“Catholic sectarianism does not need to be confronted because it does not exist”
Interesting reworking of a recent Irish Times column by Fintan O’Toole. This time it goes just a bit deeper and cuts into some very dark territory largely hidden by powerful political grand narratives that sheltered many Catholics from the gruesome reality of things that were done in the name of their defence. Accordingly, he argues, Northern Ireland’s Catholics had never had to confront their own sectarian hard wiring, until Darren Graham “had the temerity to punch through the tribal stereotype by playing Gaelic football and not defining himself simply as a Protestant. It took the hate that dares not speak its name to make him one now”.Still, he notes, many cannot understand why Nationalist/Republican violence should in the least compare with the blatantly sectarian campaigns of Loyalist paramilitaries:
Protestants have been told, rightly, that their religious and political attitudes contributed to the twisted mentalities of the Loyalist killers who murdered Catholics throughout the Troubles. Because those killings were categorised as sectarian, no one could argue with any seriousness that they were not, in some sense, manifestations of a wider bigotry that was itself the product of political, cultural and historical forces.
But Catholics have been insulated from the need to confront the same truths by the notion that the UDR men killed by the IRA were only incidentally Protestant. Catholic sectarianism does not need to be confronted because it does not exist. Thus, while Sinn Féin demands – often justly – public inquiries and accountability for the murders of Catholics by Loyalists or the forces of the state, it does not understand why such accountability might apply to itself.
Some of the more rabid nationalist postings on this thread are astonishing, in the extent to which they support Fintan O’Toole’s original assertion. Prince Eoghan and Danny’s input above are prime examples, in particular. What was it again about motes and planks?
Well then, Suilven, perhaps he should annex this thread to his article as validation of it, eh? After all, as you assert, if a few anonymous posters on this thread can be deemed to represent all nationalists, then Fintan is equally correct to extrapolate his conclusions from a few examples, and neither one of you is barking mad.
“But Catholics have been insulated from the need to confront the same truths by the notion that the UDR men killed by the IRA were only incidentally Protestant. Catholic sectarianism does not need to be confronted because it does not exist.â€
I might be incorrect due to a poor memory, but I don’t think anyone actually addressed that argument on this thread, i.e. that the reluctance of some members of the nationalist community to classify PIRA actions as sectarian crimes insulates them from the knowledge that some of them unwittingly supported sectarianism. It’s a highly controversial argument, but it’s not one that I am unsympathetic to, since I’ve made it many times on Slugger and elsewhere prior to Fintan’s article. The problem I have is with extrapolation from specific examples to a wider context in order to serve a propaganda purpose, confusing non sequiturs with sound deductions derived from cogent and diligent analysis of the relevant data; and with failing to differentiate between those who carried out the actions and those who didn’t in the attribution of culpability. So, Fintan should have confined his statements to “some Catholics” in the cited example rather than “all Catholics in Northern Ireland” done by the simple expedient of omitting that all-important qualifier and stating simply “Catholics.â€
The Dubliner remember the Love Ulster gathering? It got a rather warm Irish reception for trying to highlight Unionist concerns over IRA activities; it failed to raise its concerns as it was met with fury that led to riots.
360 thinking is required otherwise the only propaganda you’re succumbing to is the stuff you want to hear, see and indeed tackle to advance your own seemingly settled position, despite evidence to the contrary.
But the love ulster riot was condemned by virtually every irish nationalist or republican party – includign SF – so what does that prove?
DC
bad example i think since most of those involved in the riot wouldnt have had a prod in their midst since sean o’ casey lived down there
“But the love ulster riot was condemned by virtually every irish nationalist or republican party – includign SF – so what does that prove?”
That action is required on moving away from fixed mindsets that tend to over-react as a result of said intolerance.
Bad example JP, well I would think otherwise. Perhaps a bit of propaganda by Fraser and Co, you might suggest, but afterall it still brought out the worst in certain people for no reason than complete intolerance to the right to make a statement of protest over what in many quarters would perceive to be valid concerns (re Fintan’s article).
It seems that loyalist/unionist culture doesn’t have good exchange rate currency when compared to the strenght of the republican movement. There are probably good historical reasons for this but in a shared future and equality context it is surely time to reciprocate an understanding and respect of everyone’s cultures. No?
The Dubliner
Willowfield, you have duplicitously modified the argument from the one that you agreed with. The argument you agreed with de facto stated that the entire nationalist community is guilty of PIRA violence because, it is claimed, they didn’t act as a vigilante police force and beat the offenders to a speedy death with their hurley and shillelagh sticks.
I disagree. Where was this original argument made, and where did I agree with it? That is certainly not my view, so I am at a loss as to why I would have agreed with it. By your logic, the argument would also “de facto†have “stated†that the entire unionist community is guilty of discrimination against Roman Catholics because most of them voted Unionist. That is not my view, either.
What I did do was point out to IJP that turning a blind eye to discrimination was not in the same league as turning a blind eye to torture and murder. I still hold that view, and that view holds whether the perpetrators of murder were nationalists or unionists. Do you disagree?
That argument renders the unionist community guilty of the same offence in regard to loyalist violence.
Well, it depends what is meant by “turning a blind eyeâ€. If you mean “not acting as a vigilante police force and beating the offenders to a speedy death with their [hockey sticks] and [band poles], then, yes, the unionist community would be guilty of the same offence.
As is oft pointed out, it cannot be argued that all those who voted for PSF did so because they supported PIRA, nor can it be argued that a vote for a PSF candidate is the same thing as a sectarian action …
Well, it could be argued, but it would be a difficult argument to sustain. Equally, though, it would be a difficult to sustain an argument that the electoral support for PSF did not indicate some degree of, at best, tolerance of PIRA terrorism and, at worst, support for it. I simply do not believe that the PSF electorate did include significant numbers who supported PIRA terrorism. Even today, when the PIRA campaign has ended – if this blog is anything to go by – the typical PSF voter believes the PIRA campaign to have been just.
The critical point, Willow, is that people are not accountable for that which they have no control over.
I’m unaware of claiming that they did.
The blame for violent acts lies with the individuals who committed those acts, and not with any uninvolved third parties – nor “wider implications†of holding entire communities responsible and administering punishment accordingly …
I agree entirely with the latter point, but only broadly with the former. I do think that there is an element of moral responsibility and therefore guilt attached to those who, in some way other than actually committing violent acts, gave support to those acts. At one extreme, the person who willingly drives a car transporting terrorists to commit a murder shares a large degree of guilt, even though his action was not in itself violent. At the other extreme, the person who gives moral support to the terrorist campaign by, for example, voting for a party that endorses that violence, also shares a degree of guilt, albeit less so on the sliding scale. Even reinforcing someone else’s support for terrorism in a conversation is morally irresponsible, in my view.
Isn’t it time, anyway, to stop seeing each other as competing groups who have wronged each other and start seeing each other as individuals who have done no wrong to the other?
That would be good.
DC
still think terrible example, its been shown that alot of the major participants were just opportunistic thugs, as for the republicans involved i don’t defend them or make excuses for them. I think the whole episode was unrepresentative of rank and file thinking in the RoI.
a respectful approach to each other in the future i won’t fight with however.
Well the victims’ group still didn’t get their chance to a fair procession of protest due to the actions of those ‘thugs’.
Thugs who wouldn’t happen to be thugish due to holding sectarian attitudes associated with a certain disputed narrative.
DC
not saying there are not thugs with sectarian atitudes im just questioning if this particular incident is a correct example catholic sectarianism. Now catholic sectarianism does exist but i dont think it was a primary motivating factor that day given that most of the participants seemed to have little alligance to anything except themselves and hadnt lived in a religously divided society.
As for the love Ulster guys and their status as a victims group, its off topic and something i would leave for another thread (if it hasnt been done to death already!)
Yea I guess those protestors must just be unhappy about life in general then and just took to a bit of involuntary violence linked to a motor neurone condition yet to be identified as naked sectarianism.
DC
i’ve gave you my view based on my interpretation of the reports available including who it is thought participated on the day. Prove me wrong or get a better example
jpeters,
So that’ll be why Charlie Bird of RTE was called an ‘orange bastard’ as he was assaulted by one of the rioters? How very non-sectarian.
I’m not suggesting that the Irish Republic is sectarian but mainly highlighting the extremes to which certain people will go to counter-protest with violence.
I’d still say what happened in Dublin was driven by sectarian attitudes.
And it’s not about you or me so I don’t see why I have to prove you wrong.
ah great another guy who won’t listen to a word i say! not saying there wasnt sectarianism on the day, i’m talking about ‘primary’ motivations on the day by the ‘general’ body of the rioters. This incident has been shown to have had little religous or political motivation and those guys that were there on the day and could string a sentance together are acknowledged by most to be a lunatic fringe. What i’m really saying is if you want to get behind the catholic version of sectarianism (which for all the crudeness of sectarianism itself is rather more complex than the protestant version) you should not start at the love ulster rally
Please tell me we are not talking about the LoveUlster parade again. Sectarian anti-catholic bigots march into a catholic country and – guess what – are met with catholic violence. The extent of double standards is still enough to make you sick in NI. 2001, Loyalists were allowed to run rampant against Catholic school children and ran with the excuse of (add Protestant rumour about flags here). Annually, the OO shut down NI to hold marches flaunting Protestant dominance, and are – what – surprised to be met with Catholic opposition. Lets get this straight, all sectarian violence is wrong. But hatred of Catholics in some Protestant communities runs scarily deep. There is no Catholic equivalent of the OO, popular to the extent of the OO.
I don’t believe in pervasive Protestant dominance nor pervasive Catholic sectarianism, neither do I believe that because I see a group of protestors or marchers together do I feel that they represent the true feeling of relationships between Catholics and Protestants. The situations are manipulated politically; however, it has come to light throughout the last several years specifically incidents which seem to show a mirrored shared common condition – sectarianism.
Is this to be our Shared Future?
“Lets get this straight, all sectarian violence is wrong. But hatred of Catholics in some Protestant communities runs scarily deep.”
Lets get this straight, all sectarian violence is wrong. But hatred of Protestamts in some Catholic communities runs scarily deep. – see two can play that game!
“I don’t believe in pervasive Protestant dominance nor pervasive Catholic sectarianism”
neither do i. i think that the fear off the lunatic fringes at either side of the question of our constitional question is what drives NI politics. In day to day existence sectarianism is a non-issue of the majority (but not the vast majority). Fear of sectarianism is something else though, the idea of your religon being held against you and standing in the way of your aspirations is terrifying and does lead to people to vote to the extremes. I doubt if the majority of SF voters want to see its programme fully implemented (especially those economic bits) and the majority of DUP voters would tell the Doc to f*ck off if he turned up at their pub on a saturday night. Off course the whole thing is deplorably zero sum. Politics should be more positive.
Mick
I am a simple guy. I guess that is the only thing we can take from an unsatisfactory exchange of views. I’ll leave you to whatever visions of rural Ulster that you have.
In general it is very worrying that instead of encouraging Unionism to emerge from her cultural miasma, and move away from inherent sectarianism. We instead seek to provide excuses why they shouldn’t change. The ‘one side is as bad as the other’ fallacy is exposed on an ongoing basis, yet it is still trotted out and not only by the usual coterie of saddo’s who usually slabber on about pan-Nationalism and genocide and ethnic cleansing………
Why?
Democratic
Both of those statements are true if you wish them to be, however only one is shown to be true on a regular and ongoing basis.
The Roman Catholic Church is anti-Protestant to the core!
Of course it is just like Coke is anti-Pepsi to the core
Doesnt mean they advocate burning the Pepsi factories to the ground
As for the oo they have cultivated the hatred of the Catholic Community for hundreds of years and now that they do not have the authorities to supress the nasty taigs….. they are reaping what they have sown. It is in no way advocating violence against the oo just pointing out where it comes from
Prince E.:”The ‘one side is as bad as the other’ fallacy”
You’re right – loyalists killed 873 civilians while Republicans killed only 738.
Phew, that’s that sorted then. The Loyalists are worse than the Republicans, and so the Republican community can now breath easy – Fallacy confirmed.
DK
I take it that your inability to understand the Dub’s contribution has led to this childish comparison.
In my life/family/religion/community I would not and do not tolerate expressions of bigotry. So to be lumped in with this wholesale accusation is offensive in the extreme. We need to move away from it completely, that is why giving certain sections of the Unionist community a comfort blanket in the form of this fallacy is not acceptable.
Sean
It is that obvious! I find it incredible that certain people seek to take the view that the OO is representative of Protestant Christianity.
PE,
‘So to be lumped in with this wholesale accusation is offensive in the extreme’
And yet in your previous post you described Unionism as inherently sectarian. Are you not guilty of the same offence yourself?
PE – it’s too lazy to simple say “themmums are worse” which is effectively what you are saying with “The ‘one side is as bad as the other’ fallacy” and in your earlier comment that wrt “potestnts are sectarian” vs “catholics are sectarian” “Both of those statements are true if you wish them to be, however only one is shown to be true on a regular and ongoing basis”
The impression that you are giving is that you see no problem to be addressed. In essence, you agree with the thread’s title and are lumping yourself with the accusation.
When you consider the recent history of Unionism hegemony Suliven, No. Hence why I speak about encouragement to move away from all of that stuff.
Look if you seek to portray me as one-eyed it won’t work, just recently I have lambasted those in the GAA over the Protestant Fermanagh player and called for action against those responsible. No equivocation. I have also applauded the way Linfield are going about their business these days, they are trying to move away from their anti-Catholic past in a meaningful way.
I am against all forms of bigoted sectarianism.
C’mon DK to ignore reality does us no favours. Catholic sectarianism where it occurs is usually on an isolated basis and has not and hopefully never will reach the heights that we have routinely come to expect of those who call themselves Protestants. I must reiterate that I do not accept that the OO are representative of the Protestant community, sadly why so many Christians associate themselves with this group in it’s present form escapes me.
Prince Eoghan
“Both of those statements are true if you wish them to be, however only one is shown to be true on a regular and ongoing basis.”
really – are we talking about anything specific or am I jaut taking your word for that along with the proven “fallacy” of “one side being as bad as the other” As it happens I don’t wish either phrase to be true – it simply is in my experience. I live just outside Glengormley in what was a mixed area but would be now considered (so I am told) a Nationalist area – the “Huns out”/ “KAH” scrawls outside my local shops and walls are an eyesore I am greeted with everyday while going about my business – I know of threats made to others on down the road from me and the stoning of the local state school bus has become a social event – the worst however was a case not too long ago when a family was removed from their home during a dispute by their own neighbours who thought they were Protestants! (they weren’t)
Justice was done in that circumstance thankfully for anyone interested and the ringleader bigot is now being held at her Majesty’s pleasure. However I tell you this not to recieve an equivalent list of local Protestant wrong doing from you (which I am sure you could do quite easily – and I could do even more easily) but merely to illustrate the reality of life where I live and where I can assure you hatred runs just as deep among the Catholic community here as amongst any Protestant enclave you care to mention – and as such I find some of the “we don’t hate the way youse-uns do” quite frankly either delusional or willfully misleadling depending on who is doing the speaking.
I’m not seeking to portray you as one-eyed, PE – your posts do that for you without any help from me.
Suliven
*shakes head* nothing I can do about your perception!
Democratic.
>>Justice was done in that circumstance thankfully for anyone interested and the ringleader bigot is now being held at her Majesty’s pleasure.< <
Excellent! Long may it continue. The tit for tat stories are helpful in showing that these isolated incidents should not be tolerated. How do these stories compare to a community that had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table to share power with their neighbours, or indeed with the bigot/orangefest that seems to go on for months each year.
If you seek to suggest that because some Catholics act like idiots and behave in a sectarian manner. This can somehow match up to the intensity of sectarian behaviour exhibited on a seemingly continuous basis by those purporting to be Protestants. Then I would put it to you that you are in denial. >>delusional or willfully misleadling<< Indeed! same could be applied to you couldn’t it? However I am not sure how serious you are about the problem yet, so won’t throw muck.
WHAT WE HAVE LEFT
We shot one
We shot two
We shot thirteen more than you
We see orange
We see green
We see nothing in between
You were right
You were wrong
You just hated all along
You were murdered
You were killed
You were just grist there to be milled
They were heroes
They were scum
They kept going ’cause we kept mum.
They were beaten
They prevailed
And still they keep their crosses nailed.
Prince Eoghan I can see I am not going to get anywhere with you am I. I told you honestly that I need no education on Protestant bigotry from you -whether you choose to believe doesn’t really bother me – I know it exists very well. However I gave you some (some only) of my own very recent experiences of anti-Protestant bigotry (by local Catholics) where I live – I did so to try and open your eyes to what I am sure is/was happening in other parts of NI also. (check the L/Derry thread) What I told you I firmly believe and stand over in that where I live Catholic bigotry matches any Protestant bigotry blow for blow and stroke for stroke and as the Catholic community is now very much in the majority that could mean a very dim future for Protestants where I live if certain people (including my local high ranking Sinn Fein MLA) continue to be either delusional or willfully misleading on the issue of the existance of Catholic bigotry. I sincerely hope you are not one of these people Prince – however you might feel about power-sharing and Protestants being dragged “kicking and screaming” is pretty much irrelevant to the thread subject whether it’s true or not.
Denmocratic or Democratic
Not trolling under a different name are you? lol. Getting annoyed that I won’t accept your own local experience as the norm community wide isn’t going to help. My own experience is totally different to yours btw. The subject in hand is how the wider community expresses itself not individual low level idiots. Ffs go and read the Dub’s excellent piece.
“Denmocratic or Democratic
Not trolling under a different name are you? lol. Getting annoyed that I won’t accept your own local experience as the norm community wide isn’t going to help” – Charmer aren’t you Prince!
The point I am trying to make to you is that people judge according to their own experiences – are you going to tell me for example to ignore my own and draw back and look at the overall picture and how hard Catholics in other areas have had things or count how many more attacks on Catholics there have been in a given time period in the whole country – c’mon!. Everyone looks at their own community and life as a benchmark I’m sure Catholics in Short Strand would agree for example. From where I stand Catholic bigotry exists and from what I read on here from other posters on other threads – it exists elsewhere too – I’m sorry if that doesn’t suit your very general narrative of “it’s all youse-uns that are sectarian – not us”. BTW – glad to hear you have never had experience of Catholic bigotry where you are – long may it continue!
>>Charmer aren’t you Prince!<<
It’s Prince Eoghan not Prince Charming ;¬)
Look I am getting bored repeating myself. I do not for one minute value your experiences locally any less than my own. My point is that Catholic sectarianism (which does exist btw, where have I claimed it doesn’t) does not manifest itself to anywhere near a widespread level or intensity as the sectarianism emanating from sections of the Protestant community.
In built up areas local areas youths fight against those from other areas, because so much of Belfast is segregated this might explain at least some of the inter-communal violence.
btw Denmocratic or Democratic, any reason for the name change?
“My point is that Catholic sectarianism (which does exist btw, where have I claimed it doesn’t) does not manifest itself to anywhere near a widespread level or intensity as the sectarianism emanating from sections” etc, etc. – Yes Prince you have made this perfectly clear that this is how you feel – your choice. However the thread title is “Catholic sectarianism does not need to be confronted because it does not exist†– do you then agree with me that this is bollix despite that fact that you feel the Prods are much worse statistically?
As for the name change – I’m a troll – didn’t you guess!
>>As for the name change – I’m a troll – didn’t you guess!<<
Nah can’t be you, must be your alter-ego!
Look many of us already do confront any kind of bigotry emanating from Catholics. Seeking to compare the two is idiotic, there is no comparison! One comes from the top down, the other almost entirely from local eedjits or ignorant bastards. Confronting Catholic sectarianism whilst ignoring the big fat smelly elephant in the room is nuts.
“Seeking to compare the two is idiotic, there is no comparison! One comes from the top down, the other almost entirely from local eedjits or ignorant bastards. Confronting Catholic sectarianism whilst ignoring the big fat smelly elephant in the room is nuts.”
Probably a little truth I this I suppose – however I was never comparing Prince – you were.
I was merely giving my own experiences locally re: Catholic bigotry (i.e the thread subject) – my issue was that some on here in my opinion would trivialise or have us believe it doesn’t / never did exist where I know that I does. As for Catholic bigotry not needing confrontation because it is not as wide-spread as Protestant bigotry (which I can believe perhaps – but certainly not to the extent that you do) I feel that all bigotry is equally in need of quashing no matter the quarter nor the statistical differences – window panes cost the same where I live than they do in the Short Strand – know what I mean.
I do! Where I live I am a prime candidate. With a new baby in the house it is a worry. If at any stage I gave the impression that I was not sympathetic to the plight of local people subject to Catholic bigotry it was not my intention.
>>I feel that all bigotry is equally in need of quashing no matter the quarter nor the statistical differences<<
Here, here!
The B—-t’s Equaliser 6
I firmly believe and stand over in that where I live Catholic bigotry matches any Protestant bigotry blow for blow and stroke for stroke and as the Catholic community is now very much in the majority that could mean a very dim future for Protestants
A very good example there folks!
It can match all experience for the specious pruposes of the B____t’s Equaliser.
Don’t know what I’m talking about? Check the Pride Folk Devil thread.
[Differnt Drummer is against ALL B____try too and seems to be on some sort of quest against rhetorical BS as well -ED]
“It can match all experience for the specious pruposes of the B____t’s Equaliser.
Don’t know what I’m talking about? Check the Pride Folk Devil thread.
[Differnt Drummer is against ALL B____try too and seems to be on some sort of quest against rhetorical BS as well -ED]”
Was any of that supposed to make any sense or was it just random words in no particular order? – as it was directed at one of my posts I just thought I would ask.
I dunno demo it seems he gets started and then loses himself somewhere in the middle
Have to say I am gobsmacked by some of the material here – postings by lib1916 and Ian hall stand out to quote examples from either side.
A word of advice ,Mick, if you want to lend some illumination and objectivity to the discussion steer clear of RDE – a case in point being her unilateral litany of atrocities here. When I see a unilateral narrative like this I instinctively sniff a propagandist agenda.
Demos
Seriously?
- Do you really want to know?
Then check out the debate on the Pride ‘folk devil’.
On Our Tragedy and our Difference
Yes S. Observer the exhange of attrocities can be about propaganda but I think having read most of the posts above I think they were more to do with pain.
That pain was not felt equally – the pain of oppression and exclusion the pain of wasted lives before 1966. After that we had many Lost Lives as M. Feeney has put it ie people not involved directly but just became part of the civil inventory of damage death and injury of the troubles.
And what of those who were doing the fighting?
The best and the worst comment about it all I have heard is from Tim McGarry.
After it was revealed that top Sinn Fienn members were actually working for the British in carrying out killings.
And that more Loyalists were exposed as being used by the British to carry out killings.
He remarked:
‘so it was the Brits versus the Brits with the Brits in the middle….’
But that should not be a revelation to people here after:
Aden(1962-1967) (where SAS dressing up as Arabs and planting bombs in rival Arab nationalist cafes so that each retalated against the other)and
Kenya (1952-1964) (where the ‘majority’ of African’s supported the British and exterminated the smaller nationalist opposition and regularly attacked the small tribes who supported the rebels).
We are some where in between. Aden destroyed itself after the British left as the succesfully hyped up mutal hate of the rival nationalists lead to a horrible civil war.
Where the Beglians failed in the Congo the British succeeded in neutralising the polity of Kenya so that it remained more or less as it was before independence. With very few rewards for the new black overseaers in government and a bonzana for the new mutinationals.
We have all lost somebody – some have lost more than others (see above). But I would say that NI has a high rate of Trade Union members and that the majority are opposed to the new imperial wars in Iraq and Afganistan.
So we have been doing things that are still radical and different – together
- and we will keep doing so.
Stonewall: “The Roman Catholic Church is anti-Protestant to the core! ”
I think you’ve managed to botch the whole “chicken / egg” question…
Stonewall: “The notion that one community is less sectarian than the other is a non-sence! ”
Assuming for the moment the word you were groping for was “nonsense,” I think you will find that it boils down to a matter of internal narrative — the manner in which each group explains its activities to itself. The IRA maintains a solidly POLITICAL narrative and explains its various and sundry deeds using that focus and lens. Ergo, when they and their partisans discuss the matter, the think in terms of politics, not religion. Unionism has been a bit more… opaque on the matter, insofar as there has been a bit of cross-breeding between social organizations with a religious bent (OO) with political organizations (UUP, DUP) and its communities militias (UDA, UVF). Throw in afew generations of politicians who have stressed and rabble-roused on the politics of religion, and you have a mess — Unionism is too entangled with religion not to appear sectarian, whilst the the IRA goes to great lengths to couch itself in political language and not muddy the lines.
Politics As A Cover
I think someone gave an accoount above on why they are concerned – like most people, with what goes on in their own area and not the big picture. Becasue as the poster said – that’s where people are at and you can’t expect them to be/do otherwise.
But my point is that as a people we HAVE been concerned with the wider picture and we see it radically – a radicalism that has keep pace with the UK on Iraq and Afganistan.
It is with that radicalism that the PIRA should be seen. We have excellent work done by Peter Taylor and Ed Maloney and Slugger does important service in directing people to those and similar radical accounts.
So a radical view of what the PIRA was and is in the public domain. Keeping it short (unlike poor old Dubliner above who nearly wore out his keyboard) SF/PIRA are Ulsters Fatah.
The sloution is to keep faith with our own radicalism and not trust any ‘Fatah’ OR ‘Hammas’ party from either side.
Except theres no evidence to show the IRA is using a political cover of its religious bigotry. My God, what are you guys on? It was always political for the IRA, indeed the entire Republican movement is political. Lets face it: religion has played a much larger part in the conflict for Protestant Loyalists. From the Battle of the Boyne, to the first instituted anti-Catholic laws, to the continuation of the Orange Order, to Ian Paisley’s rants about the pope, to the Protestant hate groups that targetted Catholic civilians. If we all take off our green-tinted and UnionJack-tinted glasses, we can all see this. Jeez Louise
It doesn’t make it any more morally right, but surely somebody can see that the IRA was not anti-Protestant, in the same way that the UVF/UDA/UFF/Shankill Butchers\RUC\Unionist gov. were ?? Anybody?
“were … anti-Catholic” ??