The real enemy of the DUP
Henry Patterson in this weeks Sunday Life, with an interesting analysis of the DUP, their recent u-turns and their real motivation.
But Paisley’s real enemy throughout his almost 60 year political career has not been nationalism, republicanism or the IRA but the Ulster Unionist Party. His present acceptance of the structures of the 1998 Agreement, which he so bitterly denounced, is clear evidence of this. Being top dog of unionism was what it was all about whatever the long-term implications for the Union.
The large group of Shinners who were celebrating in Stormont post-ceremony were unlikely to be doing so because they believed that they had seen the end of ‘push-over Unionism’.
Paid.
“I’m surprised you haven’t recognised DT’s Irishness heretofore. The red hair, the temper, the quarrelsome nature, the Celtic complexion.”
Very true. But I don’t dispute Trimble’s Irishness – he does. (At least some of the time, anyway.) It’s not my business to tell anyone what he is and isn’t, of course.
Whatever Next
I think you need to go and lie down.
I see now that I have been wasting my time, and that ‘Billy Pilgrim’ isn’t a Republican poster, but is in fact a Unionist troll. Though an invention betraying considerable literary skill, I have to admit. Not least in the biting irony of having his Billy character unselfconsciously write: “I don’t dispute Trimble’s Irishness – he does. (At least some of the time, anyway.) It’s not my business to tell anyone what he is and isn’t, of course” – a gem! As yes, that sort of myopia – I’m not telling the irishman Trimble what he is – captures the petulant self-deception of all too many Republicans really quite painfully. Whoever you are sending them up in this way, well done, you had me going for a while there.
Whatever Next
I’m left wondering whether you and I are in the same universe, or if you are posting from another dimension, one similar but every so slightly different from our own. Because there’s a serious disconnect in understanding going on here.
Yeah, in my universe, people answer points put to them. But oh wait, “I don’t dispute Trimble’s Irishness – he does. (At least some of the time, anyway.) It’s not my business to tell anyone what he is and isn’t, of course”. More! more!
BP
“What revealing sneer that is! You sound like a Victorian imperialist, blasting the fuzzy-wuzzies for their backward ways and their cussed reluctance to accept your ideas on identity. I’m talking about a sense of cultural affinity that nationalists see in Paisley – can you empathise with what I’m saying, or is your imperial instinct so ingrained that your ideas on identity amount to nothing more than an acultural mush? “
What sense of affinity? The only sense of affinity that nationalists see in Paisley is a lack of anything discernibly British. A few platitudes in recent days about “Irishness†is some basis for a cultural affinity.
“I once spoke to David Trimble and asked him whether he felt Irish. His face went purple and he literally bared his teeth as he hissed: “certainly notâ€. I remember seeing a reporter ask John Taylor the same question once, and his reaction was identical. This was at a time when these two were the leader and deputy leader of the largest unionist party. Am I wrong in suggesting that they are representative of a strand within unionism?“
A strand that feel principally British but acknowledge the unionism of those who feel Irish also? I see no dichotomy there. Which nationality these politicians feel is not the crucial issue when you believe that statehood should not necessarily be predicated along ethno-nationalist lines.
“Firstly, I don’t feel my concept of identity to be impoverished. On the contrary, I feel grateful every day that my sense of identity and cultural belonging is so nourishing, so luxurious. My country is perhaps, pound for pound, the world’s greatest producer of literary talent. Our contributions to music, the arts, film, philosophy, politics, economics, business and other fields is staggering, for a country our size. Quite contrary to your assertion that an Irishman’s sense of identity is “impoverishedâ€, some of our greatest writers have found it overwhelming, and have sought out more austere cultural climates in which to continue their work. So thanks for your concern, but we’re doing fine here.
(*And I mean Irishman – I make no distinction between unionist and nationalist, northerner or southerner, Protestant or Catholic, planter or Gael, in this context.) “
Very kind of you to include unionists. I too happen to be proud of the cultural achievements of my fellow Irishmen. The number of unionists and Irishmen of British descent who have been amongst these high-achievers precludes me from adopting a view of Irishness which negates Britishness or defines itself by opposition to Englishness.
“And in answer to your assertion: of course I understand that unionists can feel entirely comfortable being both British and Irish. (I cited Paisley as an example.) However, it is also my experience that SOME within unionism have great difficulty with it. Trimble certainly strikes me as a very good example of this, but never mind Trimble – would you agree that there does exist within unionism this anti-Irish strand?
“Trimble himself paraphrased Emerson Tenant when he talked about adding to the glory of being British the distinction of being Irish.â€
I’m very surprised to hear that, I must say. “
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/uup/dt131104.htm
You can read his comments here. There may well be a strand of unionism which has a problem accepting Irishness as a legitimate identity within Britain. I would say this strand is extremely misguided. Considering yourself British primarily, or even entirely certainly does not consign you to this category. No-one within Northern Ireland has any duty to consider themselves as firstly Irish. If anything it is the narrow constraints given to the concept by Irish nationalists which may encourage them to reject such a definition.
“Maybe so, but “unionism†as we have known it is in fact a Protestant alliance – a communal reaction to a perceived crisis, rather than a political movement or ideology per se – and the “true unionists†are today in a minority.
A new consensus between Irish republicanism (in its broad all-island sense) and Ulster Protestantism is evolving, dealing with the lives and futures and relationships between people on this island. “True unionism†seems marginal in all of this, and I suppose it’ll be up to “true unionists†like yourself to make it relevant to the debate in the years ahead. ”
That is your perception of unionism. It’s your prerogative to dismiss it as opposed to taking account of the definitions unionists themselves have provided, particularly in the last 25 years, or considering unionism in a wider UK context.
I see no sign of a “new consensusâ€. I see a very nascent assembly and very little else. Although your view of Paisley entirely vindicates my suspicions of the old fraud.
“There is one massive hole in your whole argument though – ie if it had been up to the DUP there never would have been jumping by anyone – especially them.”
Not a hole but the core of my argument – they wouldn’t have done what DT said he was going to do – wait for others to jump first
“The DUP were not even part of the original negotiating team. Not only did they leave all negotiations to the UUP but they left all the heavy lifting and risk taking to them as well.”
All true only if you ignore the fact that the UUP broke ranks not the DUP
“Either way this notion that they were better negotiators or held their nerve better is all complete nonsense.”
Again look at the facts
“If Unionism had stood as a United force in 1998 and since we would have obtained the same objectives we have today much sooner and with less cost.”
So why did the UUP break ranks?
“The UUP did what they did for the country whereas the DUP did what they did for their Party and Leader.”
How so?
The UUP and DT were the authors of their own misfortune – a badly negotiated Agreement with intangible benefits for unionism outweighed by measurable advances for terrorists on both sides and Republicans in particular compounded by a half hearted pro Agreement Referendum campaign when the Party was supposed to stay quiet reinforcing the belief of many unionists that this was not a good deal just the best deal the UUP could get. Then having oversold parts of the Agreement (the RUC has been saved) and sold out by Blair in every aspect of constructive ambiguity DT having drawn lines in the sand jumps first 3 times (you’d think he would learn after the first time) and breaks his word.
The UUP could be where the DUP is now if they hadn’t rushed into government (for whose sake?)and instead done exactly what the DUP has done – let SF/IRA jump first. This has compounded the belief of the unionist electorate that the UUP was/is weak and reinforced the rise of the DUP.
You are of course entitled to your opinion but it does not change the facts!
Ziznivy
“What sense of affinity?”
You know how sometimes you look at someone and you just think: “he goes on just like X”?
I have often been disgusted listening to Paisley down the years, yet I can still kind of empathise with where he’s coming from emotionally, if not intellectually or politically. I see Paisley blustering, or especially when he’s laughing, and he just reminds me of people I know. It seems obvious to me that he’s, well, he’s from around here. There’s a familiarity there. I’m happy to call it a shared Irishness.
Compare and contrast with Trimble’s pomposity or Taylor’s accent. Just alien. I’ve met Taylor a few times and I’m always astonished that we’re from the same town.
“The only sense of affinity that nationalists see in Paisley is a lack of anything discernibly British.”
There are only two cultures, right? British, and Not British.
Can’t you understand that my identity is my own, my nationality is my own, and I don’t have to view either through any prism of Britishness? Britain has had a huge influence over my country and that is reflected culturally, sure. Great. But it’s absurd that some people assume any pride Irish people might feel about themselves is somehow a slight on Britain and Britishness. Get over yourself! It’s not all about you!
“A few platitudes in recent days about “Irishness†is some basis for a cultural affinity.”
It’s a start, and like Joey the Lips Fagan, I’m a great believer in starts.
“A strand that feel principally British but acknowledge the unionism of those who feel Irish also? I see no dichotomy there.”
I’m not saying there is a dichotomy. What I am saying is that there’s a strand within unionism that hotly denies any suggestion of Irishness – something that seems objectively bizarre in someone born and raised in Ireland.
“Which nationality these politicians feel is not the crucial issue when you believe that statehood should not necessarily be predicated along ethno-nationalist lines.”
Everywhere in the world, nationality is based on where you’re from. NI is part of the UK, so it’s logical that unionists would see themselves as British. Fair play. But it’s also part of Ireland, and some people deny they are Irish. Bizarre, but there it is.
Look, I understand that most unionists see themselves as British while some also see themselves as Irish. I welcome this, and as an Irish republican, it seems like a potentially fertile piece of common ground. I also think that those who have been born and raised in, say, Co Down, and insist they aren’t in any way Irish, will increasingly be seen in the future as strange oddities. But that’s just a prediction, I suppose we’ll see.
“Very kind of you to include unionists.”
Of course I include unionists. Why wouldn’t I? They’re my countrymen as much as anyone else from this island.
“The number of unionists and Irishmen of British descent who have been amongst these high-achievers precludes me from adopting a view of Irishness which negates Britishness or defines itself by opposition to Englishness.”
I’m not aware of any significant Irish artist who has sought to “negate Britishness” or defined his/her work by “opposition to Englishness”. I think you are again displaying imperial arrogance in assuming that anything that is pro-Irish must also be anti-English/British. That tendency does exist, but not among our major artists. If they were defined by anything so narrow-minded, they wouldn’t be major artists.
I’ve known many unionists in my time who look at expressions of Irish patriotism and see only sedition. They look at Irish people taking pride in their culture and customs, in their language and games, and see only resistance to British culture and customs, language and games. They look at all the wonderful cultural achievements of the Irish and see only “anti-Britishness”.
I always accuse them of arrogance, of over-estimating Britain’s significance to Ireland’s cultural life, and I always ask them the same question: if, culturally, Irish people are obsessed by the narrow objective of negating all things British, how come their cultural achievements are so spectacular? How could such a narrow-minded, reactionary people have produced Joyce, Yeats, Beckett Shaw, Wilde, Heaney, Kavanagh, McGahern, Burke, Goldsmith, Gogarty, Sheridan, Edgeworth, O’Faoilann, O’Brien, O’Connor, Behan, Banville, Doyle….etc?
“You can read his comments here.”
Oh, I don’t doubt you for a second, I’m just surprised, that’s all.
“There may well be a strand of unionism which has a problem accepting Irishness as a legitimate identity within Britain. I would say this strand is extremely misguided.”
I would strongly agree.
“Considering yourself British primarily, or even entirely certainly does not consign you to this category.”
Again I agree. It always seem straightforward enough to me that unionists could see themselves as Irish, and that their Irishness existed WITHIN their Britishness. But again, it’s not my business to tell people how they should feel.
“No-one within Northern Ireland has any duty to consider themselves as firstly Irish.”
No duty, of course not, but clearly there’s such a thing as demonstrable reality. People can choose to define themselves any way they want, but if they depart from reality, they can’t complain if people raise an eyebrow. Someone born and raised in Co Antrim who says he’s not Irish is quite entitled to do so, but I’m entitled to raise an eyebrow and wonder how on earth he has arrived at his conclusion.
“If anything it is the narrow constraints given to the concept by Irish nationalists which may encourage them to reject such a definition.”
To be honest Ziz, I think your understand of Irish nationalism is hamstrung by a whole bunch of very obvious assumptions you bring to the subject. An Irishman is simply someone who is of Ireland. End of story. Everything else is constantly up for grabs. Got nothing to do with political persuasion – of which, naturally, there are many different kinds on this island.
“That is your perception of unionism. It’s your prerogative to dismiss it as opposed to taking account of the definitions unionists themselves have provided, particularly in the last 25 years, or considering unionism in a wider UK context.”
Why would you assume I haven’t taken many different strands of opinion into account? I don’t “dismiss” anything. Would you disagree with my suggestion that, rather than being a movement or ideology per se, Ulster unionism has been, since at least the great convention of 1892, a coalition, overwhelmingly of Protestants, united against a perceived threat to their way of life?
“I’m not aware of any significant Irish artist who has sought to “negate Britishness†or defined his/her work by “opposition to Englishnessâ€.”
I was going to say the Wolfe Tones, Robert Ballagh, the bint who’s granny came from Rathlin and who always sings at Shinner konklaves, Seamus Heaney…but in fairness to you Billy, you did say “significant”
“Would you disagree with my suggestion that, rather than being a movement or ideology per se, Ulster unionism has been, since at least the great convention of 1892, a coalition, overwhelmingly of Protestants, united against a perceived threat to their way of life?”
Sorry, I don’t get your point. What’s the difference between a movement and a coalition? Yes it was a coalition overwhelmingly of Protestants united against a perceived threat to their way of life…AND in support of the idea of a Union of the British people. If it were purely defensive and exploitative, would it have have sent the UVF to France? Or sent its sons to imperial wars, and to carry the imperial burden throughout the globe? They saw themselves as Britons joined at the hip with the rest of the Empire- if they were simply terrified of Rome Rule then they would have failed to obtain support from commercial and landed interests, and from all but the evangelical few in GB.
I’ve always disagreed with the John Taylor line that there are two peoples in NI – the british and the Irish. It’s self defeating for both to think in those terms. We’re all both, and both need to be redefined. The UK is way ahead in this, given its experience of assimilating many races into its population. But I wouldn’t deny for one minute that RoI is moving, for the better of all of us.
BP, I will reply, but right now my head is bouncing too much after the reverse suffered by unionism at Hampden Park last night.
Although I will take up the singnificant artist point. Precisely! Because an artist whose art is defined by nationalism / republicanism wouldn’t be worth the effort.
JEB
They made a deal, held their vote, saw off challeneges to the left and right (granted not well organised ones) and kept almost all their representation ie only one significant casualty. Looks like selling it to me.
“Firstly they didnt have to fight a viscious unionist rear guard action both within and without like the UUP did.”
Within – They managed their party internally better plus they have more modern structures. Trimble could have changed the structures early on but he faffed about missed his chance and paid a price for this failure. Nothing to do with the DUP.
Without – The DUP can’t be blamed for the unwillingness or inabilities of their opponents. For example, the UUP could have actually made its criticisms St Andrews meaningful by saying it was going into opposition but they chose not too. “the line of multiple times bitten makes very shy” would have had some credibilty with the electorate at least.
“Secondly by the time they had their deal the Provos had eventually delivered Decommissioning.”
Decommissioning was achieved during the DUP’s hegemony and it wasn’t achieved by agreeing to government before it was done, or jumping back into government the minute it seemed to have been completed.
“Thirdly the majority of the unionist electorate had eventually woken up to the soundness of the original UUP strategy as it eventually delivered 2 above and they saw peace and prosperity all around them – including a 50% increase in their house prices in the last 12 months alone.”
Let’s leave aside the dodgy economics of our housing market and the increasing number of losers this situation is creating.
The UUP strategy didn’t deliver 2. It happened when they weren’t the key player in the process. The UUP startegy was to go into government on promises that were broken or minimally and lethargically fulfilled. Neither was the failure to decommission a clear breach of the terms of the Belfast Agreement which the UUP negotiated.
So the scales fall from the electorate’s eyes but they don’t support the party who delivered it. Hmm.
However let’s follow this line of argument for a moment:
Is a party not being able to communicate to the electorate that they are the people who have delivered this not bad selling?
Is a second party that apparently had nothing to do with these developments gaining the credit not a successful selling job?
“Fourthly a huge proportion of the DUP electorate are unable to think independently for themselves (as per Ian Jnr) and if it is good enough for Doctor Paisley then it is good enough for them.”
Yes blame and insult voters that is the way back. No other party at all has sheep like members or voters of course.
Interestingly I made a lot of those points yesterday (see 6 above) and JEB hasn’t got back to me yet – I understand he has an opticians appointment which might explain this as he is trying to find a cure for his selective tunnel vision…..
PB
Sorry for the repetition I was away yesterday and hadn’t read all the thread
“o be honest Ziz, I think your understand of Irish nationalism is hamstrung by a whole bunch of very obvious assumptions you bring to the subject. An Irishman is simply someone who is of Ireland. End of story. Everything else is constantly up for grabs. Got nothing to do with political persuasion – of which, naturally, there are many different kinds on this island.
“That is your perception of unionism. It’s your prerogative to dismiss it as opposed to taking account of the definitions unionists themselves have provided, particularly in the last 25 years, or considering unionism in a wider UK context.â€
Why would you assume I haven’t taken many different strands of opinion into account? I don’t “dismiss†anything. Would you disagree with my suggestion that, rather than being a movement or ideology per se, Ulster unionism has been, since at least the great convention of 1892, a coalition, overwhelmingly of Protestants, united against a perceived threat to their way of life? “
Well here’s the crux. If you can dismiss much of the recent theory in unionism and make broad-brush judgments such as the above, I am entitled to do the same about nationalism. And whatever “hamstrung assumptions†I bring to the subject it seems fairly obvious that Irish nationalism had its roots in 19th century romantic nationalism, as typified by the German romantic nationalism that begat National Socialism.
The southern state in actuality and in theory defined itself as Gaelic and Catholic and that is a legacy which is only slowly changing. The protestant and unionist traditions were marginalised and perceived as “alienâ€.