“It would all be funny if it were not so tragic.”
Also via the indispensible Newshound, in Saturday’s Irish News Patrick Murphy handed out some awards to the winners of “an unnecessary and obscene sectarian bloodbath, often displaying excessive inhumanity and barbarity.”
It was a shameful period in Irish and British history and it ended only when the main protagonists traded what they called principles for what Britain called power.It is now the winners’ prerogative to write history on their own terms. But who will write the history of those who lost? Some lost their lives; some lost loved ones. Others lost their limbs or their sight or their sanity. Our entire society lost its dignity.
What began as a struggle for civil rights was hijacked into a war to end British rule in Ireland. It ended in an argument over how British rule in Ireland should be administered. On that basis it is not difficult to conclude who won.
**I am not really interested in assigning blame. It is easy on one hand to say that politics was there, it is another given the situation to actually move people onto it and away from violence. The question I want to know is “How could you have moved the IRA to violence in 1974?†as opposed to “How evil were the IRA?â€.**
To be honest kensei I’m not that bothered about assigning blame as such and I certainly don’t subscribe to the “all Republicans are evil” line, I’ve too many Republican friends and family members to fall for that. However it is fair now that Sinn Fein are the majority Nationalist party and senior members of the Provisional IRA are sitting in government to hold them to account for past failings. They’re not the “excluded outsiders” anymore, they’re part of the establishment now and as such it is not unreasonable to question their past judgment (if I were debating an ardent DUPer I would do exactly the same thing regarding Papa Doc).
It’s no longer good enough just to say ‘look we’re not killing people anymore let’s move the process on’ that phase is over, now we’re entitled to ask well, you know, why were you killing people? Especially now that you accept the position (of the SDLP) which you previously so virulently rejected (I’m not a member of the SDLP by the way).
It’s like an alcoholic wife beater who finally gives up the booze. He was not evil per se but he’d got himself in awful mess, sure not entirely of his own creation but he was still responsible for dreadful abuse. We, his friends, family and neighbours are delighted that he’s reformed his ways and while he was in the recovery process we passed over a lot of terrible stuff that had gone on in the past. But we’re beyond that now, the reformed alcoholic is now our respected local community representative and that’s great, good for him, but a little bit of humility wouldn’t go amiss right now. A small show of remorse perhaps, not sack cloth and ashes but a recognition that the bad years were a terrible time, awful things were done and said and some sort of recognition of his responsibility would be nice.
No, we’re not getting that, he’s still in denial mode; “It wasn’t my fault, society was to blame, why are you all picking on me?” Just once it would be nice to hear a Republican say “You know what? We, not them, not all of society, but we as Republicans, we really stuffed up big time back then”.
I’ll not hold my breath waiting.
“It seems easier to get Republicans to deal self-critically with the Dáil election results than it is to deal with, what were in their own terms, war crimes. That’s sad.â€
Dail election results are apparent to all. What has happened in the shadows is not so readily apparent, at least to me. I think you will find that I have made arguments here on previous occasions indicating my belief that practically all of the campaign pursued by the IRA was indefensible.
It continued on for decades with no realistic chance of achieving a military “result†or a political “result.†I am not averse to the claim that these acts were war crimes.
And I will go one further by acknowledging that these acts were not exclusively “political†as some might claim, but that the taint of sectarianism also hangs over them.
I was in no way trying to demean the suffering of the victims of that campaign or offer a crablike justification for that suffering.
Believe me, Sammy, I am not trying to absolve anyone.
“Not really, unless you think the IRA were, at any point, penetrated to the extent that the Brits were calling the shots and setting the strategic direction.â€
I don’t believe anything, hence the question marks. I was merely trying to set down alternative parameters for discussion. That the IRA was infiltrated does not seem to be in doubt, only the degree of that infiltration.
And where is the line between infiltrating paramilitaries to the point of ending a conflict and infiltrating them to the point of prolonging one?
If it were found to be the latter then one would be dealing with a false paradigm.
Pure speculation on my part, of course. Perhaps He Who Dings could row in on the subject.
That is, if he is not too engrossed by the intrigues in Mesopotamia, where the rivers run red.
“No, we’re not getting that, he’s still in denial mode; “It wasn’t my fault, society was to blame, why are you all picking on me?†Just once it would be nice to hear a Republican say “You know what? We, not them, not all of society, but we as Republicans, we really stuffed up big time back thenâ€.
I’ll not hold my breath waiting.”
I don’t speak for anyone – but certainly Republicans stuffed up big back then. I do hope we get to the point where people can apologise for some of what happened, without demonising those involved in the conflict.
But ignoring the fact that things didn’t happen in a vacuum and a lot of other people bear responsibility too is as much a lie as pretending you never stuffed up.
And where is the line between infiltrating paramilitaries to the point of ending a conflict and infiltrating them to the point of prolonging one?
Again, another reason for putting pressure on all the main beligerent parties to take part in a process of reflection and openness. The Brits were running Freddie Scapaticci and may have been running Sean Mag Uidhir, who between them oversaw some of the most grisly IRA internal security operations of The Troubles. Legitimate anti-terror in a difficult situation or complicity in torture and murder? I don’t know, but I’d like us to have the facts to be able to make a judgement.
And again, this isn’t just raking over the coals – yesterday’s Mark Haddock might be today’s sectarian psychopath in Basra. We don’t know. But people deserve truth, deserve justice, and deserve to know that what they went through won’t happen again. But unfortunately it suits none of the main actors to air their dirty laundry. That’s life. But it doesn’t mean we have to just meekly accept it.
“But people deserve truth, deserve justice, and deserve to know that what they went through won’t happen again. But unfortunately it suits none of the main actors to air their dirty laundry”
No one here will ever see “justice”. The prisoners are out, the British Government certainly won’t hang out the security forces to dry. Truth can help but it isn’t going to be what heals us. It’s too easy for people to pull only the bits they like into their own narratives. We need more than that – we need compassion, understanding and empathy.
It’s too easy for people to pull only the bits they like into their own narratives.
People are doing that already, ken. That’s why we need truth.
We need more than that – we need compassion, understanding and empathy.
And that as well.
Sammy Morse
If you are comparing Sunningdale and GFA/STA you cant leave out crucial difference like the release of prisoners, reform of the security services etc by saying that they were not on the table at the time of Sunningdale. This is like saying “they are very similar if you disregard cetain important differences”.
“But ignoring the fact that things didn’t happen in a vacuum and a lot of other people bear responsibility too is as much a lie as pretending you never stuffed up.â€
kensei
“But people deserve truth, deserve justice, and deserve to know that what they went through won’t happen again. “
Sammy Morse
I fear that the unseen lies may be the only thing keeping the stitching of this grand charade from falling asunder and that the truth might prove to be too much of a bitter draught for too many.
As regards Republicans being averse to criticism from Loyalist/Unionist/British sources I have some understanding, none of these actors can honestly claim their hands were clean but what gets me is the lack of remorse towards people who genuinely were blameless but who had all sorts of approbrium heaped on them for daring to suggest that the armed struggle might not necessarily be the best way.
John Hume obviously, who despite vicious, hateful bile being poured on him and his fellow “Stoops” by the Provos (am I right in recollecting they actually planned to assasinate him?) still maintained the decency to reach out and drag them out from their own mire. But not just him, Gerry Fitt, Maireid Corrigan, Edward Daly, Paddy Devlin, Monsignor Faul, Betty Williams, Father Mulvey, Cahal Daly, Austin Currie, John Cushnahan, so many others.
Not loyalists, not Unionists but decent people, mostly Catholic Nationalists who begged and pleaded with the Provos to stop and in return were spat on and shat on (in Gerry Fitt’s case, literally), were heaped with vicious, spittle flecked abuse for daring to suggest there was another way but who now are just left on the rubbish heap of history.
I would love, just once, to hear Gerry Adams say to the family of Gerry Fitt “Sorry about how we treated your Ma and Da, it was inexcusable, and we now see he was right all along.” Too much to ask for?
“I would love, just once, to hear Gerry Adams say to the family of Gerry Fitt “Sorry about how we treated your Ma and Da, it was inexcusable, and we now see he was right all along.†Too much to ask for?”
Yes. The first half is fine, but Gerry Fitt certainly wasn’t right all along. He went to the House of Lords, FFS.
by saying that they were not on the table at the time of Sunningdale
That’s not what I said. They weren’t even issues at the time of Sunningdale. Not for anyone, including the ‘Ra.
Good article. A pretty concise and accurate portrayal IMO, apart from just a few minor points:
[i]Britain won, not so much by superior military might but through the use of high-level PIRA informers and collusion with loyalist paramilitaries.
They were helped by a changing Europe and an evolving Irish foreign policy. When the PIRA was formed in the autumn of 1969, the south was an independent state.
In 1973 it joined the European Union along with Britain – an event largely ignored by the economic warriors in the north.
Thus while the PIRA was seeking economic and political union with Dublin, Dublin was cementing economic and political union with Brussels, and through it, with London. [/i]
Dublin had already a more than concrete economic union with the UK. It was only after joining the EEC that it was able to pull itself away from Mother England’s economic policies. Rather than cementing the Anglo-Irish economic relationship, joining the EU was the first step to the Republic actually achieving real economic independence from the UK. The punt was linked with the British pound up until and after this point. The Republic didn’t even have its own exchange rate until 1979.
The most interesting few lines from Patrick Murphy’s piece, aren’t about the PIRA (surely it’s a given that they hijacked the CRA) but the stuff about Unionism:
[i]The violence had its origins in [b]unionist[/b] opposition to the non-sectarian civil rights movement of the 1960s.
It was opposed by successive unionist governments to preserve power and privilege. It was also confronted by Ian Paisley who, it is now clear, was seeking power and privilege.
The first violence came from the RUC and Paisley’s supporters in opposition to Civil Rights Association (CRA) marches. [/i]
Should [b]‘unionist’[/b] not be in title case and preceded by the word ‘Ulster’ and succeeded by the word ‘Party’?
Since the inception of the state until the collapse of the Stormont government in 1972 the ruling Unionist hegemony manipulated their own people to ensure their position of power. They in effect created a sectarian state, where politicians would be full of divisive rhetoric, so that the Protestant man in the street would always look over his shoulder for the ‘bogeyman’ Catholic who he feared was going to take his job and make him pray for the Virgin Mary in a United Ireland. Inevitably, this led to Protestants overwhelmingly voting for the UUP, thus guaranteeing their position in government, and closing the loop.
**Yes. The first half is fine, but Gerry Fitt certainly wasn’t right all along. He went to the House of Lords, FFS.**
Hmmm, let’s see the chief of staff of the IRA agrees to destroy the IRA’s arsenal in order that he might jointly administer British rule at Stormont along with Ian Paisley and Republicans accept that but they still won’t forgive Gerry Fitt (whose home they attacked, looted and violated in a most obscene manner) for taking a place at a political retirment home after a life time of dedicated public service to the people of West Belfast.
As you’d say yourself “FFS!”.
“Hmmm, let’s see the chief of staff of the IRA agrees to destroy the IRA’s arsenal in order that he might jointly administer British rule at Stormont along with Ian Paisley and Republicans accept that but they still won’t forgive Gerry Fitt (whose home they attacked, looted and violated in a most obscene manner) for taking a place at a political retirment home after a life time of dedicated public service to the people of West Belfast.”
Yup. “A life time of public service”. He wasn’t that good a politician either – he lost his position as leader of the SDLP because he was out of touch with his party, and he lost his seat because he was out of touch with his electorate – not because of violence. He supported the RUC!
Unionists like him because he wasn’t really a Nationalist. So, yes, an apology to his family for the violence directed against him his fair. But telling them he was right? Fuck off.
“Since the inception of the state until the collapse of the Stormont government in 1972 the ruling Unionist hegemony manipulated their own people to ensure their position of power. They in effect created a sectarian state, where politicians would be full of divisive rhetoric, so that the Protestant man in the street would always look over his shoulder for the ‘bogeyman’ Catholic who he feared was going to take his job and make him pray for the Virgin Mary in a United Ireland. Inevitably, this led to Protestants overwhelmingly voting for the UUP, thus guaranteeing their position in government, and closing the loop.â€
Eloquently put. All the world’s a stage, and we are merely players.
**But telling them he was right? Fuck off.**
It’s nice to see that provies never change their spots, for all their seeming reasonability they’re still the spittle flecked bigots they always were.
So what part of Fitt’s policy did the current SF leadership not adopt?
Kensai
“I do hope we get to the point where people can apologise for some of what happened, without demonising those involved in the conflict.”
Familiar?
You started with quite a scholarly analysis (which i didnt agree with but respected) but something seems to have snapped.
I’ve though in the past that republicans held in greater contempt not unionists but other catholics/nationalists who did not follow their idealogical line. I thought in recent times this may have changed and i certainly didnt expect to hear it on Slugger
A very good article, and some excellent posts, one of the better threads of recent times without a doubt.
Just to add my tuppenceworth: It’s still a bit depressing that so MANY threads have appeared on Slugger arguing the toss over who ‘won’ and who ‘lost’…I know it sounds like paraphrasing a lame cliche like ‘there were no winnners/losers’ but anyone who tries to spin a ‘victory’ out of what has gone on in NI over the last 40 years is quite clearly deluding themselves.
Get with the programme people – none of us are standing in the middle of a muddy battlefield in the middle of the 16th Century planting flags in the soil. This is 2007, a very, very different world from even 25 years ago, never mind 50 or 100.
People in NI (or indeed anywhere else)who coat-trailingly flaunt the symbols and trappings of tribalism (like flags, painted kerbstones, jerseys, tats, murals) are sad and pathetic people, especially if they/you only do it because they/you know it annoys ‘themmuns’. By engaging in this kind of activity you demean and debase those very symbols, and yourself, in no small way.
The armed republican campaign, as I’ve argued many, many times before on this site walked nationalism straight into a trap which maybe not strengthened but certainly cemented, the partition between the two parts of the Island. maybe it was a gamble but it was a very, very foolish one and should have been called off years before it finally was. It got nationalists absolutely NOTHING they wouldn’t have got if they’d stuck with peaceful campaigning over that time period.
As for the whole British Army/British Administration argument, trying to argue that successive British governments ‘won the war’ against the IRA just because Republicans didn’t quite manage to achieve a 32-county UI is like AC Milan being taken to a replay, extra time and penalties by an under-12 non-league team and then celebrating a ‘victory’ because they eventually won 27-26 in the shootout.
HF
“It’s nice to see that provies never change their spots, for all their seeming reasonability they’re still the spittle flecked bigots they always were.
So what part of Fitt’s policy did the current SF leadership not adopt? ”
Gerry Fitt was prepared to get into local government without an Irish dimension, which lost him the leadership of his party. He was prepared to defend the hated RUC, which doesn’t really go down well with Republicans. He was prepared not only to sit in the House of Commons but also the House of Lords. He wasn’t really a Nationalist politician, the man himself would have described himself as a Socialist, though I don’t know enough about that aspect to comment one way or the other. He criticised the SDLP for becoming “too Nationalist”, for heavens sake. And politics is more than policy.
We aren’t actually talking about Gerry Fitt. You simply want to say Republicans got everything wrong and Gerry Fitt got everything right, mainly because you want to punch republicans. There were certainly things he got right. Important ones, like non violence and compromise. But his politics and Republican politics are very different. S, no, I won’t be saying he was “right”.
Honestly, you should have went with John Hume, because he was more right more of the time.
jpeters
“You started with quite a scholarly analysis (which i didnt agree with but respected) but something seems to have snapped.
I’ve though in the past that republicans held in greater contempt not unionists but other catholics/nationalists who did not follow their idealogical line. I thought in recent times this may have changed and i certainly didnt expect to hear it on Slugger ”
I’m not demonising Gerry Fitt. He seemed to be a perfectly alright person but I disagree with much of his politics and how he wenta bout it. He is perfectly entitled to an absolute right to his views, just like anyone else regardless of who they are. And I respect their views, just disagree. But the idea that he was “right” gets a deserved fuck off – he wasn’t. He was right about not using violence, but it’s hardly unique. And that he lost position both in party and Parliament because he got out of step with his electorate, it isn’t an attack, he’s just a fact. It’s what happens to all politicians when they do.
On that basis it is not difficult to conclude who won.
As Simon Sharma wisely answered: “Nobody”