Exodus: how Derry lost its Protestants…
Long awaited (on Slugger at least) last night’s programme on the mass migration of Protestant population from the west bank of Derry City is worth watching in full. The whole issue remains a matter of some controversy but, as the narrator says towards the end, the truth is probably nowhere near as cut and dried as either side quite believes.
It’s true, as some commenters have mentioned on previous threads on this subject, that population movements were common throughout the Troubles. Indeed, according to figures from the Housing Executive, only 10% of public housing is not segregated. This was certainly not the case before 1969.
What makes Derry remarkable is the vast numbers involved (14,000, down to less that 400), the virtual silence on the matter within wider public discourse and the deleterious impact it’s had on the civil life of the city. It’s also differs from other mass movements in that it was not all effected in one sudden move. The causes were both various and cumulative.
Next week we hope to have one of the producers for a live interview on Slugger.
‘Eddie Burke was Irish, born in Dublin, he was an apologist for the English monarchy and adversary of the great Republican Englishman Thomas Paine.’
Edmund Burke actually supported the American ‘revolutionaries’ and only opposed the French Revolutionaries when it descended into mindless carnage. Tom Paine was one very lucky English Republican . Due to an error on the part of the prison guard who placed a white X on the inside of Paine’s door instead of on the outside Paine avoided being guillotined by his ‘fellow republicans’.
As France turned from the liberty , equality and fraternity of revolution to Napoleonic imperialism it was Burke who saw that even well meaning ‘revolutions’ can end up dispatching as many revolutionaries as the ancien regime . The Civil Wars in England ( Mid 17th century) , USA (mid 19th) and Ireland ( 1920′s) are just some examples .
Posted by Mick Fealty on Jan 14, 2008 @ 11:46 AM
:
This is certainly the case with the major population movements in Belfast in the early Troubles, though as Briso has also pointed out those movements took place over a far shorter period of time and, to that extent, were hugely more traumatic than the factors that were at play in clearing out the Protestant population of the west bank in Derry.
Not quite Mick. I pointed out that some mind-bogglingly large population displacements took place in two entirely separate, very short periods which just happened to be measured by the reports online at the CAIN website. I DID NOT say that Belfast’s exodus took place over a ‘far shorter period of time’. I don’t have documentary evidence of any other periods apart from the two covered by the reports.
My belief, based on my memories of the BBC NI and UTV news over three decades is that it was happening in Belfast for just as long and dwarfs in scale what happened in Derry. That part is open though, as I don’t have the figures. Perhaps Belfast, unlike Derry, doesn’t care to examine them.
Saville still talking to witnesses – Good article from yesterday’s Independent on Sunday.
The first report:
… we believe that the 13-week period can be regarded as a representative sample of the continuing situation since August 1972. The restricted period allowed us to examine all the available housing movement data relating to this period, and eliminated the need for extracting a larger sample from within a longer study-period.
…
The average size of all the families which moved, with the exception of old age pensioners, was almost exactly 4.00.
RELIGIONS
During the 13 week period chosen as the time framework, of the 474 cases examined in detail, 222 were Catholic, 110 Protestant and the religion of the remaining 142 was not known[7].
This doc was from 1974. It is explicitly stated that the sampled period can be considered representative. IF that were true, we could estimate that between 1st June 1972 and 1st Jan 1974 (6.33333333 quarters), the number of families displaced would be 474 * 6.333 = 3002. There are an average of four people per household giving around 12000 people.
The earlier report relates to “movement within the Belfast urban area for the 3 week period beginning 9th August, 1971″.
“By taking the total population of Belfast Urban Area and dividing it by the average number per family we have arrived at a round number of 180,000 households. From this, our information of 2,100 moves indicates that roughly 1% of families in the Belfast Urban Area have moved house in our 3-week period. The proportion of Catholics to Protestants in the city is 25% to 75%. From our religious breakdown it appears that 2% of the 45,000 Catholic households have moved while 0.5% of the 135,000 Protestant households have also found new homes.”
IN THREE WEEKS!!! Assuming 4 as an average household, we’re talking about 8500 people. That in itself puts Derry completely in the shade. Belfast’s secret disgrace, Mick?
Briso,
As a certain DP Moynahan famously asserted, “people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.”
It would be good to see figures covering all areas for all of the time. In the absence of hard figures (outside those for the west bank of Derry), there has been a flurry of assertions on this an previous threads of how this experience compares with that of other parts of Northern Ireland.
So far in this series of discussions, facts, outside the stark ones relating to Protestant depopulation of the west bank, have been notable by their very absence.
When they finally arrive, it may be that they uphold your sense drawn from childhood experience of the media (and clearly bolstered by the fact of the tight sectarian geography of working class Belfast) that it does indeed “dwarf in scale what happened in Derry”.
But I don’t see the relevance of a line of argument that says because it also took place on a much larger scale in a much larger city (Derry’s current urban population is 85,000, while the Belfast City Council area is 275,000) that that is any reason for not discussing (as civilly as such matters can be) the subject of the programme above.
If you believe, which you have said you do, that this depopulation has had deleterious impact on the civil life of the city, it is only by looking at the issue honestly and openly at how and why it happened that you stand much chance of beginning to undo that damage.
IMHO, it’s in no one’s interest to embark upon a second, altogether pointless, siege of Derry just for the sake of academically sorting out the past. There needs to be a future value in it to make it a worthwhile topic of discussion.
My last crossed with your last. Since I pointed you in the direction of those documents, I am not sure what point you think I was making in the first place. As mentioned above, it was never my intention to lay siege to the City of Derry, even if that is how it has been interpreted.
Belfast has plenty to hang its head in shame for. Many of us who lived through the late sixties and early seventies can no doubt lay down generous testament to just how venial and grubby it got at times. Try Brian Lynch’s long poem Pity for the Wicked for taster. But this thread is about Derry, not Belfast!!
Mick:
>But this thread is about Derry, not Belfast!!
As always Mick.
This thread is about how “What makes Derry remarkable is the vast numbers involved (14,000, down to less that 400), the virtual silence on the matter within wider public discourse and the deleterious impact it’s had on the civil life of the city. It’s also differs from other mass movements in that it was not all effected in one sudden move. The causes were both various and cumulative.” I would say that was a load of balls, and I’ve backed it up as far as is possible without further sustained research. If you still hold to the above view, I’ll keep digging. If not, say so and I’ll shut up.
I don’t care where the story ends up going or what the final verdict ends up being, since I am attempting to sustain a discussion, not an argument!
Even if Briso’s figures are correct, Derry still remains “remarkable” because the population shift marks the relocation of a large population out of the city.
In Belfast there were population transfers and the overall number and proportion of Roman Catholics has actually increased.
So there is reason to consider Derry as somewhat different to Belfast.
what gives Unionists the right to set the final date for completed applications?
-Army guns, winning the war, what else?
At last a sincere answer. The fact is, the border was imposed by force, and not by any democratic principle such as plebiscites.
This refutes your attempts to portray unionists as the uncompromising bad boys and nationalists as the virtuous good guys.
No, as I say, goodness or badness do not come into it. Conquests by force, like those of Napoleon etc, do not lead to lasting settlements unless there is a major alteration of the population structure, as in for example America or Australia.
Londonderry was included in the six county entity by virtue of force of arms, not by the free vote of the majority of its residents. As such it was unstable in a way that towns that correctly assigned are not. It is not a matter of morality, it is a matter of town planning.
I merely observe that nationalists were unwilling to negotiate about the border until it was too late. Unionists were willing to negotiate from the start.
You seem to imagine that popular ignorance of history will allow you to get away with this howler. The Ulster Covenant (1912) stated and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland.
Nota bene: this does not say, conspiracy to extend the jurisdiction of the Home Rule Parliament to the North Eastern counties. They wanted to strangle the entity entirely.
There is absolutely no mention of Fenian majority counties having any rights. Unionists willing to negotiate? Do me a favour. You are trying to rewrite history.
I merely observe that nationalists were unwilling to negotiate about the border until it was too late.
In other words, you decide when it is too late. You impose the final date for completed applications. Q.E.D.
The problem with Unionist rule, in Londonderry at least, was that it lacked the democratic mandate necessary to succeed as effective government, which is why it ended up the way it did.
-I couldn’t agree more, but that was not what we were discussing
Actually we are discussing “Exodus: how Derry lost its Protestants.†See head of page.
PaddyReilly
At last a sincere answer. The fact is, the border was imposed by force, and not by any democratic principle such as plebiscites.
Is it entirely true to say that it imposed by force? It was “imposed†by an Act of Parliament and opposed by force by the IRA. Moreover, nationalists wished to enforce their desired border by force, so – yet again – your criticism of unionism is equally applicable to nationalists, if not moreso. So where exactly are you going?
You are correct, of course, that there was no plebiscite on the precise location of the border (as there should have been), but on the bigger and essential question of whether there should be a border, regular elections over previous decades indicated the answer.
No, as I say, goodness or badness do not come into it.
It would seem that – for you – they do, since you have attempted to portray unionists as “bad†and nationalists as “goodâ€. Why condemn unionists for seeking to impose a border, without condemning nationalists for the same crime? Why condemn unionists for seeking as much land as possible, without condemning nationalists for the same crime?
For the record, though, let me give you the opportunity to clarify your position: are you, in fact, saying that unionists were no more or no less “goodâ€, “badâ€, “reasonable, “unreasonableâ€, “justified, “unjustified†(or whatever word you choose to use) than nationalists? And that you also condemn nationalists for the same “crimes†for which you condemn unionists? If so, how do you explain your previous postings?
Conquests by force, like those of Napoleon etc, do not lead to lasting settlements unless there is a major alteration of the population structure, as in for example America or Australia.
So the absorption of what became Northern Ireland into an all-Ireland republic, which could only have been achieved by force, would not have led to a lasting settlement: correct?
Londonderry was included in the six county entity by virtue of force of arms, not by the free vote of the majority of its residents. As such it was unstable in a way that towns that correctly assigned are not. It is not a matter of morality, it is a matter of town planning.
And if nationalists had had their way, the vast majority of towns and cities in Northern Ireland would have been included in an all-Ireland entity by virtue of force of arms, not by a free vote of their residents. As such, they would have been unstable: correct?
And I put it to you again – and perhaps this time you will choose not to side-step – perhaps if nationalists had agreed to partition from the outset and entered into negotiation with unionists about the precise location of the border, Londonderry city might not have been included in Northern Ireland.
(contd.)
You seem to imagine that popular ignorance of history will allow you to get away with this howler. The Ulster Covenant (1912) stated and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. Nota bene: this does not say, conspiracy to extend the jurisdiction of the Home Rule Parliament to the North Eastern counties. They wanted to strangle the entity entirely.
Sure that’s what is said, but in practical terms their position was precisely the latter one. Hence the setting up of the Provisional Government. Hence attempts to introduce Ulster exclusion to the Home Rule Bill. Hence the establishment of Northern Ireland. Actions speak louder than words, etc.
There is absolutely no mention of Fenian majority counties having any rights.
There’s no mention of “Hun majority counties†having any rights.
Unionists willing to negotiate? Do me a favour. You are trying to rewrite history.
Not at all. As I’ve already alluded, unionists were involved in long negotiations about partition during the passage of the Third Home Rule Bill, and also in the Irish Convention of 1917. At no stage did nationalists indicate any willingness to negotiate on partition. You try to rewrite history by ignoring what unionists actually did, relying instead on the words of the Covenant.
â€I merely observe that nationalists were unwilling to negotiate about the border until it was too late.â€
In other words, you decide when it is too late.
Not me: history. History tells us that it was too late, otherwise the 1924 negotiations would have succeeded.
You impose the final date for completed applications. Q.E.D.
I imposed nothing. I wasn’t even alive at the time.
Actually we are discussing “Exodus: how Derry lost its Protestants.†See head of page.
I’m aware of the title and subject of the thread, but that does not mean that we weren’t discussing your condemnation of unionists and the implied consequent elevation of nationalists on to a higher moral plane. Maybe you haven’t been around Slugger long enough, but you ought to know that the discussions on threads often meander off-topic or on to related topics.
Posted by willowfield on Jan 14, 2008 @ 04:09 PM
Even if Briso’s figures are correct, Derry still remains “remarkable†because the population shift marks the relocation of a large population out of the city.
There was a large population shift out of Belfast.
In Belfast there were population transfers and the overall number and proportion of Roman Catholics has actually increased.
In Derry there were population transfers and the overall number and proportion of Roman Catholics has actually increased.
So there is reason to consider Derry as somewhat different to Belfast.
Yes, bad as it was, it was better than Belfast.
I have a recollection there were large population shifts at the time of partition too. It’d be interesting to know if there was a similar result, and did it mitigate over the course of the intervening period.
>>I don’t care where the story ends up going or what the final verdict ends up being, since I am attempting to sustain a discussion, not an argument!<<
Then why is the emphasis not on why so many Prods choose to move out of areas where they were not in the ascendency? Was it the cash windfall brought on by the extra security jobs? Perhaps taking advantage of relatively cheap housing in new suburbs as was the case UK wide, only cheaper? Perhaps they choose to be with people with familiar customs. Or was it the elephant staring out at us all here, that they just didn’t want to recognise Taigs as equals, and live with them on that basis?
I’m sure there was a variety of reasons, suprisingly there is only a certain reason being pushed here. ie. fear. The absence of street burning akin to ethnic cleansing that occurred to Nationalist streets in Belfast. And the grudging testimony of Derrywan Harry F that Derryfolk did not intimidate their prod neighbours etc. Leads me to think that perhaps why not have a thread praising Derrywans for not sinking to the level of Belfast Unionists? They certainly had the numbers and opportunity, yet they are now castigated on the basis of no, repeat no evidence and not much sense.
The basic premise happily carried in your previous contributions Mick is fear, no equivocation seemingly, just fear. Since Harry has not saw fit to answer me, would you oblige me by providing some sort of explanation as to why this psychological shock attributed to the IRA took so long to manifest itself. And why was it not widespread across the six counties?
BRISO
There was a large population shift out of Belfast.
Indeed, but the difference with Derry is that it didn’t see the massive depletion of one community.
In Derry there were population transfers and the overall number and proportion of Roman Catholics has actually increased.
And so you make my case: the minority population increased in Belfast whereas in Derry is hugely depleted.
Maybe you haven’t been around Slugger long enough, but you ought to know that the discussions on threads often meander off-topic or on to related topics.
Indeed, I was actually told not not wander off topic on the last Derry thread, and try to oblige by bringing the discussion back to the point.
As I’ve already alluded, unionists were involved in long negotiations about partition during the passage of the Third Home Rule Bill, and also in the Irish Convention of 1917.
More relevantly, Unionists were involved in smuggling arms into Larne in 1914. Long negotiations means making sure they got what they wanted: they did not try to establish any democratic principle in what they took.
Not me: history. History tells us that it was too late, otherwise the 1924 negotiations would have succeeded.
History did not stop in 1924. Indeed, the British Empire has been ceding territory and shedding possessions ever since.
The 1924 negotiations did not succeed, because Unionist force of arms- largely in the form of Regular and Special policemen- persuaded the British government that it would not be possible to hold plebiscites or make significant transfers.
As a result, any movement towards the establishment of democratic control in Derry has to begin with dead policemen. Dead policemen are perceived as a threat by the Protestant population in general, hence the segregation of population. (I always try to return to topic).
Now let me outline to you an alternative history. 1960s: Civil Rights or similar: protests. The response from the Protestants is to say, frightfully sorry, but the system here is not very democratic, and you have been placed on the wrong side of the border. It seems history is to blame. Tell you what we’ll do, we’ll reform local government so you’ll feel just the same as if you were in the Free State. Call the City what you like; fly what flag you like, we’ll go with the majority. We’ll rename the police force, remove sectarian trappings, make sure there’s equal opportunities. Just don’t get too restive, and if you get a majority for the whole province, we’ll reunite, but as it is there are too many dissenters in Antrim and Down.
I am beginning to laugh, if you are not. Things like this might happen in liberal England, or maybe Scandinavia, but they are not part of the mentality of the Ulster Protestant. You, a person who can’t even agree to shed six letters off the front of a name, witness to the Ulster Protestant willingness to negotiate? What you mean is you got what you wanted eight decades ago and will not give an inch.
Perhaps if nationalists had agreed to partition from the outset and entered into negotiation with unionists about the precise location of the border, Londonderry city might not have been included in Northern Ireland.
And perhaps Carson would have entered into a Civil Union with the Pope? Well obviously not. History does not consist of a series of failures snatched from the jaws of success. The Unionists of the early 19th Century did not include Derry in their portion because they were unaware that Nationalists might have a claim to it. Oh sorry, we didn’t want to take this, but as you didn’t turn up for the negotiations, there’s nothing we can do.
Given that you will not agree to a name change in 2008, it is hardly likely that persons of a like mind to you would have conceded majority rule in 1908, given that this majority was not overwhelming.
And this is everybody’s tragedy: the Catholics get decades of discrimination and Bloody Sunday, policemen get shot Protestants have to exit the West Bank en masse.
PADDYREILLY
Indeed, I was actually told not not wander off topic on the last Derry thread, and try to oblige by bringing the discussion back to the point.
Conveniently enough.
More relevantly, Unionists were involved in smuggling arms into Larne in 1914.
That’s not more relevant. What is relevant in responding to your claim that unionists didn’t negotiate and didn’t want to negotiate is the fact that unionists sought and took part in negotiations: a fact which you denied!
Long negotiations means making sure they got what they wanted: they did not try to establish any democratic principle in what they took.
Obviously negotiations by any party are intended to get what you want. And they did try to establish a democratic principle, namely self-determination.
“Not me: history. History tells us that it was too late, otherwise the 1924 negotiations would have succeeded.”
History did not stop in 1924.
It didn’t indeed and – as I have already said – the history after 1924 tells us that nationalists were too late, since there was no repartition.
Indeed, the British Empire has been ceding territory and shedding possessions ever since.
Maybe so, but Londonderry wasn’t ceded to the Irish Free State.
The 1924 negotiations did not succeed, because Unionist force of arms- largely in the form of Regular and Special policemen- persuaded the British government that it would not be possible to hold plebiscites or make significant transfers.
Maybe so, but that does not alter the fact that nationalists left it too late to negotiate. If they had shown willing at the outset, they may have succeeded in getting Londonderry city. That is the point I have made and which you – for whatever reason – have failed to address.
(contd.)
Now let me outline to you an alternative history. 1960s: Civil Rights or similar: protests. The response from the Protestants is to say, frightfully sorry, but the system here is not very democratic, and you have been placed on the wrong side of the border. It seems history is to blame. Tell you what we’ll do, we’ll reform local government so you’ll feel just the same as if you were in the Free State. Call the City what you like; fly what flag you like, we’ll go with the majority. We’ll rename the police force, remove sectarian trappings, make sure there’s equal opportunities. Just don’t get too restive, and if you get a majority for the whole province, we’ll reunite, but as it is there are too many dissenters in Antrim and Down.
Your trying to change the subject again – I won’t let you do that, but I’ll indulge you on this point anyway.
First, I totally agree that the above “alternative history” would have been preferable and is something which I think should have happened.
Second, here’s another alternative history. 1910s: nationalists acknowledge that unionists have as much right to be excluded from an all-Ireland state as nationalists have to be excluded from an all-British Isles state. The response from unionists and the Government is positive and negotiations ensue in respect of where the border should be drawn. Unionists seek to obtain as much territory as possible for NI, while nationalists seek to obtain as much territory as possible for the South. In the end, with Government pressure, a compromise is reached with all of county Antrim, most of counties Down and Armagh, and parts of Fermanagh, Tyrone and Londonderry forming Northern Ireland. The South goes on gradually to increase its autonomy from Britain and eventually evolves into a fully-independent republic. In Northern Ireland, nationalists accept their fate and agree to participate fully in the institutions of the state whilst still pursuing their cultural distinctiveness. Unionists, secure in their numbers, have little reason to pursue discriminatory practices.
I am beginning to laugh, if you are not. Things like this might happen in liberal England, or maybe Scandinavia, but they are not part of the mentality of the Ulster Protestant.
I am beginning to laugh, if you are not. Things like this might happen in liberal England or maybe Scandinavia, but they are not part of the mentality of the Irish Catholic.
You, a person who can’t even agree to shed six letters off the front of a name, witness to the Ulster Protestant willingness to negotiate?
You a person who can’t even countenance six letters on the front of a name, witness to the Irish Catholic willingness to negotiate?
Regardless, my views on the name of Londonderry have no bearing whatsoever on the historical reality that unionists were willing to negotiate the border whereas nationalists left it too late.
What you mean is you got what you wanted eight decades ago and will not give an inch.
I wasn’t alive eight decades ago. Had I been, I’d like to think I would have wanted a more accurate border to be drawn. Today, if nationalists wished to re-draw the border they would have my support. So your characterisation of me is entirely inaccurate. I suggest you stick to facts and arguments rather than ad hominem remarks which, presumably, are designed to deflect attention from the fact that you have failed in your efforts to elevate nationalism on to a higher moral plane from unionism.
Now let’s deal with some points you chose not to address.
You say the border was “imposed by force”, yet nationalists wish to impose their border by force and – sought to remove the border they didn’t like by force. So where’s the moral distinction?
Why condemn unionists for seeking to impose a border, without condemning nationalists for the same crime? Why condemn unionists for seeking as much land as possible, without condemning nationalists for the same crime?
You said that conquests by force do not lead to lasting settlements. Is it your position, therefore, that the absorption of what became Northern Ireland into an all-Ireland republic, which could only have been achieved by force, would not have led to a lasting settlement?
You said that, because Londonderry was included in the six county entity “by virtue of force of arms”, and not by the free vote of the majority of its residents, it was therfore unstable. Is it your position, therefore, that, had nationalists got their way, the vast majority of towns and cities in what became Northern Ireland would have been unstable?
Prince,
No one is obliged to answer questions put by other commenters on Slugger. Harry may have ignored your contribution for any number of reasons.
As for what you say I’ve said, all I see is a bunch of Straw Men. If you want to narrate both sides of this debate by re-inventing what others say, then I suggest you get your own blog and do it at some remote distance from Slugger.
On the other hand, if you want to stay here, kindly pay attention to what is actually said, rather than what you wish were said.
What is relevant in responding to your claim that unionists didn’t negotiate and didn’t want to negotiate is the fact that unionists sought and took part in negotiations: a fact which you denied!
It takes two to negotiate. If the Nationalists didn’t negotiate, who did the Unionists negotiate with? What you mean is, they presented a wish list to the British Government and got it. While a Civil War was raging, caused by the fact that the UVF had imported arms in 1914.
When, after the Teaty, they were faced with bipartisan negotiations, they did their best to stymie them, and succeeded.
They outmaneuvred the Nationalist side, that is true: but you cannot give away democratic rights in perpetuity, in the way you can a horse or a house.
It takes two to negotiate. If the Nationalists didn’t negotiate, who did the Unionists negotiate with?
They sought to negotiate partition with nationalists, but nationalists refused. They negotiated with the Government.
What you mean is, they presented a wish list to the British Government and got it.
No that’s not what I meant: they did actually seek to negotiate exclusion from the HR Bill. Nationalists wouldn’t coutenenance it. If nationalists had shown willingness to negotiate, they might have been able to negotiate a more favourable border.
While a Civil War was raging, caused by the fact that the UVF had imported arms in 1914.
The Civil War wasn’t caused by UVF import of arms: it was caused by a large minority of nationalists refusing to accept the terms of the Treaty.
When, after the Teaty, they were faced with bipartisan negotiations, they did their best to stymie them, and succeeded.
As I said: nationalists left it too late. By 1924, NI was already well-established.
They outmaneuvred the Nationalist side, that is true: but you cannot give away democratic rights in perpetuity, in the way you can a horse or a house.
Who said you could?
PS. Why are you choosing not to address the other points? Why are you unwilling to stand over your own arguments?
You have failed in your efforts to elevate nationalism on to a higher moral plane from unionism.
And as I keep telling you, that is not my intention: National states are amoral. The issue is not who is on the higher moral plane: it is rather, who has constructed the more implausible state.
Let me put it this way. One night I set out from the Creggan, with the intention of raping Bessie Bigbuds in Altnagelvin. I fail in my enterprise, either because I get cold feet, or because there is a road block on the bridge over the Foyle. That same night, Billy Wilson from the Waterside rapes BB.
Now morally, we are the same, at least in christian theology. But it is Billy Wilson who has to cope with the medical, forensic and karmic consequences of his act. He may get the clap; he may be jailed; he may be castrated by BB’s relations. It can form no part of his defence that Paddy R. was just as bad. That is pure whataboutery.
And indeed it is the Unionist statelet that has to cope with the consequences of its- I could say greed, but that would be to misattribute a human vice to a civic entity. Something like this: over-ambition. Basically, the Free State managed to attract the loyalty of 90% of its inhabitants, and the grudging acceptance of the other 10%. The Northern Statelet never came anything like this, and so eventually began to unwind. Starting at Londonderry.
The issue of how Ireland would have functioned as 32 entity is really irrelevant to this discussion, and indeed needs a thread to itself.
P.S. If some other party declares this interchange to be terminally boring, I will desist, whatever Willowfield does.
“In the end, with Government pressure, a compromise is reached with all of county Antrim, most of counties Down and Armagh, and parts of Fermanagh, Tyrone and Londonderry forming Northern Ireland.”
Interesting alternative history from Willowfield. In the history of the partition discussions (pre Boundary Commission anyway) it is odd how all alternatives considered were county wide. 4,6 or 9 depending on time. Little consideration given to parishes within counties.
Is this a scenario you would consider today? Or are you happy with the 50+1% future for the whole entity?
PADDYREILLY
And as I keep telling you, that is not my intention: National states are amoral. The issue is not who is on the higher moral plane: it is rather, who has constructed the more implausible state.
That might be your issue, but my issue is that you condemn the “implausibility” of Northern Ireland, yet presumably not the “implausibility” of an all-Ireland. Yet your basis for alleging “implausibility” is the same as would have been the basis for an all-Ireland.
If you do not put nationalism on a higer moral plane, why speak disapprovingly of unionists “imposing a border by forceâ€, when nationalists wished to impose their border by force?
If you do not put nationalism on a higer moral plane, why condemn unionists for seeking as much land as possible, without condemning nationalists for the same crime?
You said that conquests by force do not lead to lasting settlements. Is it your position, therefore, that the absorption of what became Northern Ireland into an all-Ireland republic, which could only have been achieved by force, would not have led to a lasting settlement?
You said that, because Londonderry was included in the six county entity “by virtue of force of armsâ€, and not by the free vote of the majority of its residents, it was therfore unstable. Is it your position, therefore, that, had nationalists got their way, the vast majority of towns and cities in what became Northern Ireland would have been unstable?
And indeed it is the Unionist statelet that has to cope with the consequences of its- I could say greed, but that would be to misattribute a human vice to a civic entity. Something like this: over-ambition.
And by your own logic, an all-Ireland Free State would have had to cope with the consequences of its over-ambition, had it got its way. Correct?
The issue of how Ireland would have functioned as 32 entity is really irrelevant to this discussion, and indeed needs a thread to itself.
But the issue of nationalists actions, motivations, aims, etc. – at the same time as the unionist actions, motivations, aims, etc. which you condemn – is relevant.
Dewi
… it is odd how all alternatives considered were county wide. 4,6 or 9 depending on time. Little consideration given to parishes within counties.
Very odd indeed.
Is this a scenario you would consider today? Or are you happy with the 50+1% future for the whole entity?
Do you mean would I consider repartition today? On a personal basis, of course: I have no desire to see places like south Armagh remaining in Northern Ireland – we gain no benefit and the inhabitants don’t want to be in NI. The problem, however, is that the inhabitants of such places would rather stay in NI in the hope of nationalists within the whole country achieving a 50%+1 majority: they do not want repartition.
In political terms it isn’t even on the radar and we are stuck with the GFA which was supported by a large majority. Consistent with my own support for the GFA, I have to stick with that.
Why condemn unionists for seeking to impose a border, without condemning nationalists for the same crime? Why condemn unionists for seeking as much land as possible, without condemning nationalists for the same crime?
And indeed, why condemn Billy Wilson for his crime, and not me? Because he did it, and I didn’t. Who knows, had history been gone the other way, I might now be castigating the Irish Government for presiding over 80 years of guerilla warfare, when there was a chance of a settlement in 1920.
The one chance of successful partition was the Bann border, decided upon by the House of Lords in 1908 approximately. It had the merit of relative shortness, and careful use of a natural feature. The border you describe (‘parts of Tyrone and Fermanagh’) is just a slightly better drawn Gerrymander.
But as a general rule, it is not normally felt necessary to divide a country of any size when it contains a dissenting minority of 600,000. The problem is that no rules of any value have been created by International Law as to when and how a country should be divided. But usually, when two countries split up, account is taken of the presence of minorities on both sides, and a population exchange is offered, if desired. Given that there are equal and greater numbers of Irish people in Scotland and England, one would have thought that they countered the need for a partition of Ireland.
And by your own logic, an all-Ireland Free State would have had to cope with the consequences of its over-ambition, had it got its way. Correct?
An All Ireland Free State would have had to cope with the consequences of including 600,000 Protestants with different ideas in its polity. I hope that it would have done so by developing a high degree of local autonomy in the North Eastern area. The relations of England and Wales might be a model. But the percentages are more favorable to the success of this entity: with something like 80% for and 20% against, it stood a better chance than the 2 to 1 Six County model.
But this is largely irrelevant. Two men put in planning applications for a workshop, one is rejected, the other approved though it shouldn’t have been. It turns out to be a Health and Safety disaster. If I come round and condemn it, can the proprietor argue that the rejected application was just as bad?
“Do you mean would I consider repartition today?” Yes I did as a matter of academic interest.
“The problem, however, is that the inhabitants of such places would rather stay in NI in the hope of nationalists within the whole country achieving a 50%+1 majority:”
It’s generous of you to ascribe such noble motivations to “Border” Nationalists.
You accept the GFA so 50+1% it is – I am certain that you and many of your ilk would rather unification than a Republican led Stormont – and with a Unionist majority of 9 and gains in East Antrim, Strangford, and West Tyrone on the cards next time, with further gains in FST and Upper Bann close afterwards that prospect is looking ever more likely. IMHO of course (and there’s a boundary change going the other way somewhere…)
‘But as a general rule, it is not normally felt necessary to divide a country of any size when it contains a dissenting minority of 600,000.’
The Unionist dilemma in 1920 was how to keep control of the largest possible territory in Ulster (9 counties) with the need to have a long term permanent majority . A 9 county Ulster would have ( in 1920 ) given Unionists a small 1 or 2 % majority 51% to 49% over Nationalists . An East of the Bann State would have given Unionists an 80% to 20% avantage . The final 6 county ‘solution ‘ gave Unionists a 65% to 35% majority. That majority has now been whittled away to almost the 1920 (9 county) figure . In fact a 9 county Ulster would today have a small Nationalist majority .
The geographical distribution of both tribes is also a factor and will be more of a factor into the future . With areas west of thr Bann becoming progressively greener and Belfast itself tinging towards a green future majority then strong orange majority areas will exist mainly east of the Bann.
As long as power sharing exists and HMG continues to pay the bills then ‘repartition’ will be put in storage . But it still remains a possibility particularly if a UI seems certain . A mass conversion of Unionists to a UI would of course upset the applecart of history no end .
Greenflag ahoy
With areas west of the Bann becoming progressively greener
The tv programme at the beginning of this thread mentioned that Protestants appear to be moving back into Derry now that things have settled down. This is a Derry Prods thread. If you want another repartition one, please ask Mick for a special.
it seems this thread has descended into the depths of pythonesque farce, where we have one poster in particular who believes that the descendants of an artificially imposed people, whose sole purpose was to help the ‘empire’ with the subjugation of a native people believe that the remnants of said empire, being a small minority in the country, had a right to dictate to the rest of the country, the destiny of Ireland. and as such the wishes of the people of the vast majority of the people of ireland are null and void to the demands of said minority, who then proceeded to ensure the disenfranchisment
of as many of those pesky troublemakers as possible. ‘moral right’ ‘didn’t negociate’ etc etc, when all one has to do is compare the level of support worldwide for irish nationalism to unionism, and the answer of who is morally right is there for all to see. the only question that remains is, what is the best way to achieve that?
50%+1 or carry on with a neverending unionist veto????
[b]Prince Eoghan[/b]
*yet they are now castigated on the basis of no, repeat no evidence and not much sense.*
I’m sorry if you think I’m avoiding your questions PE, given that the majority of my responses on this thread have been replies to you I’m not sure what more I can do.
But the above statement stands out like a sore thumb, what do you mean ‘no, repeat no evidence’? Do you believe that no protestants left the west bank because of the Provo campaign? Do you believe the Provo campaign had no deleterious effects on the Derry protestant community? None? None at all? Come on that’s simply being absurd.
As for your assertion that protestants left because they didn’t like being “equal” to Catholics, nonsense, the electoral reforms called for in Derry had practically no effect on the make up of the council, the prods lived for generations among majority Catholic neighbours, there were many cheap suburbs in the west bank they could have moved to and no, it was a not long time after the IRA campaign got going before they left, in fact it was pretty much coincidental with that campaign.
You can dance around the blindingly obvious as long as you like but you won’t make it go away.
PADDYWILSON
And indeed, why condemn Billy Wilson for his crime, and not me?
I would condemn both you and Billy Wilson. I condemn anyone who seeks out women to rape, whether or not they actually commit the rape. You condemned the mindset of unionists: not just what they did; yet you did not condemn the mindset of nationalists, which was the same.
The slow downfall of the artificially imposed unionist working class elite, the foremen and RUC officers who actually ran the system is paralleled by the the change in the arguments used to defend that system.
In the 50′s we had a variation on the ‘white man’s burden’ theme where we were continually told to look at the poverty stricken priest ridden South as an example of how those’uns couldn’t be trusted with power.
Now we’re told that those’uns would have done the same themselves if they had had the chance. We’ll never know the answer to that but republicanism is about equality not about elites.
Irish nationalism has overwhelmingly been about Irish republicanism for quite some time, in fact since before ‘Ulster Unionism’ was invented in the 1870′s as a way to deal with the threat of democracy.
We’ll never know the answer to that but republicanism is about equality not about elites.
There’s not much equality for the nearly 2,000 dead victims of “republicanism”, nor the thousands of others injured and maimed.
Thanks for your response Harry, the only clear response from Mick is his belligerence, but no surprises there.
My no evidence bit was in response to Mick’s contribution which seemed to centre fully on the fear aspect. Nothing else was mentioned at all. Now we come full circle, I have already stated earlier in this thread that fear must have been part of the equation, but only a part mind you. There are in my opinion, a whole host of other factors(mentioned previously) that are not being mentioned by the driver of this campaign. My disappointment in you stems from the fact that you seem to wish this slur on your own city folk to continue. That is clear now.
>>As for your assertion that protestants left because they didn’t like being “equal†to Catholics, nonsense,<<
Well this nonsense was repeated all over the six counties. Once reform had occurred, direct rule, and the difficulty of applying the orange jackboot became a reality.
Now for the umpteenth time……………………………….Why was the psychological effect of the IRA in Derry so severe in your opinion? And why was it not widespread across the six counties? Also why did it take so long to manifest itself? If you believe that fear was the main/sole factor worth considering please explain.
‘The tv programme at the beginning of this thread mentioned that Protestants appear to be moving back into Derry now that things have settled down.’
Appearance and reality are not always the same . Numbers tell us the overall picture but an exact analysis of what made Unionists leave Derry would I’m sure bring up many factors other than ‘fear’.
When a particular community is seen to be losing numbers and becoming more of a minority or changing from majority to minority status then the population flight which often ensues feeds on itself and thus you end up with the Derry situation.
‘If you want another repartition one, please ask Mick for a special.’
Not at this time
Perhaps when the present power sharing system collapses.
Don’t worry about the future – it never becomes serious until it’s the present for that’s the only time when the politicians actually take notice:(
Prince,
Go and re-read the Moynihan quote again. Facts, dear boy, facts. Better still, read what’s actually written above.
Let me recap (once again). Just because you say I have argued something does not mean I have. I’m perfectly at ease defending things I have said. But not even the most hostile jury in the world would convict on something I hadn’t said.
I blog in good faith and I expect people on Slugger to take each other in good faith. That means arguing hard and tough. But I have no time for someone who just makes things up as they go along.
*Why was the psychological effect of the IRA in Derry so severe in your opinion?*
PE you have to envisage the state of Derry at the time, indeed the state of Northern Ireland as a whole, in the ’70s there was an unspoken belief that we were heading into the end times, that civil war was imminent, and most people, nationalists and unionist, felt that it was only a matter of time before the Brits pulled out.
Derry prods lived in isolation in the west bank, they had one bridge linking them to the rest of their community, if that fell they were all alone (‘cutting off the bridge’ might seem ludicrous but throughout the ’70s there was an extensive system of booms placed in the Foyle around the bridge by the army to prevent it being attacked, there were no fewer than ten army sangars near and on the bridge). Meanwhile their businesses were collapsing in a pile of rubble day in day out, their neighbours were being shot regularly and their schoolchildren had to traverse riots and gun battles to get to and from school.
In this situation many prods felt it was time to pack their bags and go, I sincerely doubt that one single prod ever said to his family, “You know what, I’ve suddenly noticed all these Catholics living around us and I don’t like them, I further don’t like the minor reforms of the local franchise, so why don’t we leave our homes, our churches, our schools, our family’s graves and our social clubs and move to some grim housing estate in Lincoln Courts or Nelson Drive”.
It’s nonsense and you know it.
By the way I usually find that debate is kept sensible when we take down the emotiveness level a notch or two below ranting hysteria. Rest assured Eoghan there were no “jackboots”, orange or otherwise in Derry (well except in my bedroom when I played games with the missus, she’s into that sort of thing, honest).