ‘singular, triumphalist, male, militaristic’ event, he claimed, that the centenary program was prepared.35 The perceived urge for adeparture from the 1966 approach, not only in much broader inclusivity but also in better communication with the public, has been best summed by Senator Ned O’Sullivan in 2013: ‘We may have made mistakes in 1966 and we must learn from them.’36 THE CENTENARY AND ITS POSSIBLE AFTERLIVES Inclusivity, equality, and pluralism became the centrepieces of the centenary commemoration in 2016. Two advisory committees overseeing the commemorations were set up already in 2011 in preparation for the wider ‘Decade of Centenaries’ programme. The first was the Expert Advisory Group on Commemorations, consisting of historians from every major Irish academic institution. It was set up to advise the government ‘on historical matters’ and to ‘consult widely with academic, community and voluntary groups and members of the public to ensure that significant events are commemorated accurately, proportionately and appropriately in tone.’ Its chairperson, historian Maurice Manning, has proclaimed that the group had aduty to prevent the hijacking of the centenary ‘by the government or anyone else’.37 The second advisory group, the All Party Oireachtas Group on Commemorations, brought together representatives of ‘all parties in the Oireachtas as well as independents’, including representatives of Sinn Féin. The group was meeting regularly to ensure that the commemorative events were ‘conducted on anon-partisan, inclusive basis.’38 After the initial controversies, the preparations gathered anew momentum after inclusion of two public figures who became central to the programme: Heather Humphreys, the Monaghan-born Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, and John Concannon, the director of the National Tourism Developed Authority in Ireland. Highly 33 R.HIGGINS, Transforming 1916, p.2. 34 Maurice Manning (1916 and Me— Full Interview), 21November 2016. Available at https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqBppBcChVw [Accessed 27April 2023]. 35 John Concannon (1916 and Me— Full Interview), 21November 2016. Available at https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggfcf_e82IY [Accessed 27April 2023]. 36 Senead Éireann Debate, 223:7, 22May 2013. 37 D.FERRITER, 1916 in 2016: personal reflections of an Irish historian, in: Irish Historical Studies, 42:161, 2018, p.165. 38 Ireland 2016 <https://www.ireland2016.gov.ie/about> [accessed 27April 2023]. OPEN ACCESS 72 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2022 improving the organisational management as well as public relations, their engagement resulted in renewed energies and refocusing of the programme, as revealed by amember of the all-party group.39 The official commemoration in its character aimed at reconciling as many divides on the island as possible. The Expert Advisory Group advised bridging the past cleavages by acknowledging ‘the multiple identities and traditions which are part of the overall story and of the different ideals and sacrifice associated with them’.40 Thus, apart from the Rising and the revolutionary legacy, the programme included recognition of constitutional nationalism, the labour movement, the Irish soldiers fighting in the First World War and other previously side-lined traditions. Moreover, it was accompanied by the official commemoration of the Battle of the Somme, and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and with Britain was also being addressed throughout the year. This approach applied to the current cleavages, responding to the broadening sense of Irish identity. The centenary video Mise Éire // Iam Ireland included statements from Irish citizens with many different backgrounds. ‘Mise Éire’ was proudly pronounced by aginger schoolgirl as well as by Asian immigrants in their shop, by the young and the old, the urban and the rural, men and women, by the immigrants and their children as well as by representatives of the Diaspora.41 ‘Ireland 2016 will belong to everyone on this island and to our friends and families overseas— regardless of political or family background, or personal interpretation of our modern history’ was the mantra repeated in many official statements.42 In this “postmodern” inclusivity, ‘everyone’ referred to each and every individual, avoiding categorisation and rather providing aspace for aunique mosaic of experiences, interests and opinions. This approach was central to many speeches throughout the centenary year. During the Easter Sunday army parade and wreath-laying at the General Post Office, the Army Chaplain Seamus Madigan’s centenary prayer revolved around ‘singing anew song’, different from the troubled past. This was to be ‘asong of compassion, inclusion and engagement, asong of listening, social justice and respect for all, asong of unity, diversity, equality and peace.’43 The President Michael D.Higgins repeatedly called for generosity in embracing ‘the multitude of stories that comprise our past, in all their bewildering contradictions and differences,’ and that next to the leaders of the Rising, others are too worth the remembering, ‘all those who suffered, so many who were too poor, too marginalised and too disenfranchised to be heard.’44 While commemoration of the revolutionary elites continued, the centenary became extensively focused on the lived experience of communities, 39 Mark Daly (1916 and Me— Full Interview), 21November 2016 <https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=_fV09v8GIdw> [accessed 27April 2023]. 40 IRELAND 2016, Centenary Programme, 2015, pp.62–64. 41 Ireland 2016 // Éire 2016— Official Channel, Mise Éire // Iam Ireland, 2015 <https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=-xgodcJQAdM&t> [accessed 27April 2023]. 42 IRELAND 2016, Centenary Programme, p.8. 43 IRELAND 2016, Easter Sunday Commemoration 2016, 27.03.16, pp.5–6. 44 M.D.HIGGINS, ASpecial Message from President Michael D Higgins, in: Centenary Programme Guide, Irish Independent, 5.3.2016, p.2. OPEN ACCESS