‘I keep my eyes wide open all the time’ – walking the line
In days gone by one of the most popular forms of protest in West Belfast was the ‘white line picket’ – SF seem to have given up on it as a ‘tactic’ but I was surprised to see the length of one recent picket on the Falls in support of political status for republican prisoners.
Just as I was surprised at the numbers turning out for éirígí’s first proper Easter commemoration in Belfast.
Tis the patriot game.
MichaelHenry
Is that all it was for? Clothes? Seems a bit pointless in my opinion
the would never wear a british criminal uniform peter fyfe, own clothes and to run there own wings at long kesh meant that escapes could be better planed, the provos achieved this in 1983 when a lot of leadership volunteers escaped.
Were they protesting againt the proper use of the english language? Or is that just you? Are you telling me these ten men died so people could escape prison?
they died for the 5 demands which they got peter fyfe, the escape was a bonus.
They didn’t get them, they died. Other people got them and as you suggest their plan was to use them to escape. I thought it was about a principled stand against being labelled as criminals. Those five demands were saw as giving these prisoners a special status among the prison poulation. I wonder if Peggy O’Hara saw the escape as a worthy bonus for her son’s life.
Haha yes bobby sands starved himself to increase the chances of an escape…lol
The last man on the white line picket is Gerard McCorry. he was out on parole last week form prison where he is serving time for kidnpping Bobby Tohill
bobby sands and his 9 comrades died for the 5 demands which they got, the new way that this prison was run after the hunker strike made it possible along with guts for the escape to work, the rest is history.
Pity they didn’t get a spell checker for SF while they were at it. This prison? Are you in the Maze?
BMcA
I just had to challenge the point. I laughed more at his post than I ever have reading slugger. That includes the Mrs. Robinson song.
the maze, long kesh is gone, like a lot of change some get scared. only the bit that is needed for the museum is to survive, the story and victory of the hunger strike is to be told to all who will visit, along with all the other prison stories during the conflict.
It’s not much of a message unless you’re hungry…
Posted by Alias on Apr 12, 2010 @ 05:05 PM
Hungry for what, is the question.
The Hunger Strikers died because British Ministers tried to criminalise their struggle.
British Ministers today in the guise of Martin Mc Guinness, Peter Robinson etc, continue to attempt to criminalise the Republican struggle and those jailed as a result.
So yes, they did die in vain.
I have to agree with old school here to be honest. I think the way forward is with democratic politics however. What was the point of the hungerstrikes when mcGuinness would later label republicans traitors? I didn’t agree with the killings but I don’t think it is very wise to label them as traitors for a sound bite. It will have surely cut to the bone with some blanketmen to hear these words.
mcguinness said that the cop loving real were traitors, but a traitors statement comes from old school who said that the hunger strikers died in vain, you can never take a statement like that back, makes me think that old school was never realy a republican, just needs to be seen has hardline.
I’ll certainly not be taking it back, _Michael.
As someone with a family member recently released from Maghaberry. I’ll state again, the Hunger Strikers died in vain.
You’ll just have to add me to your “traitors” list.
OS
I would tend to agree yet also, learning is still happening at the grass roots.
Their struggle is relevent still, especially because we are NOT in an emergency situation as defined by Article 15 of the ECHR.
Why the heavy-handedness with substitute diplock?? One or two car bombs do not justify it.
The pundit is quick to criticize the ‘victim mentality’ on the part of a handful of so called dissidents, yet incredulously slow to criticize the omnipotence of the state, which at whim can exercise ‘emergency legislation’ and imprison whoever.
If this is a non issue then Authority Lovers Rule.
Where is collective responsibility.
While it might (now) be mildly acceptable to wreck the lives of so-called dissidents, it is a case of: ‘Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me’
These are our civil liberties FFS and should not, MUST not, be tossed aside.
To imagine that these struggles are unique to our little island is folly & absurd.
The most ‘sophisticated’ of democracies employs legal subjugation of anyone whose opinion they do not like, and brave individuals stand against that.
Just so happens ours is a bigger sledge hammer for a smaller fly.
By the way, Mc Guinness called “the cop loving Reals” traitors whilst standing beside the Chief Constable ffs.
Square that circle.
(don’t know why I’m responding to this guff)
Let them eat (helicopter) cake.
there are still those who need to be seen has hardline old school, ask yonr family member did he get to wear his own clothes or prison issue ones,check all the 5 demands out before you would insult those 10 who died in prison for there comrads, ask your self why there are some who want to be involved during peace in a post conflict spat.
OS
‘(don’t know why I’m responding to this guff)’
A few of us are thinking the same. It’s clear this boy doesn’t grasp what you are saying.
20 hours on and Ardoyne Resident still hasn’t revealed how the British are oppressing him, but we’ll just assume he’s been indisposed and give him a bit longer.
As regards the hunger strikers, they died for SF’s electoral mandate, plain and simple.
what about the 5 demands gerry lvs castro, which the prisoners got, the prisoners got there demands means it was the british who lost the hunger strike, who ever lost in 1981 was always going to lose.
Yeah Michael what about the 5 demands?
The right not to wear a prison uniform;
The right not to do prison work;
The right of free association with other prisoners, and to organise educational and recreational pursuits;
The right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week;
Full restoration of remission lost through the protest
None of the above are worth missing your dinner for, never mind killing yourself.
The only tangible results of the hunger strikes were (debateably) the 1983 breakout and SF’s effective arrival on the electoral stage. That electoral mandate culminated in the ending of the provo ‘armed struggle’ and SF signing up to indefinite partition, decommisioning of IRA weapons and taking their seats in a UK assembly. As of today they are not one step closer to a UI than they were in 1981. The Brits could hardly have orchestrated it better.
If Sands et al really were happy to die so that others could pretend they weren’t criminals in prison, then yes I’m sure it was worth it. Beyond that, it was a pointless sacrifice, exploited cynically and to the full by SF, an organisation highly skilled at decieving and exploiting it’s own community.
As always of course, Adams acted with the welfare of the hunger strikers at heart throughout this period and anyone claiming otherwise is likely ‘very ill’ or opposed to the peace process. I wonder what Sands would say if he were still around?
republicans would never accept the criminal tag or the criminal uniform, so the brits gave in, the british could hardly have orchestrated it better gerry lvs castro, is this why thatcher went against her own policy and the prisoners got the 5 demands, it was either thatcher or the prisoners, thatcher just could not win.
It’s merely symbolism Michaelhenry — Sands was jailed for attempting to bomb a furniture shop — that was a crime in anyone’s book — not only against the local community, but against common sense.
The Brits ‘gave in’ because the whole thing was way more hassle than it was worth — give the kiddies a few concessions and let them keep on deluding themselves that their ‘struggle’ was somehow achieving something. Perhaps you can tell us exactly what it did achieve MH because I’m buggered if I know.
In 1981, NI was part of the UK and was to remain so until a majority of it’s citizens voted otherwise. In 2010, the only difference is that SF & therefore the IRA have signed up to it.
The Brits ran circles round the RM for decades — SF, along with the rest of the Irish voters have accepted the status quo albeit after a lot of entirely unnecessary deaths — do the dissidents really want to rerun all the RM mistakes of the past for precisely no result?
the brits ran circles round the republican movement for decades so says gerry lus castro, if that was so why then did the provos kill more british soldiers for decades than the british army did to the provos, thats some symbolism is it not. there was an all ireland vote in 1998, keep your big eyes open.
michaelhenry
is that how they measure who wins wars these days? I always thought it was which side achieved their objective and which side surrendered (unconditionally or conditionally)
Provos realized they had no chance of forcing the brits out, let alone winning over the protestant majority. Even though most of their brigades were infiltrated and ineffectua, they were still causing enough damage (City of London, etc)for the Brits to have to offer them some concessions before they put away their guns.
Provos were after a pipe dream. Stormont fell in 72…what exactly they think they could have achieved beyond that I dont know. Hubris or cult of the gun–either way pointless after getting the world to recognize Catholics plights. Of course sectarianism and injustice fuelled the movement but still…it could have ended a long time ago and the communities could have been establishing trust in the 80s instead of hatred.
‘why then did the provos kill more british soldiers for decades than the british army did to the provos’
As Brian points out, conflicts are not settled in terms of body counts and I have no intention of yet again raking through ‘who killed who’ as this would merely reveal how many of their ‘own community’ the IRA murdered as opposed to their supposed enemies.
Rather than prosecute an actual war, the Brits chose instead the long game of using informants, a heavy security presence and political initiatives. Adams, realising that the ‘armed struggle’ was futile and self-defeating, basically sued for peace in the early 90s, settling for partition. About 20 years late admittedly but he got there in the end.
We all know the end result of the provo campaign — abject failure, but hey at least SF are adept at putting a good spin on it.
I would be interested to read your thoughts on how dissident republicanism can succeed where the provos failed.
….and also be an awful lot clearer than they were on what success would actually look like so we can decide whether we’re bothered about their objectives one way or the other either. I would argue that one of the main reasons the provoso failed was that they weren’t really that deeply republican to begin with and neither were the bulk of the communities they came from. The key demands which were non-negotiable were fairly straightforwardly western liberal democratic ones. Over and above those, it was about achieving communal self-esteem within the north, not about the establishment of some form of ill-defined 32 county socialist republic. Adams’ gift was reconciling what they ultimately settled for with the propganda they utlised to secure what they got without the wheels coming off. As has been said before, civil rights by wholly inappropriate means.
Good points Seosamh. I’m only an occasional visitor to the site but I have yet to see any coherent case put forward by a ‘dissident republican’ contributor.
Supposed justifications seem to be consistently along the lines of ‘oppression by the British war machine’, an entirely hollow mantra in 2010, while offering no vision of how a UI can be achieved in the face of an overwhelming electoral endorsement of the status quo and abject failure of the provo campaign.
Their mindset appears born of blind, indoctrinated hatred, devoid of any logic or achievable goals.
A rational attempt at explanation would be welcome. Anyone?
Who was that who said “There are no republicans up north-just armed catholics.”
I think it may have been Mick Collins…cannot remember now
was that the mick collins that swore an oath of loyality to the crown brian macaodh, why would you take a quote from this man, some people do not like to hear the truth about the war.
“There are no political prisoners in the North.”
Martin Ferris, in the States 2001
Cut from the same cloth.
Actually he swore an oath to the “Free State, as by law established”. He didn’t forget about the North, unlike most of those anti-treaty republicans.
If he hadn’t been killed he would have been much more aggressive during the work of the boundary commission, and in every other facet of Irish government.
Whether or not he should have signed the treaty, for you to deny his greatness or his patriotism is pathetic. He loved his country and its people in a way that many in the Armani brigade know little about.
he swore an oath to the crown brian macaodh, know your history, martin ferris did not need this oath unlike collins, it was crown law the 1920 goverment act.collins liked the new suits you know.
Michaelhenry
Collins achieved more in a fortnight in London than the old spaniard – or his pals/erstwhile pals – managed in the 55 years he outlived Collins by. To say nothing of the zero return achieved on the objective of full Irish national indepdendence achieved by Ferris and the boys.
the men and womem who fought did not agree seosah913, so collins was killed for breaking, and taking the oath.
Yes and those who did the killing….achieved what ? About as much as comrade Ferris and his boys have done.
achieved what says seosamh913, achieved peace with out the crown.