Mapping ‘whataboutery’
For as long as I’ve been reading Slugger, it’s been fairly rare for it to carry a post without someone using the comment threads to reawaken some historical grievance or other. Mick (or someone?) calls it ‘whataboutery.’
There is as good an example as any three comments in, on Pete’s post earlier about P&J.
According to the logic offered by ‘Marty McG’ there, no-one who is currently a member of Sinn Féin can ever be involved in any discussions about violence towards women because of the fate that Jean McConville suffered.
The thing is that – for the purpose of this post – it’s not an entirely invalid argument. But it’s not original either. It’s not intended to move a discussion on, to persuade people who are going to be a factor in the debate. It’s the equivalent of having someone bounding into a room screaming MURDERER! MURDERERS!!
No-one would put up with it offline. They would just find somewhere that they could talk without being interrupted.
It doesn’t acknowledge any of the material facts that a schoolchild would include in explaining Northern Ireland’s current political settlement. You just know that, if someone else has the energy, they will be able to come up with an accusation of some equivalent brutality or an external ‘root cause’ behind IRA violence. If you’ve ever been here before, you can already imagine the sequence such a argument can take.
The more likely possibility is that it just becomes a conversation stopper. And what can we do about this?
Well, for one thing, if we could have a shorthand that would show where Mrs McConville – or any other victim or perpetrator from Ireland’s history – can fit in, then at least the whataboutery can be diverted off somewhere else. So here’s a suggestion: Next time you’re on this site and you feel the need to apportion blame entirely to one factor in Northern Ireland’s society, have a look at this debategraph image and contribute to it. If you think that one of its nodes is invalid, say so. Others can say why it is. Give examples – turn it into a huge galaxy of reasons why everything else is someone elses fault. I’ve only made a start and I’m sure there is someone who was totally responsible for everything that I’ve forgotten to blame, so please feel free to add them.
And Debategraph isn’t the only tool that can be used for that either. You could find a few dozen people who agree with you that one section of society is entirely responsible for everything bad that has happened in Northern Ireland (a quick trawl through the comments threads here should do it) and you could use ‘Mixed Ink’ to convene and agreed statement of why you and your allies are the exclusive bearers of The Truth in these matters. There is no reason why a document couldn’t be convened for each of those nodes. Or it could be a suitable project to trial Google Wave with?
So there you go folks. Log in to Debategraph and get your side of the story out there.
You’re dead right Paul Evans….Sinn Fein/IRA have not right to talk about domestic violence whilst not apologising for what they did to people like Jean McConville. Sinn Fein / IRA are pariahs and shouldn’t have the opportunity to speak about such things….many of those who are in Stormont, including McGuinness, should be in jail rather than enjoying the British largesse they currently enjoy.
Sinn Fein are the scum of the earth and should be treated as such.
As for you….I wonder are you the Paul Evans of BBC fame? If so perhaps you’ll recall you’re old home area where 3 bombs killed 9 people on 31st July 1972 rather than criticising my disgust for the murderers of Sinn Fein / IRA.
Protestants have no right to talk about domestic violence because Henry the 8th beheaded his wife so there.
Stick it on the graph Marty.
I am indeed no relation to the Paul Evans that you’re thinking of, and I don’t believe that there is any way that you can personally implicate me in any IRA murders. I wonder if you know any other line of argument or have you totally shot your bolt Marty?
Well Paul
The so called problem of ‘whatboutery’ is a liberal approach and it is deliberately self defeating.
Why?
Because it assumes everything to the left and to the right of
liberalism and it’s own position in society can be rhetorically (politically) cancelled by holding up a mirror to the ‘extremist’ and asking them to notice that they have similar (and thus irrelevant) characteristics to their opponents.
But Norn Iron is NOT a liberal democracy therefore this act of modeling in itself must be questioned.
Yea let’s all forget the past. Just because someone (and that’s anyone) murdered in the past there’s no need to call into question their present day moral standpoint.
No need to worry about them not saying sorry or even reflecting on their personal history and how it may affect others. An expression of a little bit of ‘heartfelt’ “regret” when pushed should be more than enough.
Let’s burn all the criminal records, scrub the Sex Offenders’ Register, let the pedophiles become teachers.
Bin the ‘whataboutery’. What is it they say, ‘Today is the First Day of the Rest of Your Life’.
Not suggesting anything of the sort. Just pointing out that – if you introduce every argument with an historical accusation, it’s a game that your opponents will play and it won’t get you anywhere.
Different Drummer – I have no idea what you mean. Northern Ireland IS a liberal democracy of sorts. Not a perfect one, but one in which people with polarised views can and do have constructive conversations.
Paul Evans: “Not suggesting anything of the sort. Just pointing out that – if you introduce every argument with an historical accusation, it’s a game that your opponents will play and it won’t get you anywhere.”
Sure, but the rub is that all sides arguments are, to one degree or another, rooted in the injustices and their poor historical fortunes. There are few, if any, folks with clean hands. Most sides use the same rhetorical devices — that some (usu. their) history is important, whilst some history (usu. the other guy’s) history is less so.
Add to that that some of the players, based on their personal histories, lack the moral authority to use the bully-pulpits of their offices and you have a recipe for stale-mate.
Marty McG
so the oo has no right to complain about political violence because of Drumcree? The UUP has no right to complain about political violence because of Berntollet? The DUP has no right to complain about guns and politics because of the third force?
Just some what aboutery for you
PS Paul no need to thank me for providing the perfect example of what you are talking about
Paul Evans Writes:
” Just pointing out that – if you introduce every argument with an historical accusation, it’s a game that your opponents will play and it won’t get you anywhere.”
Yes mmmmmmm that’s right no moral point of view can be ‘proved’ in rhetoric.
If that’s the only point you would like to make here and now then it is game over for YOU because it is a politically useless observation in a class society and I might add on a site devoted to (cultural) Politics and NOT rhetoric.
Let me thank you Sean. It would be good if you could try to follow your own advice. You play by the rules here, and you’ll find your posts stay up.
Slugger’s glossary entry is one of a couple of Google toppers we have: http://www.sluggerotoole.com/archives/2005/02/glossary_what_i.php
I don’t think there is a moral imperative (nor even a political one) to recognised the beggar thy neighbour characteristics of this popular ‘strategy’. As I’ve noted previously:
…the BBC quoted Cardinal Cahal Daly as having described Whataboutery as “the commonest form of moral evasion in Ireland today”, referring to how both communities use the terrible burden of past events to lay obstacles in the way of peace.
It’s a form of self entrapment, in that you remain so focused on ‘taking out’ the opposition you barely have time to get your own arguments manufactured and/or developed, never mind ‘off the ground’.
I’d be very interested in seeing some of the more open policy based conversations mapped and for us compare the patterns between the two.
Christ in Allah’s shoes….talk about self-fulfilling. How about (notice the absence of ‘what’) we just blame God….if he exists*
*I here subscribe to the Liam Gallagher method of belief.
Paul Evans: Mick (or someone?) calls it ‘whataboutery.’
Next week – ‘yesbutery’
Back On Topic…
Kind Admin Writes:
On the above model of social interaction..
It’s a form of self entrapment, in that you remain so focused on ‘taking out’ the opposition you barely have time to get your own arguments manufactured and/or developed, never mind ‘off the ground’.
For what it produces as I have said countless times is:
An Equality of Misery
It’s like The Two Nations theory of Conor Cruse O’Brien and the Stalinists:
“Northern Ireland is a place of two competing nationalism’s and nationalities each being valid”
Therefore they are only two ‘competing points of view/aspirations/identities’…
- There is no politically oppressed nationality/ dominant nationality….
Which side steps the question of who is **actually** politically dominant…
LOL Mick I only posted that to prove Paul’s point.
…Sean it ‘proves’ nothing
Mick Kind Admin indicated that debates on the quality of debate should attempt deeper meanings and not just politically useless observations.
Although I have a great deal of time for Mick I must disagree with the central premise that “taking out the opposition” is a bad thing.
I am proud to attack and catch out certain individuals of both loyalist and republican persuasion over their support for murderers. I will continue to do so until I am removed from this site.
It does matter to many people here that certain politicians were involved in heinous acts and nothing they can do subsequently will absolve them of their crimes especially if they actually glory in their crimes. Their previous acts speak more powerfully than any words they might ever thereafter say. I am proud to point this out and proud to slam their cheerleaders on this site.
Yes it may close down debate but maybe they in their anger and frustration just might begin to see that many in the unionist and also nationalist community will never accept the murderers or their fellow travellers as if the murders had not happened.
It may be whataboutery but I am afraid there are a lot of people who think it should be repeatedly raised.
Turgon wrote “many in the unionist and also nationalist community will never accept the murderers or their fellow travellers as if the murders had not happened”.
” I am afraid there are a lot of people who think it should be repeatedly raised”.
I can see where Turgon’s coming from but unless this mindset is abandoned, particularly the last sentence, (community counselling?) no progress can or will be made.
Unless we all decide to shoulder some of the blame, regret the dead (on all sides, surely?), show compassion to the survivors (haven’t we all suffered?)and embrace a full human rights agenda for all, none of us is going to make it as a fully paid up citizen of 21st century Europe.
I had a look at the blame apportioning debategraph game. Is there any box for ALL? Couldn’t find one or couldn’t make it work!!
anne warren,
What blame? I bear no responsibility for the murders here seeing as I never murdered nor celebrated, nor wanted the murder of anyone. Now if you killed someone or colluded in someone’s death and feel guilty about it you should go to the police and confess. If you supported murder you should hang your head in shame. However, if you did none of the above (and I suspect that is the case) then stop wallowing in the self righteousness of self appointed guilt.
As to regret the dead: I have repeatedly said that I regret all the deaths. I honestly wish none had died. However, I will not condemn the off duty UDR man who killed an IRA terrorist who attacked him and was trying to murder him.
The terrorist who died whilst committing his crimes is a very different moral proposition to Marie Wilson or Kathryn Eakin. For anyone to fail to see that suggests a deliberate and wilful moral blindness which is reprehensible and should be repeatedly pointed out. In my view to pretend no distinction between Marie Wilson and the likes of Thomas Beagley is actually itself gravely morally wrong.
And as I said to use other peoples deaths as a moral lever to build your own ultra reactionary party is not defensible either..
Turgon, if you did not protest against this sectarian carve up then one can presume you supported it and it’s gangs of statelet sponsored murderers and it’s integral discrimination. So whose hands are clean?
I will not condemn the off duty UDR man who killed an IRA terrorist who attacked him and was trying to murder him.
Ahh but Turgon, WHATABOUT the UDR? Not exactly a nice bunch of boyos themselves, particularly if you came from the nationalist community. You see Turgon, herein lies your problem, no condemnation of British crown forces murders and collusion in such. The ‘few bad apples’ excuse is laid bare by even the most cursory of glances at British military history. The same military which has always enjoyed unqualified support with the likes of our Turgs.
I now invite the Pointus Pilate routine.
RS,
I have repeatedly condemned collusion which I am sure did occur. I would like to see the colluders of the British and Irish state investigated, prosecuted and gaoled for their crimes as well.
I do not give the military unqualified support. However, they were colossally better than any of the murder gangs.
As to opposing the “sectarian carve up” to what are you alluding? I agree the current system is a sectarian carve up but you may have noticed in my three plus years here on slugger I am an opponent of the current dispensation. If you mean the 1920s settlement well I was born in 1971.
However, they were colossally better than any of the murder gangs.
Turgon, murder was army policy, they WERE a murder gang. Colossally better at convincing others they weren’t. When will you admit that to nationalists there was little difference between those in uniform and the Yabba Dabba Do crowd.
(As an aside, the lure of this ‘whataboutery’ is akin to that of a child being told not to press that big red button….sometimes you can’t help yourself.)
RS,
Had the army been a murder gang like the assorted actual murder gangs there would have been an overwhelmingly larger number of deaths. Who knows the violence might have ended sooner but I am glad that in actual fact the army was vastly different from the yabba dabba doo types of both sides..
Turgon how many murders does a group have to commit before they earn the epihet ‘murder gang’?
Your defence of a group with an indefensible history is endearing.
And yes Turgon, the way to stop violence is with more violence. After all sons do not grow up to hate the murderers of their fathers and brothers.
Dr T
Do you think there will less violence against minorities if the TUV replace the DUP as *the* Unionist Party .
Different Drummer,
I am unclear why I have gained a doctorate. I am sure it is unearned.
I do not think the TUV replacing the DUP will much affect violence against minorities. I am opposed to such violence and condemn it. In actual fact I think you will struggle to find me condoning violence towards any minority or for that matter find an example of me issuing a blanket condemnation of any minority group.
Turgon, what age were you when Jesus was nailed to the cross by the Roman Army (of occupation)? For a fella only born in 1971 you seem to take it pretty up close and personal, like. I do, indeed, refer to the ‘settlement’ of the 1920s when the colonial fascists, backed by the British fascists in Britain, promised all sorts of murder and mayhem if anyone dared to stop them from enclosing nationalists in their sectarian carve up. We did not want to be part of this statelet. We will not be loyal – ever. And youse left 80,000 of your fellow travellers to the tender mercies of the southern catholic cannibals. As well as that, the members of the Boundary Commission took an oath of secrecy regarding all deliberations.Guess who leaked all back to the fascist leader?
The taking of another person’s life without just cause is murder.
There were an awful lot of murders in the past 40 years in N.I.
And in case anyone asks me to define “just cause”, I can only paraphrase what a certain judge said about pornography, I know murder when I see it.
Dr T Dr or No
Well defender of the current disaster that is our hospitals that’s for sure! Remember that exchange where you maintained that centralization of the hospital system was the best and the safer way forward?
So in the last analysis its about YOUR policy NOT how you would characterize reality.
The dramatic increase in violence against minorities and hate crimes occurred when your former party was in power and Jim-Ulster-Alsiter was still in the DUP.
When they increased their influence on Lisburn council they began a hate campaign against the gay community. Now those in the professional Equality industry say that the DUP is still responsible for Equality. Jim Alister has a different take on that he says that the DUP had promised to stop funding to gay groups but they failed to stop the funding.
So his policy is to stop the funds… if that isn’t discriminatory and return to the status quo anti then I don’t know what is.
You said on the occasion that you wanted to redefine the meaning of what a ‘fundamentalist’ is – there is no question that the TUV will do that and it won’t be for the minorities gain or benefit.
Different Drummer,
It is difficult to know where to begin in those ramblings.
Yes, I have previously advocated a more centralised set of hospitals. The current problems may in part stem from having so many tiny hospitals. I think I advocated changing away from as you put it “the current disaster that is our hospitals.” I believe a hospital consultant advocated exactly the same on Spotlight a few weeks ago and just maybe he knew what he was talking about? He actually is a doctor I suspect.
As to the rise in hate crimes. Well I condemn it but I was never in the DUP. Maybe try relying on what I say and do rather what you wish I said or did.
I am unclear why trying to save money on funding assorted minority groups equates with supporting violence against them.
Now as I said: find me an example of me supporting violence against a minority group. Alternatively I would be a little careful if I were you regarding the laws of libel.
You guys are missing the story in the debategraph. There is ample opportunity in their to demonstrate ‘whataboutery’ in the actual graph itself.
The only one of those primary statements that is underpinned with evidence is the fact that the first murder of the troubles was committed by Loyalists. THEREFORE Loyalist paramilitaries must have started the Troubles
Are you going to let him get away with that?
I blame Dermot the poof –asking in that bastard Strongbow -(no not the cider)- start of the whole thing –one thing after another after that
Mick if you are interested in running a thread on The Origins of The Troubles please do so.
And don’t rely on ‘tamagotchi’ approach to politics – where the ‘whatabourtry’ is all about keeping the device- the debataograph alive and not people under thread of a deeply reactionary future.
So I will say now that a TUV victory WILL mean more violence against minorities and not less as it did when reaction triumphed under the DUP (as I said Mr T it is not about **you** but the implications of your polices and no court can gain say that).
In wanting the debate to conform to to the whataboutery model says a lot about Mick and the political direction of this site – its time Mick stopped playing with the device and declared your interest.
Alternatively I would be a little careful if I were you regarding the laws of libel.
You’d have to come out into the open for that.
I agree with DD, but don’t think the actual debate is necessary. The TUV won’t get far, I doubt they’ll ever get an elected MP/MLA.
Are you going to let him get away with that?
Mick, to be honest I thought you were above that. Your now at the level of the schoolboy shouting “Aggie Agggie Aggie Fight Fight Fight”
Just Because Jim-Ulster-Alister and the TUV is absurd doesn’t mean they won’t have a very significant political effect on our polity.
In any case Only asking your are behind on the latest analysis on the progress of the TUV vote done by the Unionist Party – who analyzed the returns for North Antrim in the Euro election – Jim-Ulster-Alister beat the DUP in their own back yard.
LOL Pan Nationalist Front?!!! the desperation in unionism to deflect blame is on full display
PS Mick as much as tou bitch and moan about my posts they are more honest if more direct than most of your prefered posters. You just do not like that i crawl under you facade and nestle in
I’m a nationalist and have found Turgon to be unwavering in his condemnation of terrorists from both sides. I applaud this.
I fully understand that people want to move on from the past but I do agree with Turgon that the past actions of terrorists currently walking the streets or in politics should never be glossed over or forgotten for political expediency. Young people need to be reminded that the peace that exists today came at a terrible price and was delivered by some who have very bloody hands. It can open ugly wounds to bring it up but it would be an insult to the victims to ignore the price they paid.
It’s tragic that the road to political power for some in NI was paved with the bodies of the dead but that’s the reality. Acknowledging this need not stop political progress but does require strong stomachs for some.
It’s essential that this and future generations know that never again will terrorism be rewarded. That is the very least we owe the victims.
Sean,
To frank they *mostly* playing the man, and therefore useless. Challenge it in the graph, not here.
Mick / Sean,
this is one of the rare occasions that getting people to play the man is a good thing. I would have added ‘Pan Nationalism’ myself if I’d thought of it.
The point is to use it to flesh out the arguments for and each contention and how they are inter-related.
It would almost be worth making this a series where we put up a post asking how strong each contention is and mining the archives here for the best arguments in favour and against each one in a systematic way.
Fascinating to hear a senior Catholic churchman refer to whataboutery as “the commonest form of moral evasion in Ireland today”.
I wrote the following as the conclusion to an undergraduate essay, several years ago.
—
The complex issue of where the blame lies for the conflict is impossible to answer. Each of the actors is part of a mutually reinforcing environment where no one actor is individually responsible but each contributes in a way which affects the others. The British government’s colonial legacy, partition of Ireland and use of British troops to reinforce that partition alienated the Catholic population of Northern Ireland; The Unionist government of Northern Ireland was complicit in discrimination against the Catholic minority which amplified their complaints; Republican rhetoric and large civil protests made the unionist population feel threatened; and violence perpetrated by some in the unionist community reinforced the Catholic community’s feelings of oppression. Depending on one’s own personal opinions a justification could be found for assigning blame for the conflict on any actor, yet overall no single group is completely liable. Attributing responsibility to one group serves no useful purpose but to those making the accusation and should therefore be avoided.
Hello Bored – thanks for that post..
But we have moved on since you wrote that. You see what you don’t realise is – is that if Austen Currie had Debatograph we would not be in this mess…now that we do we can see the opposition and despair at our chances of making any real change here – ever…
Bored,
That’s a good description of the prisoners dilemma we picked out in A Long Peace six years ago near the beginning of Slugger… Something which I will add to the graph as a result of your post…
And under other circumstances I would agree. I’ve never banned whataboutery as such, but have consistently warned of that very circularity problem in just running the past over and over… instead of the moving on into the future…
Even scraping under that thick layer of sarcasm, I am still not sure what your concerns are DD.
Bored,
Just before I move on, one of the things that Turgon touched on earlier is that although I agree with your pragmatic conclusion in the context of the Peace Process, individuals are/were responsible for the things they did, even if they believe it was justified.
The map allow both sides of that equation to be acknowledged, not just this anodyne grey sludge we get to with the ‘whataboutery truce’.
barnshee/joecanuck
‘I blame Dermot the poof—asking in that bastard Strongbow -(no not the cider)- start of the whole thing—one thing after another after that’
Well earlier joecanuck blamed the Normans for 1066 which inevitably led to 1169 but yiz are both wrong;) or should I say ‘short sighted ‘ ?
For in truth the Normans would never have gained the power they did in Normandy had Charlemagne not divided the Holy Roman Empire between his three sons with the one who took the West Frankish Kingdom being a weakling who allowed the mixed descendents of viking warlords carve out a fiefdom in Normandy , from where they mounted the invasion of England . With the Pope’s imprimatur and promises of ‘booty’ to his international band of cutthroat mercenaries from as far afield as Sicily and Lombardy and Brittany not to mention Flemings among others , the Norman William the Bastard carved out a new ‘colony’.
But even that begs the question of Charlemagnian ultimate ‘responsibility ‘ for Northern Ireland’s travails . For in truth again had it not been for the warming of europe starting circa 650AD then increased crop yields in Scandinavia would not have caused the ‘overpopulation ‘ which pushed the excess population overseas in search of a living and which ultimately led to the creation of Normandy .
So there you have it -Global warming – which brings us back neatly to today’s Copenhagen ‘debate ‘ The ‘little ice age ‘ 1300 to 1860′ can’t be allowed to get off scot free either for it too helped with the ‘driving ‘ of starving Scots and border reivers from the North of England to Ireland as living conditions worsened in those northern areas due to reduced agricultural yields . The same climatic conditions helped to cause later mini famines in Ulster which along with political reasons drove many Ulster Scots/Irish to the new world and elsewhere in the hope of relief .
‘It’ll never end of course which is why a lot of folk just prefer to blame their favourite ’cause ‘ which is why prefer to blame the ‘unionists’ and the ‘unionists’ prefer to blame the ‘nationalists’ and the ‘english’ get blamed by everybody else including the Scots and Welsh and the bicycle riders .
But here’s a thought for the day . As it’s now accepted generally that the ‘species’ i.e humanity never learns from history at least in political and economic matters why bother to look back at history at all at all ? Not much point really unless it’s an academic interest or for playing what if scenarios ?
There is of course no end to the question of ‘who started it’ apart of course for those who still lay the blame at Eve’s door /human nature, for taking the forbidden fruit – but then here’s a chap who has another take on that one .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGASvVqzOa0
I was going to do a follow up to this to keep the ball rolling, but I see one of the people who said he was bored with this subject has been beavering away..
There’s some really good stuff there… Keep it going lads and lasses… Remember you can link things up relationally and help deepen the context…
Mick, the graph thing is not going to work. Unionists, unlike Nationalists, do not have the same amount of zeal to keep going on and on and on about the past in order to keep their “struggle” alive. That, added with the typically Nationalist demographic of Slugger doom it to failure. A similar problem exists with the inherent Nationalist bias on Wikipedia wrt NI.
The only way I could see this being useful, is if such a graph were compiled by a professional historian, trying to be as objective as possible, and collecting the information from each viewpoint.