Honouring Ireland’s Fallen
This year marks the 91st anniversary of the 1916 Easter Rising, an event commemorated by republicans throughout Ireland by the wearing of the Easter Lily. There will be numerous commemorations across the country to mark the event. The speeches accompanying the numerous commemorations are likely to include reference to the new political dispensation that is now upon us, where all significant strands of unionism and nationalism/ republicanism on the island are prepared to enter new political relationships which can only lead to an enhanced appreciation and understanding of opinions on all sides.
For republicans, Easter has a particular resonance, a time for remembering those who have died in pursuit of the cause of Irish freedom and reunification. Easter 2007 is an exciting time for republicanism; with Sinn Fein receiving the party’s strongest ever electoral mandate in the six counties a matter of weeks ago, the party looks ahead to fresh elections in the 26 counties in a matter of weeks, with the prospect of further expanding the electoral appeal of republicanism throughout the island.
At this point, I would like to acknowledge those from outside the nationalist/ republican tradition whose attitudes towards the Easter commemorative period range from indifference to outright hostility.
Republicans have a duty to develop a further understanding of the perceptions and attitudes of unionism- as do unionists in relation to the perceptions and attitudes of republicanism. I believe that republicans have begun to make a concerted effort to do so in recent years in relation to unionist attitudes towards the commemoration of those who have fought and died for a British cause- be it in Ireland through membership of one of the many British military regiments or the RUC, or abroad through involvement in one of Britain’s wars- most notably, of course, the two World Wars.
Whilst many steps have been taken in the past decade by Irish nationalists to show a shared acknowledgement of the sacrifice of Irishmen involved in the two World Wars, it will obviously prove more difficult for republicans/ nationalists to acknowledge the entitlement of unionists to remember those whose service to Britain involved furthering the maintenance of British rule in Ireland.
It will be foolish to expect unionist attendance at Easter commemorations this week- just as it would to expect republicans to similarly attend commemorations to Britain’s war dead- but we should be moving towards a phase in which mutual respect is afforded each community to remember their fallen in an era where all sides are seemingly determined that no names be added to the long lists of those already perished.
Aaron McDaid -
“Some of the people most disgusted by the likes of the Kingsmill massacre for example will be the most active republicans in the IRA or Sinn Féin.”
Two examples would seem to give the lie to this.
The Bayardo Bar massacre in August 1975. IRA terrorists murdered five Protestants in a sectarian attack at a pub. They bombed the bar and machine-gunned the survivors – even gunning down three women waiting at a nearby bus stop. The gunman in question, Brendan ‘Bik’ McFarlane, was convicted of the murders and went on to become ‘OC’ of the IRA prisoners in the Maze during the hungers strike of 1981. He later, along with Gerry Kelly, escaped from the Maze. He remains a close associate of the republican leadership. Where is the rejection of sectarian mass murder there?
The atrocities of the Balcombe Street gang in 1974-75. They carried out the mass murder of innocent people, for no other reason than that they were British, bombing hotels, restuarants and clubs. They threw bombs, loaded with ball-bearings to cause maximum death and mutilation to civilians, though the windows of crowded restaurants in London. When freed to attend the Sinn Fein special ard fheis in 1998, they were welcomed on stage and literally embraced by the SF leadership, given a standing ovation by the delegates, and lauded by Gerry Adams as “our Nelson Mandelas”.
Doesn’t sound like much rejection of mass murder of people because of either their religion or their nationality there.
Aaron
“am I not entitled to similarly be selective in which violence I support? ”
Why though pretend the IRA wasn’t unapologietically carrying out murders of people simply because of their religion, nationality, political opinion, or job?
Also, no matter how much you like to talk about ‘military action’ or ‘defending’, the fact remains that even leaving aside the many civilian deaths, the IRA’s murders of soldiers and policemen very often involved stalking someone home from their day job and shooting them in the back of the head, breaking into their home and gunning them down in front of their families, or sneaking into their driveway and planting a bomb under their car. Not ‘fighting’ at all – cold-blooded, cowardly murder.
Mike,
[i]“our Nelson Mandelasâ€.
Doesn’t sound like much rejection of mass murder of people because of either their religion or their nationality there.[/i]
Interesting. One of the first ANC released from prison in South Africa was Mark MacBride, great grandson of Sean MacBride. He was imprisoned for bombing buildings (with civilians in it).
You need to get out and about a bit more if you think the “Nelson Mandelas” of this world were shy or reticent when it came to inflicting civilian casualties “simply because of their religion, nationality, political opinion” or colour.
Roisin,
In picking up on one tiny detail, and misinterpreting it, while ignoring the substance of my post, you completely miss the point of it.
Please re-read it and try again.
Mike,
I don’t believe that the PIRA were a perfect example of republicanism. Far from it. If anything, I support republicanism precisely because it’s the only way to protect us all from the sectarianism of the NI state for example and parts of the IRA.
You rightly point out that SF doesn’t do enough to distance itself from some of the disgraceful acts of people associated with republicanism. But then I never described myself as a PSFer, just as a republican. The ‘Old’ IRA et cetera did well to remain very disciplined in the face of the blatant civilian-directed terrorism of the likes of the Black and Tans (set up under Churchill, who was SoS for War at the time).
So by all means attack PSF and the PIRA, I’ll probably agree with you a lot. But that doesn’t count as an argument against physical force republicanism past or present. I would vote SF because they are the least worst option – I used to support the UK Tories even though they weren’t ashamed of Churchill’s terrorism in Ireland (and Dresden?). Voting is a terrible thing, parties who have any history of government usually have some blood on their hands!
If anything, the fact that the PIRA was supported by many people despite its obvious problems just tells us how terrible the alternative was. The powers that be succesfully orchestrated a civil war, which meant a united Ireland free from Britain was more important than ever while maybe also being more difficult to achieve.
PS: I’m not trying to imply I am anti-ceasefire.
PPS: I have sometimes considered joining SF, partly to do my part to tackle sectarianism inside and outside republican communities.
JEB,
No, I got your point the first time round. It’s essentially a racist one. The ‘democratic’ ‘civilised’ ‘free world’ repudiated the IRA. But by the same token you want to express, as a member of that ‘democratic’ ‘civilised’ ‘free world’, your support for the ANC and Nelson Mandela, because it wouldn’t be ‘cool’ to do otherwise, so you give Mandela a “pass” (probably without even realising the punning value of that).
Oops, my bad. That was JEB, not Mike, but you both are on the same page and seem so alike anyway.
Aaron,
[i]The ‘Old’ IRA et cetera did well to remain very disciplined in the face of the blatant civilian-directed terrorism of the likes of the Black and Tans (set up under Churchill, who was SoS for War at the time).[/i]
Tom Barry in West Cork didn’t hesitate to kill loyalists they suspected of assisting the British Crown Forces.
The “Old IRA” essentially fought in friendly territory. The Provisional IRA essentially operated behind enemy lines, against the backdrop of a hostile, pro-British population intent on sectarian bloodshed.
I mentioned Sean MacBride earlier in relation to his great grandson having been a member of, and having fought for, the ANC. When interviewed by British television about the IRA’s campaign, Sean MacBride stated that he had no criticism to make, as he said the IRA in the north were faced with challenges that the Old IRA in the south never had to face. Tom Barry never had any criticism either.
Roisin,
I think anybody that helps the opposing forces is no longer a civilian, at least in the sense of being illegitimate targets.
I feel obliged to point out that many of the regimes supposedly supportive of Provisional violence were in fact opposed to it, and were in fact in fraternal relations with parties opposed to it. This includes especially the DPRK. This attempt to link what happened here to wider struggles of anti-imerpialism and socialism is laughable, whether it comes from unionists or nationalists.
Squalid, nationalistic, and often sectarian, terrorist campaigns fought by both sides.
Garibaldy,
I feel obliged to point out once again that your insight it is really fascinating.
Roisin -
“No, I got your point the first time round.”
No, you didn’t. You completely ignored my point that the Provisional republican movement’s political leadership publicly celebrated those that had murdered innocent people because of their nationality. You chose to ignore this and try to get into a debate about the comparison between Nelson Mandela and the Balcombe Street gang. My point was about the celebration, not the comparison. If you want to discuss the comparison, though, read on.
“It’s essentially a racist one.”
I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to explain this leap of the imagination. Because from where I’m sitting it’s just garbage. Where was my “racist” point?
“The ‘democratic’ ‘civilised’ ‘free world’ repudiated the IRA. But by the same token you want to express, as a member of that ‘democratic’ ‘civilised’ ‘free world’, your support for the ANC and Nelson Mandela, because it wouldn’t be ‘cool’ to do otherwise, so you give Mandela a “pass†(probably without even realising the punning value of that).”
Wrong. As I say, I was commenting on the celebration of mass murderers, not the Mandela comparison. And by the way you don’t know my views of Mandela, whether I view his actions as unjustifiable, or excusable, or whatever.
Now if you want me to discuss my opinion on Mandela and a comparison with IRA gangs like the Balcombe Street gang, I can do that – and it will be the first time on the thread I have done so.
Nelson Mandela, like every other black (and Asian and mixed-race) person in South Africa, had no vote. All people barring the white minority were disenfranchised and legally inferior. Mandela had no recourse to the ballot box – and his essential demand was simply that all adults have the vote. (And even then, I’m far from saying all ANC/MK actions were justified)
In Northern Ireland, all adults had the vote. The IRA aimed to take NI by force out of the UK and into an Irish republic – the route to do this through the ballot box was clear. They could not amass enough electoral support to pursue this aim through the ballot box and instead tried to do it through violence.
Mandela – a man, like the rest of his people, the majority in South Africa, denied access to the ballot box because he was African. The Balcombe Street gang – not denied access to the ballot box, and not even from Northern Ireland – one was from Scotland, and the others were from the Republic of Ireland. Men from Scotland and from the Republic of Ireland, who didn’t have the vote in Northern Ireland for the sole reason that they didn’t live there, murdering people in England to try to force Northern Ireland into an Irish republic.
And that’s without discussion of ‘tactics’ – would Mandela stand up and support throwing bombs loaded with ball-bearings into crowded restaurants?
Mike,
Are you saying Mandela wouldn’t? You’re an expert in African warfare and tactics? Do you or hasnotaGaribaldynotion there know anyone who fought in any of the conflicts you or s/he has mentioned? If not, I’d like to suggest you visit some of those countries and talk to the people who fought in the conflicts there. Try not to cry when they all point and laugh at you.
Roisin,
I know quite a few people from these areas, who were involved in many different forms of struggle. Precisely because my republicanism is internationalist, I forge links with and co-operate with people seeking revolutionary change in societies across the planet. Unlike some people I could mention, none of them are welcome at the White House, nor do they take people like Jesse Helms on personally guided tours of the areas they represent in parliament.
Roisin,
If you’re not able to address the substance of my post, yet again, and instead seize on one point at the end (and yet again, get that wrong – here’s a clue, it was a question), then it’s going to be very difficult to have an adult discussion with you.
Once again, I say to you – Please re-read it and try again.
At least have the common courtesy to explain yourself over accusing me of being racist.
I already did. I mistook you for JEB.
[i]Oops, my bad. That was JEB, not Mike, but you both are on the same page and seem so alike anyway.[/i]
Your post doesn’t have much substance, lots of words, but not that much substance. The IRA at times engaged in sectarian killing and targetted civilians. They also targetted ‘soft’ targets in the so-called security forces. That it? Yeah, they did. Anything I’ve missed?
Garibaldy,
If that includes people who actually fought and killed (are you avoiding a direct answer to the question?) then you would know how dirty those conflicts were, and how your handwringing over the IRA’s relatively tame/soft campaign vis-a-vis civilians and sectarian killing would have them looking at you like you were a space cadet.
Not avoiding a direct answer at all. I’ve met people from organisations that had been engaged in armed struggle. None of them ever argued that killing people for their religion was an appropriate thing to do.
Did they argue killing them because they belonged to a different tribe wasn’t appropriate? How about Muslim versus Christian in Africa?
AARON
By supporting some armed conflicts somewhere in the world at some point in time you have accepted that, in principle at least, military action is often the only way to protect basic human rights.
Obviously.
Then we are left with the subjective discussion over which particular struggles, and tactics therein, were necessary and justified.
Wrong. We aren’t left with a subjective discussion because we can engage in objective discussion. Clearly you shy away from objectivity because you know that the PIRA campaign, objectively, cannot be justified.
I’m not expecting to change your
mind, instead I simply want to remind everyone that it isn’t sufficient to simply say “republicans used military force, therefore they are all wrongâ€. At the very least, there are a number of steps missing in the chain of logic. Maybe there are a good comprehensive set of arguments against physical-force republicanism and/or Sinn Féin, but it’s not often I hear people attempt to explain them.
Er, the arguments are simple and obvious to anyone who is tuned into the ethical norms of western society: you don’t purport to represent people without a mandate, and certainly not to use violence on their behalf; you don’t use violence when peaceful means of are available; you don’t use violence to overturn the will of the people; you don’t use violence disproportionate to the ends being sought; you don’t use violence without just cause. Need I go on?
Unionists are just as quick as anyone else to believe in justified extra-legal military action. Are they going to tell the US their independence was not justified? Or that Parliament should be inferior to the monarch again?
Why on earth would they do that??
The UK’s constitution, just like many other countries, was forged through violence and in many ways is better for it.
The fact that the Civil War took place in England in the 17th century is not a justification for the PIRA murder campaign!
The British Army maimed more innocent people in Dresden in WW2 than have been maimed by republicans throughout Irish history.
The Dresden bombings do not justify the PIRA murder campaign! You really are clutching at straws.
Does that mean the Allied cause in WW2 was wrong? No. Also, the Dresden bombings are particularly controversial as it seems to have been a blatant form of terrorism against civilians. Even if it was deemed a war crime by a court, would that mean the Allied case was wrong? No. British civilians have a right to defend themselves from Nazism, in uniform or out of it, even if some of their countrymen disgrace themselves in uniform.
Correct. And equally, any illegal or wrongful deeds by the Army in NI does not mean that the Army’s role as a whole was illegitimate.
Similarly, the right of people in Ireland (or Britain for that matter) to defend themselves where necessary and justified is undeniable even if some Irish people disgrace themselves.
No-one has claimed otherwise. But the right of people to self-defence cannot be inflated to justify a 30-year murder campaign.
If many unionists supported the British Army but not loyalists, am I not entitled to similarly be selective in which violence I support?
No. You should be consistent in supporting only that violence which can absolutely be justified, and condemning all violence that is not justified.
I should have also added that the RoI has greatly improved in many ways recently. I’m guessing you probably agree. As has NI for that matter. So there probably isn’t much need to change either that much to enable the creation of the 32 county republic.
So your claims about “republicans” not wanting an expanded Free State were just a lot of meaningless talk.
AARON
For the THIRD time I’ll ask my question. Maybe this time you’ll answer?
Why would people who were “genuine about equality and civil rights†engage in slaughter? How does murdering someone, maiming someone, destroying their business or their home, advance their civil rights?
Roisin
———————–
Your post doesn’t have much substance, lots of words, but not that much substance. The IRA at times engaged in sectarian killing and targetted civilians. They also targetted ‘soft’ targets in the so-called security forces. That it? Yeah, they did. Anything I’ve missed?
———————–
So we agree on that then. The IRA was a murder gang carrying out a terrorist campaign in which they committed mass murder based on, among other things, religion, nationality, political opinion and employment.
You appear to have the wierd idea that by pointing out that because some Africans also carry out such atrocities, this somehow makes them more legitimate. Bizarre.
Now was it that difficult to address the substance of my post?
Like willowfield, I’m going to ask a question for the third time – what was the “racist” point I was making?
The war between three nations please.
“So your claims about “republicans†not wanting an expanded Free State were just a lot of meaningless talk.”
It would be a bit difficult to expand the Free State.