Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Lord Mayor avoids official Somme commemoration.. again
As previously noted here. This morning, apparently in keeping with his party’s policy set out in 2004 - which barred Sinn Fein representatives from attending “British military commemorations” - the Lord Mayor of Belfast, Sinn Féin’s Tom Hartley, boycotted the official commemoration of those who died at the Battle of the Somme and instead laid a wreath on his own at 9am - repeating the actions of SF’s Alex Maskey, when Lord Mayor in 2002.
Pete Baker @ 12:04 PM
“Fascinating how this rankles with you..”
Chris,
You have me confused with someone else. Where is the indication that this “rankles” with me?
Beyond the attempt to portray a repetition of a six-year-old gesture as something other than a repetition of events, six years later?
I note that you don’t refer to the 2004 Ard Fheis decision preventing Tom Hartley from doing anything more - even if he wanted to.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 10:37 PMRe. “The Baconian method” and “as Mick said...” (how sweet!).
In the absence of one of Mick’s trademark virtuous narratives on the ever gripping subject of Lord Mayorial kremlinology, would Sir Francis not conclude that the poor man is thoroughly bored with the subject?
“...2004 Ard Fheis decision preventing Tom Hartley from doing anything more - even if he wanted to”.
Presumably this was considered by those who voted Tom Hartley into the office.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 10:49 PMThis is just another example of the sickening, hypocritical, double standards that permeate the political & media world in the North. ALL we hear about on these blogs is how Republicans & Nationalists should be reaching out more to Unionism and recognising their British identity. Take a look around Belfast City Hall or a walk around Belfast itself. In a city where Catholics make up at least 50% of the population there is very little official recognisation of an Irish identity on Council properties. It’s Victoria this, Chichester that and now when Tom Hartley DOES lay a wreath he still gets pelters. When has a Unionist politician EVER recognised the long suffering Irish Nationalist population of Belfast OR commemorated the victims of Loyalist/British death squads? If I can remember Unionists proposed congratulations when Republicans were killed and didn’t a prominant member of the DUP call Alex Maskey ‘lead belly’ when he was shot by Unionist murder gangs? Unionists had no problem voting in the political representatives of the UVF & UDA WHEN both these terrorist organisations were murdering innocent Catholics & Protestants throughout the North. There wasn’t much concern or sympathy for Nationalist feelings then. This duplicity nauseates many of us.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 10:50 PMHartley and Maskey before him have managed to find a way of showing respect for the deaths of Irishmen killed in British uniforms fighting an utterly futile war.
From the same people that killed Irishmen with and without British uniforms while fighting an utterly futile war. It’s clear that is what rankles.
I see the gesture as welcome progress, however minor, and personally would have expected much less before Maskey. The baby steps feel very petty for now but both sides can only run so far ahead of their base without putting more work into massaging them.
Not that it would take that much work to more actively embrace, celebrate and commemorate the Irish involvement in the World Wars. It’s part of a mind share battle that the Republican movement should pay much more attention to, neutering the power and ownership Unionism claims over certain themes.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 10:51 PMPete
Part of the Baconian method is to document every instance of relevance to a topic and note where it diverges, or agrees, with what’s gone before.
Does part of the Baconian method include repetition of the exact same thing twice without change? Because that strikes me as more like pork.
You have also elevated a method to an ideology.
As Mick said in 2002 -
“Mayor Maskey decides discretion is the better part of valor (for now at least) over the commemoration of the Somme in Belfast. It may be too soon for both his own and Unionist supporters in the City.”
Yes. Mick said. Not anyone from SF. Perhaps Alex Maskey didn’t decide on discretion; perhaps he decided he felt unable to participate in the “official” ceremony but wanted to do something. Perhaps the current mayor feels the same. It would certainly be in keeping with the principles of Irish republicanism, and it was a good gesture in 2002 and remains a good gesture now.
That’d be “Method of Agreement”, btw.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 10:55 PM0b101010
No one in their right mind embraces and celebrates the massacres of WW1. Which political party to you suppose lays on the best celebration at this time of year?
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 10:59 PM“Does part of the Baconian method include repetition of the exact same thing twice without change?”
Ken
It’s the difference between noting an announcement of intention, and noting the action itself.
And in between 2002 and 2008 there’s that 2004 Ard Fheis decision.
“You have also elevated a method to an ideology.”
Nope. Still a method.
You might not like that method or, possibly, not accept its benefits. But it works for me.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:04 PMPete is flogging his anti republican dead horse again. In picking on the Lord Mayor, he’s picked on the wrong man. As usual. Tom Hartley is one of the more enlightened SF people, a politician who attended the Islandbridge commemoration before it was popular or profitable. He also took part in a Somme TV programme with David Ervine a few years ago. His gesture here honoured the war dead without getting bogged down in the unionist hypocrisy of it all. Their hijacking of the war dead for their own nefarious purposes dishonours the memory of the dead. As if any of these bowler hatted ceremonial sword waver would have the courage of their fore fathers - not likely....
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:09 PMNo one in their right mind embraces and celebrates the massacres of WW1. Which political party to you suppose lays on the best celebration at this time of year?
Absolutely pointless side-stepping.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:10 PMT.Ruth
A laurel wreath is a common commerative military wreath for the war dead.
http://www.warmemorialsnsw.asn.au/traditions/laurel.cfm
....and I bet had the Lord Mayor of Belfast Tom Hartley has attended the ‘official’ ceremony and has presented a poppy wreath, Unionists no doubt would have been up in arms and protested at his presence.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:13 PM....and I bet had the Lord Mayor of Belfast, Tom Hartley had attended the ‘official’ ceremony and had presented a poppy wreath, Unionists no doubt would have been up in arms and protested at his presence!
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:15 PMAll this commemoration stuff is grand if its put in context. There was no great evil in ww1 as there was in ww2. The west should also be more grateful to Russia, as it was the soviets who defeated the Nazi’s in WW2.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:17 PM“In picking on the Lord Mayor, he’s picked on the wrong man.”
Do pay attention, Concubhar.
You’re constructing a straw man argument - “As usual.”
Look again at the references to the 2004 SF Ard Fheis decision.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:18 PMI also think that it’s about time that Unionist politicians began to show a little more respect to Irish history and culture, commensurate with the forbearance shown by nationalists/republicans to the things they hold dear. It doesn’t mean doing it in the same way as nationalists and republicans do it. Pete, if he had any sense, would see what was done by Tom Hartley and Alex Maskey before him as a positive without trying to cast it in a negative light, which is fairly obvious from his rather skewed intro.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:20 PMGosh gosh...all this talk of right and wrong and commemoration and honouring the dead....oh to have Harry Patch or Henry Allingham handy for ten minutes to get their take on whether or not Tom should be laying a wreath on his own or with a bunch of others.
I’d say the observations of some of these discussions would be colourful.
Fair play to Tom for going as far as he can or is allowed to.
Concubhar, go easy with lines like “unionist hypocrisy”. It’s easy to say, but a bit of an insult to those of us who are from that community, but choose not to engage in the hypocrisy. Heat of the moment, and all that, I understand.
Speaking of Harry, I always like this oft-quoted bit that he said a few years ago. Kinda brings it home:
“It wasn’t worth it. No war is worth it. No war is worth the loss of a couple of lives let alone thousands. T’isn’t worth it...the First World War, if you boil it down, what was it? Nothing but a family row. That’s what caused it. The Second World War...Hitler wanted to govern Europe, nothing to it. I would have taken the Kaiser, his son, Hitler and the people on his side and bloody shot them. Out the way and saved millions of lives. T’isn’t worth it.
“Opposite my bedroom there is a window and there is a light over the top. Now when the staff go into that room they put the light on. If I was half asleep the light coming on was the flash of a bomb. That flash brought it all back. For eighty years I’ve never watched a war film, I never spoke of it, not to my wife. For six years, I’ve been here [in the nursing home]. Six years it’s been nothing but World War One. As I say, World War One is history, it isn’t news. Forget it.”
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:22 PMStraw man argument my arse. It’s you playing the man here.
I merely pointed out what Tom Hartley has done, in spite of all the objections, from his party and from the unionist parties. You’re just pissed off you’ve been caught at your usual games.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:23 PM“which is fairly obvious from his rather skewed intro.”
What’s inaccurate or skewed about the intro, Concubhar?
“Pete, if he had any sense, would see what was done by Tom Hartley and Alex Maskey before him as a positive without trying to cast it in a negative light..”
Ah, I see. I should be welcoming this six-year-old “very good gesture”.
Sorry, Concubhar. I don’t do propaganda.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:27 PM“I merely pointed out what Tom Hartley has done..”
Actually, Concubhar, I’ve merely pointed out what Tom Hartley has done. And compared it to what has been done before.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:29 PMTouchy aren’t you. I didn’t call what you do propoganda. You’re just wrong on this occasion, as you have been on others.
I didn’t call it a good gesture - but it is better than the hypocritic gesture politics of the unionists. It’s a proper mark of respect. It being six years old doesn’t make it any less so. It’s consistent. A laurel wreath honours the dead without getting bogged down in the lousy symbolism of Unionist Poppy-cock.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:31 PMEl Dorado
Conas ta tu mo cairde!!
What you actually mean is Conas tá sibh mo chairde.
Another nail in the coffin of our language, I’m afraid.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:35 PM“You’re just wrong on this occasion, as you have been on others.”
Well, I make no claim to be infallible, Concubhar.
And I’m sure you have a ready list of the times that I’ve been “just wrong”.
“It’s consistent”
Yep. With SF party policy, as set in 2004, following the reaction to Alex Maskey’s gesture in 2002.
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:35 PM0b101010
You’re the one side stepping, old pal. Why nauseate readers with patronising twaddle about ‘embracing and celebrating’ WW1 when nobody in their right mind would do such a thing. FFS!
Can you point to anyone, apart from yourelf obviously, who thinks WW1 is something to be celebrated?Pete,
it’s a shame you didn’t provide links to all your annual threads on the subject since 2002. Or does Baconian methodolgy only apply when the mood takes?
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:44 PMConcubhar.
It’s beating your head off a brick wall here sometimes. The logic and sense of the points you make will NEVER penetrate the forcefield bigotry shield that veneers much of the Unionist/Loyalist mindset. Tom Hartley has done as much an anyone in the North to open up Nationalist/Republican minds, thinking & understanding of Unionism, particularly with respect to the history of Belfast. He acknowledges and respects ALL aspects of the Protestant heritage & tradition of the city when others would say it’s sectarian history should be more condemned than anything. His tours of the City Cemetary & Milltown attract visitors from all over and people would be surprised at just exactly who attends these. His knowledge is second to none. The fact that someone like Tom Hartley is still condemned says a lot. There are those who refuse to see ANY good in others. Unionists should reflect in their own shameful part in the conflict and the reasons for it. Recognising that 45% of the North are Irish would be a start. I won’t hold my breath and is there any chance of a bit more even handed coverage on Slugger, it’s turning into a Unionist whingefest!
Posted by on Jul 01, 2008 @ 11:58 PMIt is obvious that majority unionism does not want Irish people of a nationalist/republican ethos anywhere near their little shindig. The fact that many more Irishmen than themselves fought, were wounded, died, and won victoria cross medals in WW1, is totally ignored. It is time for an attempt at a totally honest reappraisal of the unsurpassed violent misery suffered by everyone on this island during that period.
Are we mature enough to do this, without dragging in the twentieth century colonial wars?Posted by on Jul 02, 2008 @ 12:20 AMLURIG,
Well said!
For his knowledge on the local history of this city, he should be commended. Then again, anyone telling the history of predominately, the working classes in this city, are usually marginalised. Whereas, those telling the history of the (high brow) arts are revered.
Posted by on Jul 02, 2008 @ 12:32 AM
