“sleep-walking into quiet censorship..”
Over at Typhoo’s Haunt there are readable scans of Malachi O’Doherty’s article in Fortnight magazine on talking, or not talking, about the Troubles and, in particular, whether “we are sleep-walking into quiet censorship of what led us into the troubles”. Go and read the whole thing. Here’s a short extract.
It’s not hard to see why the Troubles are an embarrassment. For one thing, they went on too long. They seemd to represent a society which was incapable of learning from the sensible and mannered intellectuals. The sensible and mannered intellectuals quickly ran out of things to say and concluded, therefore, that the violence was just an embarrassing lapse into barbarism. The North, as far as Dublin was concerned, was the attic in which the mad old uncle might be allowed to drink himself to death. But there is another reason. For although the Troubles went on too long, there is a prevailing idea that they ended too easily. But they ended. And maybe the best thing is not to scrutinise how they ended or test the compromises by which they ended, in case we bring them back.
“Mr. Currie: Where is this report from?
Mr. Craig: It is from the United Irishman.
Mr. Currie: A banned publication. May we see it too?”
Loved that exchange re Sean Garland stuff – thanks Nefyn. Good blog and interesting Malachi article. One observation is that there is an enormous ammount of literature about the Troubles about and it must be a little irratating for people there that you expect a troubles theme for every bit of stuff produced there.
I was on Youtube the other day looking at a video on tourism in Fermanagh (as you do) and one of the comments was something like “ain’t it great to have something about Northern Ireland that doesn’t involve the Troubles” Sympathy.
However, the perception of being *anti-UK* does highlight an important difference between the US CR movement and the NI version.
In no sense could the former be seen or presented as “anti-American” – its participants and leaders wanted only their equality as US citizens and wished not to overthrow any state.
What they did want to overthrow was a highly racist structure, the parallels of which to NI were eagerly seized upon by local TV watching revolutionaries. Of whom there were quite a few. None of these realised how deeply beligerent hate-filled and violent was the regime to which many southern states black people were subjected. It was one nasty poisonous setup, which had lasted centuries and against which some of the repression seen here simply pales.
These lived alongside and in some deeply sectarian and polarised communities. Not realising the power of sectarianism was something of which they should have taken cognisance.
Jo, I think it was pigs in the sky thinking that led socialists to imagine that they could easily separate either nationalists or unionists from their constitutional aspirations.
There’s some good stuff from the Dáil too for that period. It’s all online http://www.gov.ie
Do they still burn houses in Wales?
Just picked up this from the Dáil in 1970, Dewi:
“R Barry: … In the opinion of most people the Government are inefficient, ineffectual, incompetent and irresponsible. The political events of the past week have been described here as sad, sordid and sorry. That alliteration, that description, is perfect. I should like to continue the alliteration and add to sad, sordid and sorry, shabby, sour, saucy, shameless, selfish, secret, sickening, sulky, smelly, sneaky, serpent-like seedy, surreptitious, senseless, scathing, spurious and shocking.”
If only Stormont could aspire to such language!!
“saucy”??
‘NICRA’s programme would have ended all discrimination.’
Perhaps not all but it would have removed the worst aspects .
‘ Whether many of those involved wanted a socialist republic or not is irrelevant. Had these basic democratic demands been met in timely fashion, then there would have been no opportunity for the inter-communal violence that followed, and no fuel to sustain it for decades. ‘
Absolutely .
‘The main point here is not whether people were attempting to exploit rights issues for other ends, but the existence of rights issues in the first place’
Well yes , but given the manner in which ‘Unionists’ set up the NI State and the opposition of 35% of the new State’s population to a separate Northern State from the outset- then ‘rights issues’ were bound to emerge sooner or later . But when you don’t have a politcal opposition which can remove the ruling party from power then people give up on ‘constituional means’ and go for the gun. Once that road is travelled then it brings in reaction -counter reaction – until 40 years later you’re left with what you have . A Utopian State as per the literal meaning of the term .
Unionist politicians were simply not up to the job . Some would say they still are’nt . Cometh the hour -cometh the man is a poor hope indeed .
Since 1969 – 341,640 hours have elapsed and many wonder whether Unionism is still pondering it’s ‘navel’ or has turned right around to ponder it’s a***hole instead !
‘And maybe the best thing is not to scrutinise how they ended or test the compromises by which they ended, in case we bring them back.’
They say that it’s best not to know how laws or sausages are made
I suspect the same is applicable as to how NI’s troubles have come to an apparent end .
Flogging a dead horse is a waste of time but beating a sleeping rottweiler with a stick is not to be recommended !
I can’t believe it – even the history of the murders/bombings by the UVF in 1960s is being rewitten as a reaction to republican provocation! Poor Gusty and the boys, they couldn’t help themselves!
Jo,
“However, the perception of being *anti-UK* does highlight an important difference between the US CR movement and the NI version. In no sense could the former be seen or presented as “anti-American” – its participants and leaders wanted only their equality as US citizens and wished not to overthrow any state.”
May I ask what benchmarks you’re using to determine whether an individual – or a movement as a whole – is anti-American (or anti-UK, etc.)? Does using physical force to further your message translate as anti?
If so, what of all the splinter groups that rose out of American Civil Rights Movement (ACRM) movement:
- The Black Panthers
- The Chicago Seven
- The SLA
- Etc. etc.
The ACRM should never have happened … equality, parity and justice should have been allotted to each and very citizen from the get go. That it was borne out of decades (centuries, really) of civil strife is a personal embarrassment to me as an American.
But to deny that there were those whose frustration came to a boiling point – to pretend that there were those who would no longer wait patiently to acquire what should have been theirs so very long ago – to ignore the fact that there were those who turned to physical force to abolish and destroy the America they knew – that is a mistaken perception.
And because of this, there are many people who see a strong correlation between the NI and American CRM.
As Langston Hughes asked, “What happens to a dream deferred … does it explode?”
Some republican provocation, WS, but I’d have thought the main ‘provocation’ came from Paisley.
I’ve been wondering about ‘saucy’, Jo, and the only name that comes to mind is the late C J Haughey.
“Do they still burn houses in Wales?
”
Only on my bad days. Which only happen when Wales lose to Ireland in Croke Park.
Dewi, here’s a Stormont quote that lacked a prophetic touch:
Caledon squat: “I do not think the event in Caledon is a prelude to a renewal of strife. I believe this is an isolated incident that has been blown up out of context and importance.” William Fitzsimmons, Stormont Debate, 19 June 1968.
Good news Nefyn
Dewi, it would make more sense to put them at townland boundaries:
Welcome to Drumlister/Farewell to Cullentra
“An examination of the lives of the victims of 11/9 will never provide any enlightenment, an examination of the perpetrators lives may.”
This may say too much about a certain attitude to victims. I’d be amazed not to be amazed by some of the thousands of lives that were ended. I might only be shocked by the effect of brutal fanaticism on the wills of young men. Shock is usually a narrowing of focus, quite unlike enlightenment.
So as far as the media are concerned, perps are bound to be more interesting? Why not, they provide the bloody package of imagery, they demand attention, gratitude even, from our media workers.
Armed insurrection may have been a media spectacular, but it may have been utterly pointless in terms of promoting a unitary culturally irish state. The 32 county socialist stuff was just soldier speak for our gang in charge at the end.
Violence does not prove injustice and may recreate it.
And rump loyalism is as averse to reflection as it is to repentance. Imagining that they could deny catholic citizens of the British state their rights!??
So whatever you do to schools Catriona, try to check that children understand causality and citizenship.
I’m trying, I’m honestly trying, not to post these days but one can only put up with so much re-writing of history. It’s over! There are no more recruits for the dead battalions. The blood’s running out in the dry sands of the desert or the mountains of Aghanistan and no-one will regret it.
What a waste you all were!
Here’s a short item from the historical record that sort of debunks your ‘It’s over!’ claim, lib.
“I am sorry to hear of so many of my countrymen being confined and some executed but the permissive will of God must be done. You are under the rod of affliction in a high degree and Oh! that it may be sanctified and improved. You must await with patience your deliverance (if not come before you receive this) it is fast hastening.” … John Nevin, 10 April 1804
Those who launched the last crusade and those who reacted may have known little of our history and cared less but you can be sure that there are some in the new generation waiting in the wings to pick up the baton ….
Acquifer, I think we can make a reasonable assumption that Catriona will doggedly set citizenship in an ‘island of Ireland’ context irrespective of the the terms of the 1998 Agreement – or the aspirations of the citizens.