“On the cusp of a bright shiny new future for Northern Ireland..”
One of the dangers of adopting the manner of a “well-behaved witness” is, as Davy Adams identified in the Irish Times today, that false, or partial, narratives may go unchallenged. [subs req]
But it is the building of separate, partial histories by the two traditional tribes in Ireland that causes the real damage. Each tends towards a one-eyed view of the past that sees only the positive on one side and the negative on the other, and ignores the bits that do not suit particular prejudices. It is up to us whether this is indeed a bright new dawn or merely an interlude that is used to build up trouble for the future. If it is to be the former, then we need to dispense with our tendency towards monochrome history and deal honestly and openly with the past.
He gives an example of one of the narratives he has in mind
Thanks to a concerted attempt by various commentators and “historians” to rewrite history, many young people believe that the Provisional IRA’s campaign was driven primarily, if not exclusively, by the lofty aim of winning basic civil rights for the Catholic population in Northern Ireland.
According to this new narrative, only when those rights had been secured did the IRA feel able to end its violence. Neatly avoided is any explanation why, if that was indeed the case, the IRA did not cease its activities in 1974.
By then the old Stormont regime had been closed down and virtually every demand of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association had been met, yet the IRA campaign continued for another 20-odd years.
The truth is the IRA used the wholly legitimate grievances of Northern Catholics as an excuse to embark on a violent campaign aimed at forcing Northern Ireland into a 32-county unitary state against the democratically expressed wishes of a majority of its people.
The IRA’s campaign ended, not because it had achieved its primary goal but, rather, because it had signally failed to do so. Moreover, the violence had in fact become counter-productive.
Republican talk of an “equality agenda” only came very late in the day – long after it had been delivered by the SDLP – when, in order to get off the hook of conflict, it was decided to replace an unachievable objective with one that had already been secured. A carefully cultivated political mandate gave most republican activists a welcome exit route from a hopeless, self-perpetuating struggle that was going nowhere.
And on the temptation to be a well-behaved witness..
On the cusp of a bright shiny new future for Northern Ireland, the temptation is to ignore the revisionists and spare oneself the bother and the boredom of having to trample back and forth over old ground.
Except in the new historical narrative where republicans are idealistic battlers for the rights of the oppressed, unionists are conveniently cast as the villains of the piece and, for the most part, authors of their own misfortune.
The inference is that the conflict lasted only as long as unionists resisted delivering on an “equality agenda”. This sidesteps the fact that from the time Stormont was closed in 1972 the unionists were powerless to deliver on anything. Any true account of the Troubles could only determine that unionism was far from blameless, particularly in regard to anti-Catholic discrimination.
But it was how unionists voted, not how they acted, that provoked the ire of physical force republicanism. Most of us in Ireland, whether Northerner or Southerner and irrespective of religious or political affiliation, are past masters at presenting “history” not as it was but as we would like it to have been. We are adept at the expunging of retrospective “non-conformists” from the tribal pantheon.
In this way, the Presbyterians of the United Irishmen have been almost completely erased from the collective memory of Northern Protestants because their beliefs and actions do not fit with contemporary political opinion.
But it is the building of separate, partial histories by the two traditional tribes in Ireland that causes the real damage. Each tends towards a one-eyed view of the past that sees only the positive on one side and the negative on the other, and ignores the bits that do not suit particular prejudices. It is up to us whether this is indeed a bright new dawn or merely an interlude that is used to build up trouble for the future. If it is to be the former, then we need to dispense with our tendency towards monochrome history and deal honestly and openly with the past.
What a load of nonsense. No one claims the IRA armed campaign was about civil rights. No one claims it was ended as rights were achieved.
It was about ending British rule in Ireland and it was abandoned in favour of political methods of achieving that aim.
The only revisionism demonstrated in the article is his own. Civil rights issues were a symptom of the problem, the reduction of those abuses with other majorbmoves made a political path towards unity appear open and it was siezed.
SS
Any more “spastic” jokes?
BP
Can we keep to the topic of this post, please?
“What a load of nonsense. No one claims the IRA armed campaign was about civil rights. No one claims it was ended as rights were achieved. ”
I agree. My parents and their friends are mostly SDLP types, my siblings and their friends are mostly SF voters. I’ve never heard this claim made by any of them. They would probably universally agree on the aims of the IRA – a 32 county republic free of British interference.
That’s not to say they’d all agree with the means that the IRA resorted to, to achieve that end – in fact the vast majority of them would not. Myself included.
Anyway, perhaps the most important civil right, the right to national self-determination has forever been stripped from the Irish people.
We’ll just have to deal with that and beat them at their own game i.e. out vote them in their own phoney state.
Sorry, only the one. Not being a MENSA member I’m not clever enough to create another one. (now clear off and troll some one that gives a feck)
I do think that Davy’s points about wanting to bring both sides of the community together, so that we do move on to a better brighter future are spot on.
Pete,
Sorry.
SS
Never prejudge..you’ve just showed yourself up.
Pete
Your post in itself is ample proof that each side sees it own differently
You cast a very jaundiced on on the IRA
While wholey ignoring the Loyalist crimes and casting them as hapless victims
While disagreeing with a large chunk of the piece which is using an unfounded and wrong anti-Republican example as the core of an argument, I do think the points of differing histories are valid.
I obtained my school history in the Catholic maintained sector and even there modern history stopped at 1916 for Ireland while continuing up to and beyond WWII for the rest of the world. Recently another contributor informed me that major events in Irish history like the flight of the Earls werren’t taught at his school.
A factual presentation of all Irish history including modern history from a purely factual position should be key to all education.
Sean
It is quite reasonable to say the IRA caused outrageous and unnecessary suffering for no purpose whatsoever. That is simply the case. You don’t have to keep cross-referencing Loyalists when you do so.
Your post says a lot more about one-sided attitudes than Pete’s does.
IJP,
That simply isn’t the case. There was a very clear and continually articulated purpose to IRA armed struggle.
Your post is demonstrating the application of spin to historical fact also.
Anyone going to join me in my attempt to discuss the actual article and issues raised?
Maybe my memory is faulty, but I recall that the revisionism that Davy Adams decries was also espoused by people unsympathetic to republicans, who claimed that the IRA’s stated goal of a united Ireland was simply a pose, and that in reality the IRA were at best “Catholic defenders” and at worst simply sectarian murderers and gangsters. In what’s quoted of the article (I don’t have access to the whole piece) Adams seems to be absolving the IRA of the charge of insincerity and instead accusing it of incompetence.
There’s an interesting common project going on in France and Germany at the minute, were their joint *history* between 1918-1939 is being analysed by historians from both countries and they are attempting to reach some kind of common
consensus.
There is no reason why something similar couldn’t be attempted in NI, the key though is how much do you want to compromise your view of history- for the average German or French student, there isn’t
the same fear of losing their *identity* if too much is *given* towards the other side, Alsac-Lorraine or Strasbourg will be staying French whatever interpretation of joint history is finally arrived at.
This is a turning into a wonderful example of the separate history and partiality that is central to the piece.
By using an inaccurate example about the IRA as the core example discussion turns to ‘those bloody Republicans’ from across the political spectrum with no attempt to address the central point that is directed at all.
BP,
Interesting point but very few of us get our history from academia.
For me, before reading myself into topics of interest I received most history at school, a little at home and a good bit from television.
I’d be interested to hear how modern Irish history is currently taught in schools.
In my youth the Catholic sector seemed to ignore much of modern Irish history – I think this may have been for fear it could ‘Republicanise’ young minds.
At ‘O’ level the exams had a distinctly British focus over Irish history despite both being intertwined on this Island.
Does this continue? Is modern Irish history over-looked for possible political reasons (hopefully outdated but always illegitimate reasons) in the education sector? Or is a more mature depoliticised presentation of history now the norm in the curriculum?
(I know you may not have the answers but I’m sure sluggers has a history teacher or two out there)
Historical viewpoint is driven by ideology which simply filters the facts to suit. There is no chance of historical unity as long as the ideologies of unionism and nationalism are stil battling for supremacy. Neither community will give up one of their main weapons for recruitment and justification.
I was fortunate to have a bit of maverick history teacher who constantly challenged our preconceptions about our own background and history.
Generally though within the state sector, I think teachers tended to play safe, concentrating on what was needed to get you through the various examinations, shying away from anything that might provoke more questions or debate. But I think that’s more a fault of the teaching system rather than any inherent bias, teachers simply don’t have the time or motivation to push their students out of the comfort zone and this is as true in the area of literature as it is in history.
My history teacher was a well known Republican. He taught us the cirriculum we needed to pass our exam. It had a massive focus on British history alongside broader world history. IIRC that huge chunk of shared history for both British and Irish pre-partition was largely ignored by the local examination board favouring things that were mostly England based.
The Irish history element was given prior to starting the exam based teaching in 3rd form and even then the school seemed to ignore anything getting close to modern Irish histroy north or south.
Instead of the Franco/German discussion on how it should be taught, I’m more interested to know if it is being taught.
SS – ‘There was a very clear and continually articulated purpose to IRA armed struggle.’
Yea, changed every few years, and then got thrown in the bin, but at the time it was clear and articulate.
Gerry Adams has already made several attempts to portray himself, wrongly, as a key member of the Civil Rights Association.
SSR,
Provide a link or a reference to back that up and you won’t be guilty of what the article writes about – revisionism (I prefer to call it telling lies).
[i]“Thanks to a concerted attempt by various commentators and “historians†to rewrite history, many young people believe that the Provisional IRA’s campaign was driven primarily, if not exclusively, by the lofty aim of winning basic civil rights for the Catholic population in Northern Ireland.
According to this new narrative, only when those rights had been secured did the IRA feel able to end its violence. Neatly avoided is any explanation why, if that was indeed the case, the IRA did not cease its activities in 1974.
By then the old Stormont regime had been closed down and virtually every demand of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association had been met, yet the IRA campaign continued for another 20-odd years.
The truth is the IRA used the wholly legitimate grievances of Northern Catholics as an excuse to embark on a violent campaign aimed at forcing Northern Ireland into a 32-county unitary state against the democratically expressed wishes of a majority of its people.” – Davy Adams[/i]
I don’t think anyone of sound mind sees PIRA as a bunch of Martin Luther King clones with M16s – the alleged aim precludes the preferred methods. But Davy Adams is correct to say that a civil rights spin is being put on a campaign that was marked by dismal failure and appalling abuses of the human and civil rights of others by PSF/PIRA. I wish he’d name and shame those is referring to, as I don’t see anyone doing it except PSF and their apologists and promotionists. PSF/PIRA need to tell those dumb enough to vote for them that they actually achieved something for them other than 40 years of poverty and misery and a strengthening of the position of Northern Ireland within the UK.
I think he is wrong to see reunification as being the aim of PIRA and its sponsors. Some republicans undoubtedly had that aim and seized upon the civil strife to effect a violent campaign (along with a barrage of crackpot Marxist agitators, assorted ne’er-do-wells, and violent sociopaths who saw an opportunity to empower themselves), but very few of PIRA’s supporters shared it. PIRA, essentially, was a militant nationalist protest movement; a means of releasing pent-up cathartic hatred of the unionists and the British; an expression of defiance; a quasi-vigilant organisation; a self-sustaining cult of martyrdom, oppression and mythology, and a means by which the sociopaths who orchestrated the violence could achieve social status and political power – lots of complex dynamics interplaying. For nationalists, calling the violence ‘republican’ meant that they didn’t have to face up to their own deep-rooted sectarianism as manifested in PIRA. Only by that pretence (and that ‘respectability’) could they continue to pass themselves off as oppressed victims rather than violent sectarian oppressors and people who were engaged in a campaign of the denial of civil and human rights to the people on the other side of the sectarian divide. The most convincing lies are always told by people who have convinced themselves of the ‘truth’ of the lie before telling it to others.
Self-determination was a key part of their mythology. Self-determination is not the same thing as independence – even the Easter Proclamation accepted that. And national self-determination was already achieved by the Irish, who nationally determined that they would accept a 26-county settlement and seeking the other 6 counties by agreement with either the Unionists or the British government by political and not violent means. Ireland achieved self-determination but did not declare full independence until 1949. The people of the north achieved self-determination at the same point in history as the people of the south, so nationalists always had self-determination.
In 1922, the Unionists already had the Principle of Consent – they opted out of unity then but could have opted back in up until 1949 (i.e. the decision wasn’t the British government’s). Essentially, we’re back with the same deal. And just as back then, the same reason for partition applies: to keep the genie of civil war and ethnic cleansing in its bottle. All PSF/PIRA could have achieved was what was avoided in 1922 – bringing that genie of civil war and ethnic cleansing back out of its bottle. So, even if PSF/PIRA were successful in forcing British withdrawal (and they didn’t have a hope in hell), all they would have actually achieved by their demented campaign was a sectarian bloodbath and a place in historical infamy.
Just as they couldn’t force British withdrawal, neither could the deranged sociopaths force the north to be integrated with the south. So, in terms of plan, what plan? A man might call himself Casanova and bragg of being a great lover of women, but if all he has ever done is fuck pigs in a sty, then others will right call him a pig-fucker and not what he calls himself. So it is with PSF/PIRA.
Soupy:
There was a very clear and continually articulated purpose to IRA armed struggle.
Run that past me again. Complete in your own words “The Enniskillen bomb was detonated because ..”. I’m awaiting your reply, but, fortunately, not with baited breath, lest I may breathe my last.
SRR:
Gerry Adams has already made several attempts to portray himself, wrongly, as a key member of the Civil Rights Association.
Quite correct.
Soupy, you may want to read Mark Davenport’s book on Gerry Adams. He observes Gerry Adams writing in a very different way about the same events in his earlier book “The Politics of Irish Freedom” (now out of print) and “Before the Dawn”. I haven’t yet been able to obtain a copy of “The Politics of Irish Freedom”, it’s a great shame that Adams doesn’t see fit to continue publishing his earlier literary works, I wonder why.
Sean
It is quite reasonable to say the IRA caused outrageous and unnecessary suffering for no purpose whatsoever. That is simply the case. You don’t have to keep cross-referencing Loyalists when you do so.
Your post says a lot more about one-sided attitudes than Pete’s does.
It is quite reasonable to say the IRA caused outrageous and unnecesary suffering, what is not reasonable is to not say that the unionists caused outrageous and unnecesary suffering as well
Regarding the subject of the article, Davy Adams writes a respectable and thought-provoking article. I wish all unionists took this perspective, we might move further on a lot faster.
Republicans criticizing this article appear to lack the critical faculty of introspection. Adams, throughout his article, openly concedes that unionists did a bad job, and he concedes that this fuelled the conflict. When are republicans going to accept that they fuelled, rather than merely responded to, the problems that were faced ? Going by the responses in this thread, it seems they are not yet ready to grasp the true spirit of reconciliation.
CS,
I have those books. Direct me to the page where Adams claims he was a key figure in the CRM. Cheers.
I’m sure others have the books too and can read themselves.
Which page?
SuperSoupy,
My experience of the history I was taught at Catholic school was similar. Home Rule, 1916 and Partition were covered, very briefly, and then it was onwards with the Liberal reforms, the Bolsheviks, the rise of Fascism in Europe, and so on.
The only thing of significance was that our class asked for more and the teacher said that’s all that was on the syllabus.
English literature was treated the same way. Completely English-centric, with the only exception being Singe’s Playboy of the Western World.
Roisin,
I can only remember one Irish literature element during my entire school days – Juno and the Paycock but I enjoyed the additional but not taught The Plough and Stars at the back of the school copy much more. We got a minimum of a Shakespeare a year and a shit load of WWI war poetry. Heaney, no chance – comparing English war poets 6 months worth.
Souper,
Same thing. Not a single Irish poet, not even Yeats. Months spent comparing Owen, Auden and Kipling. Shakespeare every year, Dickens, the Bronte sisters. I used English class to catch up on my sleep. Put me off reading for years.
Roisin,
As I asked before, I wonder if it is still the case.
D Adams above is questioning ‘partial’ history.
It seems that the Catholic experience of history and literature was/is(?) weighted towards Anglophile attitudes our in schools.
No proof of Nationalist spin in the piece though it presents a very questionable anti-Republican example. Maybe Davey doesn’t realise how the cirriculum works?
Also:
Suffrajets, part of the history cirriculum.
Constance Markiewicz, never heard of her.
As part of Irish class in first form we were asked to do a project on Irish names. I went to the main library to look for books, and not able to find any asked for help from the librarian. The looks I got from these two women were something else. First they looked at me like I’d just gotten off a spacecraft, and after one of them showed me to the Irish section, all of about half a dozen books, they took it in turns to walk past my aisle giving me dirty looks. I’m sure the shelves in the Irish section are bursting now.
There was nothing useful there, but in searching for books of older relatives I managed to get hold of a little book called Two Centuries of Irish History, published in 1906 and edited by Tim Healy. I’ve since lost my copy, which I regret as it’s out of print and very difficult to get hold of, usually only kept in reference sections of large libraries. It’s a collection of essays, from about 1690 to 1890, stuff on the Whiteboys, Peep O’ Day Boys, Defenders, Orange, League of Teagues, AOH, Fenians, Famine, even Boycott. There’s an interesting story about an English landlord who kept hunting dogs half-starved. As well he had a pet gorilla that he allowed to freely roam that used to hang off the ledges and piss on the dogs below. One night the gorilla fell from a ledge and the dogs tore it to pieces.
I’m sorry Pete I’m a little confused.
Are you presenting this article as an example of the very malaise it purports to diagnose?
If so, interesting tactic, but a little too cryptic for my tastes.
However, if this post is to be taken at face value then I must say it’s a little disappointing.
The article you cite quite rightly brings up the subject of the republican spin machine trying to associate any arguable justification of militant republicanism under Stormont with the subsequent twenty years of pointless depressing utter folly under direct rule.
The supposedly balanced piece ends up wandering into unionism’s need to get in touch with its Inner Tone.
That’s not one eyed it’s cross eyed.
It discusses a very real spin situation and then completely undermines the very premise it’s trying to advance by wandering off on an historical tangent to nowhere.
How about seriously coupling collective republican amnesia re post-Fall of Stormont with collective unionist amnesia re pre-Fall of Stormont?
And as for “far from blameless,†that sort of ultra minimalism is as myopic as the “Every Provo ever honourable and true†business emanating elsewhere.
Honestly Pete if you aren’t being ironic you’ve picked a howler.
It would be unfortunate if your posts degenerated into something like the inane PR machine fodder coming from other elements.
Wilde Rover
I think you are being a little too harsh. In my reading of the whole article it appears Adams is concerned with how we all treat history and mould it to suit ourselves and the damage this can cause in a society of competing loyalties. Laid out below is his pointing to two examples of where, even within the tribes, historical events have been dumped as though they didn’t happen. This is legitimate comment. I think he is saying that we should at least recognise these things as having happened.
But he makes clear it is the separate partial histories that concern him. One such history, or myth, is being constructed as we speak so his overall point is timely and well made.
“We are adept at the expunging of retrospective “non-conformists” from the tribal pantheon.
In this way, the Presbyterians of the United Irishmen have been almost completely erased from the collective memory of Northern Protestants because their beliefs and actions do not fit with contemporary political opinion.
Likewise, until very recently in the Republic, the bravery and sacrifice of many thousands of Southern Irishmen in two World Wars was considered an embarrassment.
But it is the building of separate, partial histories by the two traditional tribes in Ireland that causes the real damage.”
Sean
“It is quite reasonable to say the IRA caused outrageous and unnecesary suffering, what is not reasonable is to not say that the unionists caused outrageous and unnecesary suffering as well”
Some unionists caused outrageous and unnecessary suffering. Most unionists, as with most nationalists, did not. It is wrong to apportion blame to people for violent acts they disagreed with just because those who did them shared their view on the border. I would not dream of saying that everyone who disagrees with vivisection is guilty for the bombings of the ALF.
SuperSoupy
Given your response to my post, care to actually answer Comrade‘s question?
That’s what the article is all about, btw.
The Provos did the most killing – as they were fighting a war and aiming to change the status quo – then you might expect that. Some of their choice of targets during the war had a distinctly unwar like flavour. For instance shooting off duty policemen in front of their families when there were plenty of on duty British soldiers avialble if you wanted to do the war thing properly. Whatever loyalists or British Army etc did is that is a separate matter – Republican should account and explain THEIR actions. I assume there must a high level of discomfort for Republicans in what went on and this should be expressed rather than simply saying “the other side was worse”.
Flyer
Some unionists caused outrageous and unnecessary suffering. Most unionists, as with most nationalists, did not. It is wrong to apportion blame to people for violent acts they disagreed with just because those who did them shared their view on the border. I would not dream of saying that everyone who disagrees with vivisection is guilty for the bombings of the ALF.
Then why are all nationalists and especially all SFers branded as terrorists in the unionist community. The premise I think you are putting across is that people can support an ideal with out being attached to the outrages of other fellow supporters? Then why in your community is there a continual haranguing of SF as terrorists.
Kokane
War has moved on from the time when 2 armies stood across from each other in colourfull uniforms and shot,stabbed or slashed their enemy into submision. The IRA was only able to run a guerilla war because their numbersa were relatively small and guerilla war is the ugliest kind of war there is. Its about results not epic battles or heroes, the IRA produced results and unfortunately had to do some ugly things to do it
Perhaps Davy Adams might care to produce some statistical data to support his assertion that
“many young people believe that the Provisional IRA’s campaign was driven primarily, if not exclusively, by the lofty aim of winning basic civil rights for the Catholic population in Northern Ireland”.
I can honestly say that I do not know a single person who remotely believes any such thing. Complete and utter hogwash Davy…
The campaign was about ending British rule in Ireland. Full stop.
Davy might also care to reveal whom EXACTLY he is referring to when he states “Thanks to a concerted attempt by various commentators and “historians†to rewrite history”. But somehow I doubt it…
Sean,
“Then why are all nationalists and especially all SFers branded as terrorists in the unionist community”
SF are the largest Nationalist party – the IRA command structure is still intact in some shape or form – they only ditched their guns a few weeks ago. From the Unioinst side of the fence – if the Provos were terrorists ( a view not shared by SF voters and many nationalists) would then seem reasonable to assume that the people who vote their political associates in must at least sympathise with what went on.
The UDP PUP get bugger all votes – Unionists have logic on their side in this arguement. The problem revolves round the old chestnut one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
That is a complete load of bollocks kokane
So the Ian Paisley is a murderer because the murderers voted him in?
Sean,
“So the Ian Paisley is a murderer because the murderers voted him in?”
???
I think you may have missed the point.
If a party is associated with – from a Unionist point of veiw what is a ‘terrorist campaign’ – and the people vote them in – then there may be a reasonable assumption that the people at least sympathised with the ‘terrorist campaign’.
I dont think however that most nationalists see the IRA campaign as a terrorist one.
The problem for me with this type of discussion is that it always re-enforces that which divides us rather than the shared culture that unites us…maybe when I was growing up in the late 70′s, I was fortunate to fall in with a bunch of Belfastians, from all kinds of backgrounds, who didn’t give a flying **** about religion and felt no affinity with either the Paisleyites, the paramilitaries, the Shinners or any of the other tribal ballix that everyone in Northern Ireland supposedly subscribes to…I know so many people who feel like this but it seems we’re ignored because we haven’t come up with our own flag yet! The type of folk I’m talking about take huge pride in Ulster’s rural beauty, sense of humour, music, down-to-earth attitude etc etc…is it so hard to understand that someone can be Ulster to the bone but still not feel that they have to tow the party line of Nationalism or Unionism??
Sean: ”Its about results not epic battles or heroes, the IRA produced results and unfortunately had to do some ugly things to do it”
If by results you mean mangled bodies on pavements and endless premature funerals for both sides, then yeah I agree with you Sean.
If you mean ‘political’ results, perhaps you could enlighten us.
It’s painfully clear that (as stated previously) post 1974 the provo campaign was about nothing more than psychopathic bloodlust and twisted martyrdom in the pursuit of a goal that was clearly unachievable by violent means. The ‘results’ were a huge pile of bodies, a gigantic waste of money and the aspiration of a united Ireland set back decades.
Sean: ‘Its about results not epic battles or heroes, the IRA produced results and unfortunately had to do some ugly things to do it’
I think this is pretty limp – there were choices to be made on the ground and some of these choices should be explained by Republicans. The current leadership of SF probably took some/most of these choices. I would like to know why they thought it neccesary to shoot elderly retired UDR men in front of their families.
I am a SF supporter but not an uncritical one and would really like to hear Grizzly or Martin etc tell it as it was.
The Penguin
“Likewise, until very recently in the Republic, the bravery and sacrifice of many thousands of Southern Irishmen in two World Wars was considered an embarrassment.â€
I couldn’t agree more.
The likes of Brendan “Spitfire Paddy†Finucane, youngest wing commander in the RAF, who shot down sixteen Messerschmitt Bf-109 fighters with the Australian squadron over seven weeks during the Battle of Britain at the tender age of twenty-one have never been acknowledged by the general public in the Republic.
If by results you mean mangled bodies on pavements and endless premature funerals for both sides, then yeah I agree with you Sean
By results I mean and end to a protestant parliament for a protestant people, gerrymandering, no irish need apply, ruc, rir etc etc.
the english government clearly did not care about the hardships and lack of civil rights of the Catholic population until it was brought to their attention via the world media and then only tried to stick plasters on gaping wounds. It might have not been their stated goal but it was the result
think this is pretty limp – there were choices to be made on the ground and some of these choices should be explained by Republicans. The current leadership of SF probably took some/most of these choices. I would like to know why they thought it neccesary to shoot elderly retired UDR men in front of their families
let me ask this question. Why did the securocrats find it necesary to shoot Finucane at his dinner table? or Blow up nelson in her car on her street?
Theres plenty of dirty hands to go around and I am not saying the IRA is clean but the unionists have to accept their shitty hands as well