It’s pointless to fear the power of myth in the movies
Historian Paul Bew’s warning that that the forthcoming movie Easter Sixteen could unwittingly feed the current drive by the violent republicans to re-establish themselves is whistling in the wind. It has to be faced: striking parallels exist which raise the familiar charges of contemporary betrayal. Those who are susceptible to the Real and CIRA’s arguments will rightly treat denial as a sign of evasive weakness. Instead, it should be easily admitted that the 1916 story is a stonking tale. It contains a terrific narrative and at least 16 brilliant major human interest stories which anyone with red blood in their veins and an imagination can identify with. Honest appreciation of the power of the story is the best defence against subversion. Does a deep fascination with the American Civil War make me a racist? There’s no point in denying the force and appeal of the cause which according to one theory, has yet to be fulfilled. According to another theory though, the popular will of the people of Ireland has now been achieved. The thing about popular will which political romantics chose to ignore, is that no test of popular will is definitive forever. It’s the continual testing that counts – not that the men of 1916 ever put their proclamation to the popular test anyway; at the time, and without the threat of conscription,they would have lost, almost certainly. Facing the story and the myths head on is both truer and better than denial and is a sign of a self-confident democracy. Do we match up yet? Two quiet questions might occur to the romantics : do we want to go through all that again? And what was the fate of the dissident movements post –1922, when voters clearly decided enough was enough?
By the way, the dramatic treatment of 1916 I’d like to see is maybe a perverse one, one on the thoughts of Sir Matthew Nathan the Under Secretary, feeling very personally exposed as he receives the news of the shooting of the guard at the entrance to Dublin Castle, and as he was already coping with his frustration at the refusal of the Chief Secretary Augustine Birrell to come to Dublin as the contradictory on-off rumours flew, because he was engrossed in reading a novel in England. The story of the fall of an old regime is often as gripping as the rise as of a new one.
On the Rising itself, it’s taken as read – and remarkably was so at the time – that the immediate executions by firing squad of the 15 – was a serious mistake by any measure. The PM Asquith was regarded as typically dilatory by failing to press for a halt sooner. On the other hand, what other state would have limited its most drastic punishment to 15, at a time when hundreds of thousands had already been killed in the most terrible war in historical memory?
BTW2 – My fear of an easy thriller was laid to rest when I actually saw the movie “Fifty Dead Men Walking” based loosely on the story of Martin McGartland. With whatever the reservations of those most involved, it has the ring of essential authenticity about the mixed motives, the clash of relationships and causes and the mutual ruthlessness involved in how the grip of the informers strategy inexorably bore down on the paramilitaries, leaving a legacy of exhaustion mixed with recrimination which we ignore at our peril today.
If my history teacher had predicted when teaching about the Easter Rising that Mike from Neighbours would be playing James Connolly in a film of the events, I would have paid far more attention.
“Sorry, but compromise is the only way forward.”
Indeed, compromise and agreement is the only way forward.
The main problem with portraying Loyalist gangs in a positive light in Hollywood movies is in making them appealing to a mainstream audience as is indicated by this clip, a dramatic reconstruction of an RUC interrogation of Johnny Adair, from an unfinished movie intended to highlight their heroic exploits:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK28__Yk0tY&feature=PlayList&p=82D959BDAD01BAB2&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3
Fin ,
Northern Ireland economist Smyth seems to think the ‘union’ has been good for the Irish economy as in todays paper
Mr Smyth said the southern influence on the Northern Ireland property market is just one part of a wider trend.
“So much of Northern Ireland’s industry is owned by southern companies or companies based in the south,’’ he said.
“Virtually every bank in Northern Ireland is southern owned, whole swathes of our economy are now southern owned.
“I don’t think people should be afraid of this.
“If the situations were reversed we would be buying up huge swathes of the Republic.”
Can’t see the Pound sterling going anywhere except ‘down’ so Mr Smyth’s if is a very big IF .
The ‘bad side ‘ of the above is that the Irish Government through it’s bailout of toxic debts may soon own large tracts of ‘developing ‘ parts of Belfast (Shankill) albeit temporarily .
ha ha …good one Rory, very funny!
‘Aha, so you see the “loyal minority” as occupiers, do you. So what do you want them to do:
Withdraw? No dice, they’ve been here, some of them, longer than you.’
Who said anything about anyone having to ‘upsticks’? You seem to imply words which are not there and were never said.
However I don’t see too many Italian Americans
demanding Rome rule part of the US eastern seaboard however do you? Our ‘Ulster-scots’ brethern are too good to live in a land governed by savage natives though aren’t they?
It’s your own emotive language that’s causing the problem. You link the idea of military occupation to the unionist community. Military occupation is almost invariably illegal, ergo occupiers should be evicted. That may all be logical enough, but gets us nowhere with our little local difficulties.
You’re at it again in your last post with your “too good” and “savage natives”. Maybe “too scared” would be more true and are you characterizing John Hume and Gerry Adams, for example, with their fine Scots and English surnames as “natives”. And do you think most Catholics are savage or do you just assume Prods think that way?
Actually, instead of “too good” or “too scared” try “too alienated”, then reflect whether your own kind of thinking might not contribute to that.
‘Too alienated’????
Ahh so it was ailenation which forced unionists to deny the democratic will of the irish people for so long prior to partition. Right gotcha !
It was themmuns fault.
This ‘ailenation’ wouldn’t have anything to do with the manner in which history has placed unionists (Buffer)? The blame for that lies at the feet of the irish who should just have rolled over and took john Bulls pork sword like good little savages….doesn’t it?
And as to your Italian Americans, ever heard of ENOSIS?
Looking across the water to some assumed tribal cousins is not unique to NI. I am not saying that it is either good or right but simply lampooning it, as you do, won’t make it go away.
Really on form there!
“prior to partition” was getting on for a century ago FFS.
I have much to learn from you though. In that single phrase (“prior to partition”) you have managed to conflate the unemployed Shankill Road Prod of today with the Big House unionists of the late 19thC.
Masterly, absolutely masterly.
‘Looking across the water to some assumed tribal cousins is not unique to NI.’
So to demand the partition of Ireland was merely ‘looking across the water’ was it. Thats great to know….any other pearls of wisdom?
My bad. There I go interrupting your nice wallow in Mopery.
I have been trying to address the situation we face in NI today but if you prefer a nice rant about the injustices of the past, please be my guest.
Enjoy.
Ahh so the past has absolutlely nothing to do with the situation in the north today. Right…ok….. thanks for clearing that up !
The fact that there never should have been partition in the first place doesn’t change anything. We have to deal with the realities of the situation in the north today and find a way to make it work.
Brian,
Hear! Hear!
T.R.O.H.V.M
Words in mouth, mo chara. I never said that the past has “absolutlely nothing” to do with where we are today. Rather, my problem with you is that you want to talk about “absolutlely nothing” but the past.
Oíche mhaith.
‘I have been trying to address the situation we face in NI today’
Your words. To do that, you need to address the injustices of the past. Of which partition was one. You brought up alienation of the unionist community, as if it were entirely the fault of the other side !
“entirely the fault”
I never attributed blame, and certainly not in the categorical sense you imply. On the other hand I suspect that by “the injustices of the past” you mean those perpetrated by one “side” only, viz. “themmuns”.
Repartition is the way forward when this Assembly implodes. We’ll never agree on the past and it’s unlikely we’ll agree on the future . Que sera and all that . Cast a cold eye on all the dead heroes and victims on all sides and just move on .
Repartition it is then.
Let the Greens stay south and the Orange remain North.
What’s the Irish flag represent?
uhu
‘What’s the Irish flag represent? ‘
It seemed like a good idea at the time. We can still keep the tricolour post repartition and the ‘orange ‘ can represent the present minority in the Republic and also the unionists of those areas of the present NI which would be ceded the Republic. . Presumably a smaller mainly Unionist State would recognise their 10 to 20% Nationalist minority by giving it a spot on their new flag . I’d suggest a reverse of the Irish tricolour but alas that option has apparently been taken up by the Ivory Coast
Chris,
But isn’t it equally arguable that you’re being revisionist because constitutional nationalists like Redmond could, in 1916, say the same thing as you’re saying now, given the Home Rule Act was passed (albeit postponed till after the war). They also had a constitutional compromise in which the majority chose to locally administer British rule. They also insisted, as you do, that this meant the nightmare was over. Indeed they believed in it so much that they were off in the trenches getting slaughtered by the thousand.