Sunday, March 23, 2008
Niall O’Dowd also talks of Adams’ departure
Mentioning this in passing, as it is interesting that in the same week, two notorious Adams cheerleaders/Sinn Fein mouthpieces have both publicly questioned Adams’ future as leader of the party and Republican Movement. This blog report of a Belfast tour ("Professor") O’Dowd led notes that, before the group were to sit down for a one-on-one session with Adams, O’Dowd suggested Adams could not take things “to the next level”, and would need to be replaced by someone with less baggage. Coincidence for O’Dowd and Squinter to still be singing from the same hymn sheet, albeit a different tune than usual? Would O’Dowd be saying such things if it were not party approved - if not by Gerry Adams, by who?
O’Dowd prepared us for our ensuing visit with the politician, acquainting us with Adams’ background and contributions to the peace processes. Describing him as a defining figure in Irish nationalism, O’Dowd discussed how despite all odds, Adams was able to hold the movement together with Mark McGinnis, current deputy minister. After years of imprisonment, Adams didn’t even see his son till the boy turned four years old.
“Can he take it to the next stage?” O’Dowd questioned. “I don’t think he can.” He explained that Northern Ireland will probably need a younger successor to follow Adams and McGinnis in bridging the gap towards peace, someone who has less baggage and is unassociated with violence of years past.
Please note I am aware that the blogger made a mistake by referring to “Mark McGinnis”. I do not think that takes away from the substance of what they reported Niall O’Dowd said.
Rusty Nail @ 04:56 PM
someone who has less baggage and is unassociated with violence of years past
This is very true, I believe, in order to be able to build an enduring trust that all are committed to purely constitutional means to bring about any change.
Doesn’t just apply to SF, of course, but at least one of the major figures on the other side who flirted with paramilitarism is going.Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 05:31 PMWould O’Dowd be saying such things if it were not party approved - if not by Gerry Adams, by who?—Rusty Nail
It is absolutely necessary from the outset to preclude the possibility that this may be O’Dowd’s own assessment, independently reached?
I remember when the Irish Voice launched in New York City, in the late eighties. O’Dowd carried a weekly column from Gerry Adams—possibly not at the launch, but soon after—and a weekly column from hardcore anti-republican John Spain. I remember being fascinated that O’Dowd was canny enough to secure financial backing for his paper—complete with a harpist and an ice sculpture at the launch party— and yet, I thought, naive enough to back two columnists that together would guarantee he would be boycotted by everyone except New York City’s then burgeoning population of teenage and young twenty-something illegals (who would buy anything with music notices, rooms for rent, and help wanteds.)
I have no idea how the paper survived, but it did. O’Dowd had the brilliant idea of starting a venture called the “Top 100 Irish Americans,” honouring prominent people in business, electoral politics, media, academia and the arts. Some of us, most of us, thought it was pure shameless sycophancy at the time, but so many of those individuals (many of whom had never before thought of themselves as Irish American until O’Dowd handed them a handsome plaque for being so)—were forever after happy to take his calls in efforts to build liasons for publicity legislation favourable on immigraion, financial investments North and South, etc.
I would be lying if I claimed there weren’t times I disagreed or felt keen disappointment in some of Niall O’Dowd’s assessments, but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility he said those things to the graduate students because he believes them to be true.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 05:48 PMSusan, you are 100% on and I am sorry I did not word my blog to include the possibilty that it is an honestly held assesment that just happened to be expressed while prepping a group of students minutes before they were to meet Mr Adams himself. (And suggesting the man is not up for the future is just the sort of thing you want to be saying to people before they are introduced to him, yes?) It is just mere coincidence that another editor of a Sinn Fein supporting newspaper also expressed similar, if not more passionately worded, sentiments this week.
[tongue slightly in cheek, cynicism turned down just a notch]
In all fairness, Susan, yes, there is that possibilty that what O’Dowd is reported to have said is his own independently reached assessment (and I should have allowed for that in the blog); and, following on that, what we are seeing is the snowballing of timing?
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 06:01 PMThe truth is “the strategy” is bust, not the politicians.
SF say they are for a united Ireland but have no policies for it other than a combination of telling the unionists “it’s inevitable, get over it” and “you are Irish whether you like it or not”: neither will persuade a single unionists to back reunification. (How do I know? Because they are the same things that republicans have been saying for the last 90 years and they didn’t work then).
On the South they are stuck with the idea that they are operating in some sort of post-colonial basket case economy. I’ll give them the credit (unlike Labour) of actually trying to offer an alternative view of society and social policy other than keep the rich in their low tax haven, but the offer they made was so idiotic the voters told them to feck off.
In the south the republicans are now like the Communists of western europe post-1991. They can stick to the old verities and they will fade away like the French PCF - they’ll still have money and members but zero influence. Or they can admit that the game is a bogey and, like the Italian party, seek new allies on the basis of auto-dissolution into something else. Or, like both examples above, they can split.
In the North the visceral nature of politics gives them a longer life. So long as the game remains one of putting communalist strongmen up against one another they’ll be ok: think of it this way - the SDLP at least has a serious policy and approach to Irish unity beyond SF’s slogns but nobody would ever think of it in that way - to be a true Irish man in this little place means to take up guns.
So, dump Adams if you like, but it will solve nothing in the long term.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 06:21 PMDunno, Rusty. I only know things are almost always more chaotic and less choreographed than they appear.
As I’ve said, there were many times I’ve disagreed with O’Dowd’s take on things. The profit margin on Irish American newspapers must be miniscule, and I remember wondering when it came out that Martin O Muilleoir was buying the Irish Echo, the Voice’s lifelong rival, would O’Dowd at last take a more jaundiced view of certain assurances.
I’ve no real idea, and would never wish to imply that I do. But I do think it possible that on some level he was trying to be straight with young people he would view as fellow journalists.
Could I be completely wrong? Yeah, absolutely.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 06:25 PMI remember some time ago O’Dowd making some sort of statement which, when put to Gerry Adams, caused him to remark “Niall O’Dowd does not speak for Sinn Fein”. Can anyone remember what it was ? I can’t find it on Google.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 07:49 PMALL THE SIGNS ARE THAT MR. ADAMS HAS MADE THE DECISION TO GO.I AM SURE HE WOULD LIKE TO GO IN ADVANCE OF ANY DECISION TO DISBAND OR MORPH THE IRA ARMY COUNCIL. HE WILL PROBABLY RESPOND TO SPECULATION BY GOING SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. HIS DEPARTURE WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE PEACE PROCESS WHICH REMAINS VULNERABLE WHILE SF CONTINUES TO DEMAND CONCESSIONS FOR DOING THINGS THAT COULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED OF CITIZENS IN A DEMOCRACY’
I DETECT IN MANY OTHER SF PEOPLE THE DESIRE TO MAKE THINGS WORK AND THAT WILL FIND RESONANCE IN THE UNIONIST COMMUNITY.BUILDING A COMMUNITY AT PEACE IS A SLOW PROCESS AND REQUIRES A LOT OF GIVE AND TAKE. IT IS NEVER HELPED BY DISSEMBLING AND DENIAL AND THE DEPARTURE OF THOSE WHO HAVE CAUSED A LOT OF HURT WILL ALWAYS BE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
T.RUTHPosted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 08:50 PMCS Parnell
“think of it this way - the SDLP at least has a serious policy and approach to Irish unity beyond SF’s slogns but nobody would ever think of it in that way - to be a true Irish man in this little place means to take up guns.”
Well said.
Gerry Adams has a very dangerous philosophy - which he happens to think of as a pseudo-religion (“I’m sort of an a la carte Catholic-Buddhist,” Adams said.)
In religious terms, he simply believes in an eye for an eye and rejects the central tenet of Christianity (Do onto others what you would have them do unto you.) He is a bit confused himself because of the politics of the situation, but basically that’s where he’s at.
His philosophy is antichristian. My website suggests that it is a little more serious for Adams, the founder of the Old Testament (Adam) in the North for Catholics.
But, it’s good to hear that there are voices wanting him to go.
My website - http://www.johnoconnell.org/
or click on my name.Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 09:01 PMCS Parnell
Good diagnosis.
A McIntyre helps us to understand the how and why SF cannot see themselves, as others clearly do.“Today, Sinn Fein and truth do not form a brace of words that rest easily in each other’s company. Sinn Fein despite pretending otherwise is a truth repellent outfit. This is not because party members as individuals are pathological liars. It is down to Sinn Fein’s own perceived need as a strategic collective to pursue a practice of organised lying for the purpose of outmanoeuvring its opponents while simultaneously deceiving itself.”
Perhaps others may now feel more confident to speak out.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 09:03 PMThis seems strange indeed Adams is still SFs biggest electoral asset and there is no one coming through with anything like his republican credibility.
Realistically, there may be no next level for SF ( I think Governement in the North is as good as it gets) as the election in the south showed it’s house prices and not border polls that concerns the south and the republican electorate there is confined to a few hot spots particulalry along the border.
Whether SF are responsible for the current advances in Irish Nationlaism ( I personally think they are )will never be agreed but there can be no doubt they wouldn’t have got anywhere near where they are today without the boy Grizzly. If he can be kept away from economics debates then he’s got a good 5 years left in the tank.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 09:06 PMjohn O’connell
I’m interested if you can reference that comment:
(“I’m sort of an a la carte Catholic-Buddhist,” Adams said.)
In what context? When? In which book/interview.Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 09:06 PMJoeCanuck
“someone who has less baggage and is unassociated with violence of years past”
‘This is very true, I believe, in order to be able to build an enduring trust that all are committed to purely constitutional means to bring about any change.
Doesn’t just apply to SF, of course, but at least one of the major figures on the other side who flirted with paramilitarism is going.’I couldn’t agree more. Although I’m not a Sinn Fein supporter myself, I realise that it was necessary for some like GA and/or MMG to lead them away from violence towards politics.
However, we are now at a stage where the past paramilitary connections of politicians ON BOTH SIDES is used to discredit them and as an excuse by others not to talk to them.
Surely, there is now a generation coming through of younger people who have no associated baggage. I truly think that the gradual changing of the “old guard” will assist in the normalisation of politics in the North.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 09:09 PMPerci
It’s in the blog report of a Belfast tour about Naill O’Dowd - in the context of GA attempting to joke, I assume, about what he believes in. See top of page.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 09:12 PMthanks john, don’t always have time to read every hyperlink. I often describe myself in those terms, and I share his views about women priests.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 09:18 PMPerci
My argument would be that the male Church, and more specifically the male priesthood, is most likely how it was intended by Christ while he was on earth. But that factor should not give rise to any sense of superiority in the male of the species. Clearly the priesthood is a feminising force in the world, and those involved with it are mainly men who have chosen to live without many of the elements, including marriage, associated with manhood. Priesthood is therefore a form of self-feminisation for those involved.
This would fall into the general pattern of the influence of Christianity in the world: that it is a female voice and a feminising influence. In opposition to Christianity is capitalism, which is a male voice, dominated by the work ethic, and allegedly a civilising influence. The choice for humanity is therefore between capitalism’s civilisation and Christianity’s feminisation.
My fear for the Church is that the Pope actually believes deep down that the revolution in social values of the past few decades can be reversed, and that women will find their “proper” role again. That’s not going to happen, even if some things will return to more normal ways.
Much of the liberation of the past forty years can be defined as the feminisation of society, and will therefore be in accordance with the needs and desires of the Christian model.
There is no point in the Church believing that she ought to change the very mechanisms by which the Christian message has advanced itself in recent years, even if the Church has herself lost influence. It is better to lose influence than to take on the powers that have been unleashed after almost two thousand years of the teaching of the Christian message.
Women have a higher purpose in my mind. I dislike the bland “equality” message emanating from certain quarters about men and women. Men and women are patently not equal. In capitalism men have a competitive advantage, and are therefore superior. In Christianity women have the competitive advantage and are therefore superior. If someone says, “I am a Christian”, they are really saying, “I believe that women are superior”.
What have women ever done to warrant their superiority and their higher purpose? The answer to that is that they have been perfected over thousands of generations of oppression. Since the beginning of time they have struggled to cope with male domination, and they have come though it stronger and with more of the higher values that men struggle to cope with.
Perfected women, who accept their gifts, have experienced an inculcation of values promoting an ethos of love. When government of her life was taken from her, the woman learned to accept her plight and make the most of it. She became more beautiful than the man as a consequence. She is the prime mover in the family where her love governs relations between other members of the family and community.
An absence of violence or the threat of violence is one of the ideals of Christianity and yet, mainly through men, these things still permeate and corrupt the system of love that ought to govern relations.
So to me women have a greater vocation, a greater calling, a greater influence on society in terms of deepening values and greater role in creating stability and love. But these things must translate into more feeling for those in need in our society. The more feeling people have for those in need, the more readily those problems will be resolved.
Women must have faith in the essential goodness of all human beings. They must have faith, simply - for their task is to perfect society.
Contrary to what the Pope says, women must not all prepare for home life again. Some must take responsibility for society at a higher level. Some must become involved in politics and seek to make the world better again. The involvement of women in politics must never be reversed and, on the contrary, it must be encouraged. Women must choose to lead society, answering the call, leading and serving, so that the world may know true peace.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 09:24 PMI heard this from a senior Republican about 3 years ago and it has been in the mix for a while now…
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 09:31 PMAm I imagining it, or are these journalism students?
As if “Mark McGinnis” wasn’t bad enough, the PUP appears to have a new leader - one “Shawn Purvis"…
http://irishfaiths.blogspot.com/2008/03/day-six-on-road-to-reconciliation_20.html
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 09:34 PMSurely, there is now a generation coming through of younger people who have no associated baggage. I truly think that the gradual changing of the “old guard” will assist in the normalisation of politics in the North.
Spot on. I think that Sinn Fein are now actually copying the DUP in that there is swell of new politicians on the ground who, while republican in outlook, have no baggage, and furthermore, are just waiting for the signal that they can critique the failings of the past.
Reg was right, it was the ‘wrong war’, and it needs to be said, accepted and dealt with by the new class of republican politicians.
Accept it, deal with it, and move on. Doors will open, baggage will be cast aside, a new confidence will result.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 09:40 PMJohn O’Connell
That’s very interesting. I only wish the blogger Turgon was around, as he does many threads on these theological subjects, which are thought-provoking.This thread is about Adams’s departure, and in deference to Slugger, I’m going to have to keep to the subject; otherwise the thread goes all over the place.
I’ve been around here long enough to know better.
And as you’re new here there’s latitude, but we all really have to make an effort not to get side-tracked.Take this as well intentioned, and I only wish Turgon was around;
I remember he did the thread on Mary the mother of God a week or so ago.
Perhaps that’s a better place for this type of conversation.Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 10:11 PM#
I remember some time ago O’Dowd making some sort of statement which, when put to Gerry Adams, caused him to remark “Niall O’Dowd does not speak for Sinn Fein”. Can anyone remember what it was ? I can’t find it on Google.--Comrade Stalin
Rings a bell, CS, but I can’t remember either. I remember just a couple of years ago O’Dowd published a piece about canvassing door to door recently for his brother Fergus, a Fine Gael TD for Louth. There’s no doubt, however, of O’Dowd’s long friendship with and admiration for Gerry Adams.
It is inconceivable to me that O’Dowd would deliver a message to or for Adams by addressing a travelling seminar of Columbia journalism students. It is hard to judge tone from an informal blog, but
the blogger, Sharon, does say that O’Dowd spoke to them of Adams as a “defining figure,” etc. and mentioned his long years in prison.My guess based on O’Dowd’s long history with Adams is that rather than being part of any formal “Dump Adams” movement, more likely O’Dowd meant to compare Adams less to an El Cid, tied dead to his horse to go out in one more battle, more to Moses, delivering his people to the Promised Land but not able to enter it himself.
No doubt all those able to speak for themselves soon will.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 10:17 PMSusan
My guess based on O’Dowd’s long history with Adams is that rather than being part of any formal “Dump Adams” movement, more likely O’Dowd meant to compare Adams less to an El Cid, tied dead to his horse to go out in one more battle, more to Moses, delivering his people to the Promised Land but not able to enter it himself.
It is more likely that O’Dowd actually feels ownership of Adams in some way and is treating him almost like the rent boy he undoubtedly was to O’Dowd for going to jail and disturbing his life, not to mention the thousands of other lives he destroyed. In other words it is an unconscious put-down that defines Adams as effectively a lackey, not a Moses, (though Moses has a lot to answer for too).
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 10:28 PMthat defines Adams as effectively a lackey
How can the Anti-Christ be a mere lackey?
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 11:08 PMWhat with my rambling on about El Cid and Moses I sound more like I am discussing Charlton Heston than Gerry Adams myself. Apologies. Just trying to conjecture a likely context for the encounter the student reported.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 11:15 PMHow many times has the obituary been written for Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein? Some how they both go on.
John Oconell you can’t ride two horses is he the anti-christ or is he a lackey for international newspaper men. I think your train has jumped the rails son
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 11:27 PMSusan - I was rude about your cwtshing otters - try these
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 11:57 PM
