Tuesday, February 19, 2008
La Mon, unionist perceptions and the future of the past
The commemorative service marking the 30th anniversary of the La Mon murders was held on Sunday at Castlereagh Borough Council offices. It was attended by a number of relatives and a few politicians including Iris Robinson who has previously used Parliamentary Privilege to name those allegedly involved in planning the murders. Suzanne Breen’s article here on La Mon is still harrowing to read.
This event along with a number of other equally iconic events still informs the views of very many unionists on the republican movement and its leadership. I would submit that the vast majority of unionists whatever their views on the current political arrangements still regard the IRA as sectarian killers, never anything else: this article quoted in the Newsletter sums up such a position quite succinctly. If the republican movement were ever serious about unionist engagement it is specifically with events like these and the other ones which we all know of that they would have to begin. Instead unionists perceive themselves as getting lectures from republicans about “moving forward” along with hero worship of republican “martyrs”, and claims that such “martyrs” were themselves just as much victims as their actual victims. That along with a quick throw away remark about republicans recognising that some of their actions caused hurt to others. Comments which are spectacularly insensitive and inadequate in the face of the events they purport to relate to.
Such unionist irritation is not helped by the attempts by some like the Consultative Group on the Past to describe the troubles as a “war” and the quite threatening (to unionists) suggestions that the “truth” behind the troubles might “surprise” unionists.
Such events and descriptions whether from benign though foolish motives such as Eames Bradley or sinister ones from the republican movement; result in anger and suspicion within the unionist community and simply reduce the chances of reconciliation. No better is, I submit, to be expected from SF. Eames Bradley, however, might yet reconsider the wisdom of their whole project but I fear the Arch Bishop and his cohorts are too blinkered and self important to consider a radically alternative analysis of their mandate: that would be by holding their own council and saying nothing if indeed what they will say would be better left unsaid.
Turgon @ 12:33 AM
It is the Britih government who have more to benefit by it being called a war.
Unionists have every right to be repulsed by Le Mon etc. But were is the representation of innocent Nationalists? Not all of us like or even remotely agree with SF.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 01:24 AMMcGrath, are you inferring that SF voters are not innocent?
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 01:30 AMNationalism has a history of voting for the most slick and articulate party of the day: the old Nationalist Party were desimated by the SDLP, the Stoops are being edged out by Sinn Fein, who will probably be destroyed by Finna Fail if it’d pull its finger out
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 04:17 AMMcGrath, are you inferring that SF voters are not innocent?
Posted by Cahal on Feb 19, 2008 @ 01:30 AM
Nope, just a failure to accommodate a different point of view.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 04:38 AMHere we go again, the unionist complaint about “terrorists in government” directed at Sinn Fein. Of course, those same unionists overlook the far worse record of terrorism by HMG and the unionist murder gangs who killed twice as many civilians as the Provisional IRA.
Sorry, Turgon, but your complaint seems phony as long as you continue to ignore the far worse record of the other party in government and of the parent government itself.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 04:42 AMI hope Turgons purpose is not circumnavigated by Bob’s stale rhetoric.
Unionists are aggrieved, Nationalists are not represented, that should be a purpose of this thread?
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 04:51 AMyesterdays debate revealed to me anyway a number of points:
1) SF has questions to answer on the conduct of the conflict
2) DUP have questions to answer on the origins of the conflictPosted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 12:20 PMTurgon, as a TUVie(?), you might wish to update this thread with a link to Allister’s contribution to the debate on terrorism in Strasburg.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 12:33 PMAn interesting debate Devenport’s BBC blog.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 12:58 PMWith no door open to them and no ideas beyond selfjustification they have nothing left except to turn on each other and destroy themselves. Never can one community have shown more need to learn the virtues of forgiveness and understanding and never can a community have destroyed itself so well by refusing to learn those same virtues.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 01:22 PMTerrorist violence is terrorist violence whether the perpetrators are Republican or Loyalist. State violence is equally reprehensible and those who engaged in it are as guilty as any other terrorist.All should pay for the crimes they have committed. The essential criterion for recognition as a victim of the “troubles"is the innocence of the person.Those engaged in terrorism and counter terrorism are not victims nor were they engaged in a war.Republicans in particular bear a heavy responsibility as their committment over all of the twentieth century to the armed struggle convicts them of their guilt as members of a criminal conspiracy to force their fellow citizens to submit to their political will.When Republicans face up to this reality we will be better able to create a new just and inclusive society and share this space in a culture of mutual respect.
T.RuthPosted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 01:30 PM“Comments which are spectacularly insensitive and inadequate in the face of the events they purport to relate to. “
I agree with this entirely - but let SF do a trade here - they get to call it a ‘war’ in return for frank and open disclosure about their rationale and methods and target selection. Adams should then come clean about his involvement - after all if it was a ‘war’ why should he not? ( assuming there is a guarantee of no procsecution ) unless disastrous operations like La Mon had some thing to do with it?
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 01:51 PMlib2016: Never can one community have shown more need to learn the virtues of forgiveness and understanding and never can a community have destroyed itself so well by refusing to learn those same virtues.
Thanks for your concern for our welfare. Do you recommend a complete moratorium on references to La-Mon, Bloody Friday, Kingsmills, Teebane, Enniskillen, Darkley and the Shankill bombing? For our own sakes, of course.
Meanwhile, you will try to find resolution in a completely *different* manner.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 01:58 PMAll of the above atrocities were horrendous and should NEVER have happened but everyone of us can pick and choose incidents that only affected OUR side of the community. We ALL have a tendency to ‘justify’ what happened to ‘THEM’ and find excuses for it. It’s called sectarianism and bigotry and we are very good at it. I would be far more concerned at the lengths the British government are going to in order to cover up their sinister activities in the North. They introduced the Inquiries Bill totally restricting ANY investigation into the State. They ruined John Stalker’s life, obstructed John Stevens, ran the UDA, drive Sinn Fein policy, protected Brian Nelson, Mount Vernon UVF, Scappetecci, Donaldson etc and got away with murder. I don’t think you can have a real peace process until Britain comes clean and admits what it’s intelligence agencies were/are up to. Unionists should also wake up and realise that many of the atrocities mentioned above were allowed to happen because M15 and Special Branch were running agents within Republican ranks for decades. The Omagh revelations are only a drop in te ocean.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 02:20 PM‘Terrorist violence is terrorist violence whether the perpetrators are Republican or Loyalist.’
In theory yes -in practice it depends on whether the freedom fighters win or the terrorists lose or vice versa depending on which side you were born .
In Northern Ireland both sides have lost and both sides have won . It’s just that neither can yet accept that fact .
‘When Republicans face up to this reality’
The fact that there is ‘power sharing ‘ at Stormont is testimony to the fact that the Republicans are facing the reality of NI. The fact that many Unionists are still objecting to power sharing is testimony to the fact that they are having difficulty facing the new reality.
‘we will be better able to create a new just and inclusive society and share this space in a culture of mutual respect.’
That depends as much on Unionists as it does on Republicans . It’s early days yet as to whether it will work out . Each side has it’s ‘atrocity history’ to commemorate . Without wishing any disrespect to the families or victims of the many atrocities during the conflict maybe both sides could ‘restrict’ their commemorations to the two days of the year Easter Rising and July 12th and leave it at that . Otherwise it will be Bloody Sunday , La Mon , Greysteel , Darkley , etc forever. And the same for the other side .
If the Unionist and Republican leaderships cannot work together under the present dispensation then they need to do a Kosovo/Serbia/ Albania and request a fair ‘repartition ‘ of NI administered by a neutral international organisation .
‘With no door open to them and no ideas beyond selfjustification they have nothing left except to turn on each other and destroy themselves.’
No one doubts their capacity to do so . Some might even wish it . The vast majority of people on both sides of the border and on both sides of the NI divide would hope that such a ‘future’ can be avoided.
‘Do you recommend a complete moratorium on references to La-Mon, Bloody Friday, Kingsmills, Teebane, Enniskillen, Darkley and the Shankill bombing? For our own sakes, of course. ‘
Not a moratorium on references but perhaps serving politicians could keep away and leave the families and victims to their private grief and personal memories.
When all is said and done it was the failure of Northern Ireland’s blinkered politicians that set the conditions which ‘conflict’ within NI between both communities a probabilty rather than a possibility.
Maybe the present and next generation of NI politicians will not be as obtuse as their predecessors . Time will no doubt tell .
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 02:59 PMNo 15 above second last sentence should read .
When all is said and done it was the failure of Northern Ireland’s blinkered politicians that set the conditions which MADE ‘conflict’ within NI between both communities a probabilty rather than a possibility.
that set the conditions which MADE ‘conflict’ within NI between both communities a probabilty rather than a possibility.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 03:07 PMRepublicans in particular bear a heavy responsibility as their committment over all of the twentieth century to the armed struggle convicts them of their guilt as members of a criminal conspiracy to force their fellow citizens to submit to their political will.When Republicans face up to this reality we will be better able to create a new just and inclusive society and share this space in a culture of mutual respect.
An excellent post by T.Ruth until he comes up with this nonsense. And, as far too frequently happens, he dismisses the violence of the unionist government and HMG directed at nationalists for protesting the discrimination of both Stormont and HMG in the governance of NI. There is no real doubt about the inequitable structure of civic and economic life in NI prior to 1975 or so. Peaceful protest by nationalists was met with violence by both the Stormont government and HMG both of which pretty much also allowed free rein to unionist murder gangs.
I suggest that T.Ruth’s comment can equally well read:
Unionists in particular bear a heavy responsibility as their committment over all of the twentieth century to the armed struggle convicts them of their guilt as members of a criminal conspiracy to force their fellow citizens to submit to their political will.When Unionists face up to this reality we will be better able to create a new just and inclusive society and share this space in a culture of mutual respect.
Seems to me that posts like T,Ruth’s are not helping Unionists to get there. After all, when all is said and done, the first violence was done by the Unionist government of NI.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 05:13 PMSo Mr McGowan,
What burden of guilt do those who died at La Mon have? Whom did they murder? Whose death did they glory in? What crime did they commit other than that of being Protestants in Northern Ireland?Their “crime” was exactly the same one as the people in the World Trade Centre committed. They were people whom their murderers had a hatred of; and their murderers were of the opinion that killing them would advance their own perverted cause.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 05:26 PMWhat unionists have yet to appreciate is the distance we have already gone in constructing a new ‘creation myth’ for the new NI. The British have their myth in which the gallant Paras stood between murderous natives. The Irish have their myths and will write their books and songs of the ‘bhoys’ and their fight for Irish freedom. That leaves us all looking for a suitable scapegoat, or ‘terrorists’ as they are now called and a few persuadable professors will produce them in short time.
If it is possible to forget so quickly about the dreadful ‘necklacing’ etc. in South America it will happen a lot more quickly in a well managed newsmarket like Northern Ireland. Don’t ask to whom the word ‘terrorist’ will apply - for it will apply to whomever the BBC decides.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 05:34 PMWhat burden of guilt do those who died at La Mon have? Whom did they murder? Whose death did they glory in? What crime did they commit other than that of being Protestants in Northern Ireland?
Dodging the issue again, Turgon. The people at LeMon bore no burden of guilt, nor did my comment even suggest that they did.
But, I do and will continue to point out your failure to recognize the 1,000+ civilians killed by the security forces and the unionist murder gangs. About 80% of those were Catholics and were killed because they were Catholics. Until you enlarge your concern to include ALL the victims of the violence who were killed because of their religious belief, your concern is not really worth much.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 05:47 PMMr. McGowan,
Find the episode on this site where I have celebrated any death. I oppose all deaths here and have said before that I regarded no cause on this island in the last fifty years as worth violence. I am concerned about all these people’s deaths. I recognise and condemn any murder by loyalist terrorists or indeed any murder committed by any member of the security forces. What I do not accept is your lumping the two together, nor do I accept the use of the term murder when the army or police killed terrorists who were in the process of committing terrorism. I find no pleasure in those deaths but they are not murder.What you seem incapable of accepting is that the IRA ran a sectarian murder campaign murdering about 2000 people. You would like to see their’s as some sort of struggle against oppression. Unfortunately for you it was not and no amount of spinning will change that.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 06:22 PMBob Mcgowan: “But, I do and will continue to point out your failure to recognize the 1,000+ civilians killed by the security forces and the unionist murder gangs. About 80% of those were Catholics and were killed because they were Catholics.”
Mark Twain said it best—lies, damned lies and statistics.
Bob, statistics can be made to say just about whatever the speaker wants them to say and the biases and assumptions of the individuals accumulating and organizing the statistics do have an impact on the outcomes.
For starters, your grouping of the forces of the state, who, despite certain dalliances with Loyalism, also had their own problems with Loyalist thugs. Likewise, unless you were one of those who actually put together the database, you have no idea what assumptions and criteria were used to make these assignments by category, what other circumstances were involved beyond the simple pigeon-holing done by the database, etc.
You’re turning into declan, running about with what you think is a single, transferrable argument for whatever thread you happen to find yourself participating in. Hell, I’m not sure I could argue that your posts would pass the Turing test, as formulaic and boiler-plate as they are.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 06:40 PMTurgon
“no cause on this island in the last fifty years as worth violence”
Are you saying the old Provos from the start of the 20th Century were justified. If not what which violence before that was?
Much of the IRA’s justification for violence came from partition - that was considerably more justification for war than the British government had in its war in Iraq - as the basis for that war is now proven to be false.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 06:46 PMDishonest Bob is back. He ran away the last time his lies were exposed. Can I be bothered refuting his statistics again? Not really - I think we all know his dishonest game.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 06:54 PMIt was Sammy Mc Nally what done it,
I always say this for a specific reason. None of us were there in 1921, 1916 or 1912 etc. so it is difficult for us to assess those events. Whilst I do not accept the IRA campaigns of then as justified I will not accuse people of being cheerleaders for claiming they were and I can accept a person in good faith agreeing with those events but repudiating the terrorism of the Provos.I will not for example brand a member of either of the main parties in the RoI as a supporter of murder simply because their parties are born out of the IRA of then.
You as a nationalist and even republican are not in my view guilty of supporting murder by saying that you support those events from the distant past, just a I will not accept being called a supporter of violence for saying that I am proud of what Protestants did during the siege of Derry or Enniskillen.
The past is another country we did things differently there.
Posted by on Feb 19, 2008 @ 07:08 PM
