Sunday, August 12, 2007
“the first step is to act with good authority by telling the truth to your own tribe”
Interesting piece in the Sunday Independent from newly appointed senator Eoghan Harris on his appearance at West Belfast Talks Back. He takes issue with his introduction by the BBC’s Martina Purdy but the point to note, I’d suggest, whilst others march for half-truth, is something picked up briefly in Malachi O’Doherty’s audio diary on Sunday Sequence. Namely his challenge to his own tribe for some self-examination.
Forty-one years ago, this weekend, I travelled to Maghera, Co Derry, with Dr Roy Johnston of the Republican movement’s think tank, the Wolfe Tone Society, and Cathal Goulding, chief of staff of the IRA, to attend a secret meeting of assorted academics, communists and IRA leaders, which was held at the fine farm of Kevin Agnew over the weekend of August 14-15 in the golden autumn of 1966.
Although I was not a member of the IRA, Eamon Maille’s book The Provisional IRA correctly records that at the Maghera meeting, I read out the comprehensive plan, drawn up by the Dublin Wolfe Tone Society, for setting up the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), which Goulding hoped would both achieve civil rights and lead the Republican movement away from a narrow nationalist agenda.
While that peaceful project was thwarted by Unionist politicians like William Craig, and later by the equally bigoted nationalists like British-born Provo IRA intransigent Sean Mac Stiophain, there is no truth in the People’s Democracy claim that sectarian violence was inevitable. The Provisional IRA willed that worst scenario.
Back in August 1966, however, neither Roy Johnston nor myself dreamed that the noble dream of NICRA was doomed to be diverted into the sterile struggle of the Provisional IRA. Above all, as I told my audience, if I myself could have seen 12 years ahead, I doubt whether I would have continued to support even the civil rights struggle.
Because 12 years later, in Maghera, on February 28 1978, William Gordon, a part-time member of the UDR, together with his 10-year-old daughter Lesley, were blown to bits by a car bomb planted by Francis Hughes, who later died on hunger strike. And while Hughes, as I told the West Belfast meeting, might be one of their local heroes, to me, as a Wolfe Tone republican, he seemed a sectarian murderer.
In spite of this, and in spite of the sectarian mind-set of many Northern nationalists, the dream of Wolfe Tone’s benign Republic of minds and hearts never died in my heart of hearts. And, as I told the audience, far from changing my mind on this core issue, for the past 41 years I have consistently tried to show my tribe the two sides of that Wolfe Tone coin.
Pete Baker @ 01:36 PM
Dawkins,
It was certainly an uneasy alliance for some. But the extent to which this was the case has been, it seems to me anyway, greatly exaggerated for a number of reasons, mostly to do with reactions to 1798 and post-Union politics.
The progressive alliance that was built by people like Tone and Russell was based on a genuine belief in revolutionary principles. Hence Tone’s suspicions in his diaries of people from the Catholic Committee he thought were putting sectional interests before those of the people as a whole.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 12:00 AMDubliner – I recognise what you say and – worse – think you’re right. I can recall the run-up to the referendum on the GFA and thinking –“I can’t vote yes to this – can I?”. My objection was that if I did I’d be setting justice aside and I couldn’t think of what good could come of that.
I did vote “yes” – I still wonder why. Logic only takes you so far I guess. Equate a sense of justice with “a tooth for a tooth”, and a sense of retribution and you can find yourself thinking you had to let these things go, to let go and allow the children a future.
I felt very uneasy about it – and the current SF efforts to seek to use human rights legislation for propaganda purposes is something I voted for. Yes, I opened the door for people who participated in terrible deeds to engage in democracy.
I didn’t vote SF – but am just as guilty as those who “elect amoral sociopaths”. In the GFA was the agreement that the sociopaths would be good boys and girls – or they’d be put back.
Did you vote “yes” in the southern referendum? I don’t ask to discover your hindsight – just to say there are many more than the “sociopaths” that let this genie out of the bottle.
Let SF run their half-truth campaign. Even if they’re successful they’ll have convinced very few of the Irish people they need to persuade that killing the unarmed, running kangaroo courts and blowing up children was excusable. You don’t need a European court to remind you of the bones in the ground – put there by a politics SF espoused.
I’d still vote “yes” and wait till the public get wise to the sickening depravity of SF’s baggage – a baggage they’re still happily carrying.
You see – “disposal of justice was one of the concessions granted” but not by me – it had already been granted by those who gave succour to terrorism. As Gerry has told us “they haven’t gone away you know”. It is granted by those who give succour to excusing it today - by seeking to justify murder while claiming disclosure from their foe.
Do you think these are the equivalent of Collins and those that won the Free State. Did they spend decades seeking “truth”? Nope - they couldn’t and wouldn’t. Up North however is a different animal - the one that takes the Queen’s shilling but needs to justify doing so.
Even if SF are successful – they’ll have convinced no more than the naïve while alienating the rest. Some movement to unity, liberty and freedom that’ll be!
Sadly, for the rest of us interested in these matters, we’ll remain an after-thought in UK politics and the “sociopaths” will have just post-dated our water bills. Let them bang on the door of the European Courts – let them seek to justify what they did. And if they’re successful history will ask “what is it that they did?”
SF will refuse to answer.
That’ll do.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 12:01 AMDubliner,
What I mean is that sectarianism is a lot more than hate-filled activities and attitudes towards people for their religion. The very conception that the fundamental reality of life the north is determined by two different sets of people defined by religion, and that education, politics and society should be defined according to this definitions is in my opinion sectarian. So, those in the non-violent parties who nevertheless promoted and promote religous-based identification are guilty of sustaining the climate where sectarian murderers thrived.
To say that I’m Catholic, you’re Protestant, we’re different, but we’re equal, and that’s ok is for me a sectarian vision. It reinforces the virtual voluntary religious apartheid in the north. Even if it’s done in the nicest possible way and with the best of intentions, to regard oneself primarily as a catholic nationalist or protestant unionist is to legitimise and perpetuate the divisions on the island.
A republican conception (and I agree wholeheartedly that republicanism is an internationalist and not a nationalist political system) of the people who live in NI is one that regards them as citizens with the same rights and interests; that stresses the embracing of our fundamental similarity by replacing religious identification with a common principle of active citizenship to improve all our lives. A religious self-identification is a barrier to republican politics of the most fundamental kind, because it denies the unanimity of interest of the people - the res publica.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 12:13 AMANDY
One other thing - he dismisses an entire community as lacking moral legitimacy as they vote Sinn Fein and then calls the Provos fascists....hmmm
An “entire community” doesn’t vote PSF, so your comment makes no sense.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 12:25 AMPerhaps Loyalists should consider being less one-sided too. The UDA is still yet to disarm, thousands of attacks and murders, anti-Catholic marches still as nestled against the warm stomach of the government as ever. Wait a minute, the IRA were bad”!!ÂŁ! Besides, after internment, night raids, curfews, bloody sunday, police brutality and widepsread discrimination, the governments might as well have stood with the a clipboard for IRA sign-up. The vast majority of nationalists are as peaceful as they ever were, the Civil Rights Movement itself called for an ending to the IRA violence as it was suffering badly as a consequence under the Protestant state police. Nationalists have been living in a Unionist imposed state for thousands of years. Somehow I think, its not them that are having trouble improving community relations (back to my point about recent riots, UDA, Orange Order)
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 12:29 AMDid you vote “yes” in the southern referendum? I don’t ask to discover your hindsight – just to say there are many more than the “sociopaths” that let this genie out of the bottle. - Rubicon
Actually, I didn’t vote, as I lived in America at the time. I would have voted ‘Yes’ because all of the right people (i.e. Clinton and prominent nationalists) were calling for a ‘yes’ vote. I was hopelessly ill-informed about the reality of “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, thanks to Tim Pat Coogan and general disinterest on my part, so I didn’t have any of the concerns that arose later. I held a very simplistic view to the effect that Unionists were unmitigated bigots who despised all things Irish and that the IRA were basically the good guys who had defended the nationalists from severe abuse of their human rights, but who were now trying, against the odds, to create the conditions for peace with the enemy while Perfidious Albion was trying to deny the nationalists the right to choose their own political representatives, putting endless pre-conditions and stumbling blocks in their path. It was only when I decided to move back to Ireland that I took an interest in the place again, visiting Irish sites, happening upon United Irelander, Balrog, Slugger, et al, finding good journalists and writers about the north, that I began to ‘catch a clue’ - as the Northerners say!
I’d still vote ‘yes’ if the dirty side deals were removed from the GFA, but other than that, I’d vote ‘No.’ I find the disregard for the victims to be indefensible. And not just in the agreement, but in self-serving mentalities of the Shinners who negotiated the dirty deals, such as manifested in wanting to turn the Maze into a museum to the conflict (casting the victimisers in the starring role as victims of state oppression and ignoring the victims), their dirty deal with ‘On the Run’ issue, and their ‘March for Truth’ when they know full well that the Truth was expediently scarified in cahoots with the state to facilitate their political careers, ensuring that those victims, the surviving and the families of the dead, who aren’t even considered in the various objections that are raised to a Truth Commission, are kept out of the limelight so that society doesn’t have to see what its political leaders were directly responsible for.
I think lot of folks probably voted for PSF/PIRA after its ceasefire in order to encourage them along the political route and away from violence. I don’t think that rationale still holds post-decommissioning, so, for whatever reason, folks are overlooking the type of people they are now voting for and what they are responsible for - it doesn’t even seem to matter that Gerry Adams’ boss appears on an Underworld Rich List. Folks see them as ‘normal’ people and not purely self-serving sociopaths who can only operate within the limits of their dysfunction (whereas, as Bob Dylan once said, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.").
You just have to look at their utterly cynical ‘March for Truth’ to grasp just how manipulative, socially corruptive and self-serving these people actually are: “We only joined the system to root out all the bad guys within it who harmed the nationalist community.”
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 03:01 AMWhat I mean is that sectarianism is a lot more than hate-filled activities and attitudes towards people for their religion.” - Garibaldy
I take your point, but the word has negative connotations that aren’t the default of a sect, in the same way that “n*gger” has a different meaning to “black” even though both refer to the same group. Pedantry aside, I don’t see that identifying one’s self as belonging to any social group is tantamount to a declaration of war on opposing social group, whether or a religious, political or sporting nature. I agree that there is an element of evolutionary dynamics in competing groups (Chelsea supporters dislike Man United supporters, for example) that can manifest itself in forceful opposition, but that it so rare that it is hardly an argument for monoculturalism as opposed to multiculturalism - and even if it was, it ignores the reality that evolution itself promotes diversity so competing viewpoints (and their agendas) are a fact of life. Difference isn’t the problem: intolerance of difference is.
Definitions of nationalist and republican in the Irish context are more subjective than objective, since they have varying primary meanings to different people, both north and south. I would see a northern nationalist as a person who asserts his ethnic, civil and political rights by peaceful means, but who may regard his rights as having legitimate precedence over the rights of Unionists even though he is always careful to phrase his claims in terms of equality to Unionists. A subjective and somewhat cynical generic extrapolation, of course. More objectively, nationalism is the promotion of one culture, view of history, patriotic loyalty, heritage, separatism, selfish national interests, etc, at the expense of all other nations. Nothing wrong with that, per se, other than the slight hitch of two competing nationalisms within Northern Ireland, leading to incessant conflict between them. The border allows nationalism in the south without the resulting rancour that exists in the north; and ergo, a situational definition of a nationalist has a different definition down here.
I’m not sure what republicanism means in the north, but those who claim be republicans up there are as far removed from Wolfe Tone as Mary Harney is from having a slim arse. It seems to mean militant nationalism, i.e. the use of violence to assert nationalist supremacy over those who challenge it. It seems to have little to do with parity of esteem and equal rights. Whatever it means up north, folks down here decided they wanted to have nothing to do with it; and it seems that Unionists decided the same, since, the high percentage of Unionists who identified themselves as Irish dropped to next to nothing during PIRA’s sectarian murder campaign. Down south, republicanism means respect for all Irish citizens, irrespective of their colour, creed or national identity, with equal rights guaranteed for all under the constitution. It’s not about uniting “Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter” anymore, since the religious aspect has diminished and the disparity of ethnic groups has dramatically increased, leading to their being far more of “dissenter” than protestant. In fact, the Tricolour is a tad dated - and may need updating in a few years to remove the orange and stick in whichever colour the Poles want.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 03:01 AMDubliner - surely some credit must go to those in Sinn Fein whose actions over a tortuous decade or so managed to end the conflict with few dissenting voices. It would have been so easy for the Process to produce another effective armed republican faction. This hasn’t happened thank God and some thanks to Gerry et al.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 03:20 AM**Eoghan Harris. Variously, a supporter of the IRA, David Trimble, Soviet Union, via the WP, Bertie Ahern (in some of his latest rantings). The only thing that amazes me is why anyone gives such mavericks the slighest attention, when their contribution to Irish politics has been less than zero.**
Hmmmm, let’s see, he was in at the foundation of the NICRA, he led the move to swing the old IRA away from physical force nationalism towards more peaceful left wing activism. At RTE he was instrumental in ending the more pro-nationalist news reporting in favour of a more “left wing” agenda.
At the break up of the Soviet Union he called on the Left in Ireland to leave behind the old dogma and instead ally more with Fine Gael. He was a key adviser to Mary Robinson and played a pivotal role in her election campaign and in transforming the Irish presidency. He then went on to play a very similar role in advising David Trimble in his faltering steps towards the Good Friday Agreement and when Trimble won the Nobel Prize it is a line from his acceptance speech written by Harris that became famous (does anyone remember a word of John Hume’s speech?).
Throughout the ‘80s he urged the Provos to give up violence, he made it very plain that there was no possible future for the armed struggle. The only way for them to move on was to abandon the long war and go for accommodation with Unionists.
In the last Irish general election his appearance on the Late Late Show telling people to basically wise up and lose their Irish Times prejudices against Bertie Ahern gave a huge boost to the FF campaign.
So has Harris achieved nothing? Well let’s see, when he set out on his political journey Ireland was a bitterly divided island, conservative, clerical and mutually hostile. In the forty years since Ireland has become a vibrant, secular, fairly small “L” liberal, tolerant country at peace with itself and with Unionists and with Britain.
The IRA has given up the war, dumped the guns and gone into government with Unionists.
And all along this painful transformation, whose big ugly moustachio’d face and hystrionic Dublin accent has been urging, plotting, cajoling, manipulating, speechifying, proselytising and coercing the process along?
You may not agree with him, (there’s alot I don’t like about his politics), you may dislike him intensely but I would humbly submit that for better or for worse Eoghan Harris has had a bigger, behind the scenes influence in dragging Irish society to where it is today than the entire IRA Army Council.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 03:37 AM“And all along this painful transformation, whose big ugly moustachio’d face and hystrionic Dublin accent has been urging, plotting, cajoling, manipulating, speechifying, proselytising and coercing the process along?”
He’s from Cork not Dublin.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 07:07 AMHe’s from Cork not Dublin.
Wouldn’t be the first time one of Harry’s rants has backfired.
It just occurred to me. Isn’t the chuckie march really just a mirror image of William Frazier’s FAIR marches ? It’s got that same ring of “yes, I’ll complain about the absence of truth from the other lot, but at the same time handwave about my own side” element to it.
Like most of the other players around here, SF at this particular point in time are not interested in finding the truth; I think they just want to keep stirring the pot in order to agitate to keep proving to themselves that they don’t need to use guns and semtex to keep themselves in the front line.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 07:54 AMWillowfield
“And it seems to me that West Belfast’s support for Sinn Fein-IRA weakens its claim to special victim status.”
If things don’t make sense take it up with HArris. I didn’t mis-represent him.Flashman
You make some good points, I suppose one could as a counter-example mention the McAleese thing as an example of him clearly f*cking up. I also think that his influence on some of the issues you mention was minimal.One other point - I don’t think his relationship with RTE was particularly bening He was quite happy with state censorship at RTE - I’m not sure how left wing he made things but he certainly did his best to make sure they moved away form any nationlist bias they may have had.
One last thing on a positive note. He wrote a screenplay for some film involving a load of ex-provo bank robbers which was very good. I forget the name.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 07:57 AMthat should be “benign” rather than “bening”
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 08:01 AMComrade
You are entirely right with the FAir comparison.
I suppose one could point outyou don’t see as much criticism of that organisation from some of the commentators we’ve been reading abouthere recently.
In terms of SFs motives - you may be right on the factor you mention but I always get with them something along the lines of post-fact historical justification - eg “look it was alright but us to bomb and shoot people as the state was doing this as well, just indirectly.. you know about us killing people then but let us now tell you how bad the state was misbehaving”.
I could of course be wrong.Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 08:16 AMThe problem I have with this type of debate is that the N. Irish are endlessly described as falling into one of two mutually exclusive tribal mentalities based on religion. This is not only a gross simplification, it is also damaging when it comes to creating a more non-sectarian culture in the North. There are Prod Nationalists, Catholic Unionists and countless shades in between. This is coming from an Irish passport-holding (lapsed) Presbyterian with a famous 1798 martyr in the family tree who is also honest enough to concede that there is a British dimension to his identity. As good ol’ Pete Townshend said “the simple things you see are all complicated”….
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 08:40 AMIt’s not whataboutery to wonder why the state that dictates you pay it taxes then goes and takes those taxes, gives it in the form of cash to loyalist murderers and gives them also the information as to you name and address and tells them they can kill you with impunity.
All posts by the likes of Cnuimh, Garibaldy and co. are avoiding this point. I wonder why.
Garibaldi might also ask Eoghan Harris and fellow sticky republicans, so called, what blood is on their hands. Because, even if they weren’t engaged in sectarian murder, which I doubt, I have no doubt that the Official Republican movement are far from free of the stain of murder.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 08:42 AM“It’s not whataboutery to wonder why the state that dictates you pay it taxes then goes and takes those taxes, gives it in the form of cash to loyalist murderers and gives them also the information as to you name and address and tells them they can kill you with impunity.”
I don’t think “the” state did OC - any more than “the” RC Church murdered the victims of the Claudy bombing.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 08:51 AM/// It’s not whataboutery to wonder why the state that dictates you pay it taxes then goes and takes those taxes, gives it in the form of cash to loyalist murderers and gives them also the information as to you name and address and tells them they can kill you with impunity. ///
It is when YOU conveniently airbrush the fact that just as many of the Provos were on the payroll of the state, and similar collusion applied on both sides - Stakeknife, Stormontgate anyone?
Let’s not even start on the state collusion of the RoI govt and the Provos: suffice to say the Breen and Buchanon families deserve some truth as well ........
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 08:58 AMI don’t conveniently airbrush any facts, Blue Hammer. All that Stormontgate and Stakeknife prove is that that British state’s role in Ireland has been malevolent always and consistently. This is in fact addressed in Adams’ speech yesterday.
It is also argued by some that because the British had agents in the IRA that there was republican collusion.Yes the British recruited, blackmailed, tricked, intimidated and bribed individual republicans into working for them and I think it would be only right to have this dimension of British strategy investigated also.
If the British state used former republicans to do its killing for it then the victims of that policy have the right to truth also.
The infiltration of organisations, the tactic of divide and conquer, of counter gangs, has long been a hallmark of British policy.
But to compare, as anti-republicans do, this policy with the structured control and direction of unionist paramilitaries in the conduct of their war is disengenuous.
Of course all the families of those killed by the IRA demand and deserve the truth about the killings of their loved ones - yet the point being made here is that, for the most part, people served time for these killings while those killed by British forces, be they SAS, PARAS, RUC, UDR, RIR, UFF, UVF, LVF didn’t.
I have no problem calling on those ‘within my tribe’ to be forthcoming with the truth. I wonder is the same true for Cnuimh or Blue Hammer. Or have they entirely missed the point of this thread, titled as it i s:
“the first step is to act with good authority by telling the truth to your own tribe”
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 09:32 AMthe point everyone is making is quite clear,
Shinn Fein are march for the truth into british colusion, while ignoring that many of thier own numbers worked with the birtishforces to kill members of protestent community!
they are refusing to even face these facts, with gerry adams caliming these people were blackmailed and paid off, this is all BS!
Republicans need to take thier heads out of thier own rear ends and see the REAL truth, and then march!
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 09:47 AMOC - you have not shown that what we hold to be the truth needs correcting.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 09:47 AMThe Dubliner
It’s not about uniting “Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter” anymore, since the religious aspect has diminished and the disparity of ethnic groups has dramatically increased, leading to their being far more of “dissenter” than protestant.
Actually, “dissenter” refers to what would used to be termed “nonconformist Protestants”; and “Protestant” refers to “Anglican”. Strange, I know. Apparently, in Donegal (where my grandfather was brought up), until fairly recently (and possibly still), the Church of Ireland is called the “Protestant church”. So the phrase “Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter” doesn’t include non-Christians.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 09:50 AMCuchulainn - I’d suggest that this cause is as contaminated by Adams and the others picking at other people’s scabs as was the Civil rights issue 40 years ago contaminated by evil men and women who were similarly piggy-backing.
Crocodile tears. Adams and the rest of his mob couldn’ give a shit about victims - except when they can be used.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 09:55 AM*Wouldn’t be the first time one of Harry’s rants has backfired.*
Yup, CS the entire point of my post (not a rant by the way) falls completely asunder because I mixed up his accent, jeez such devastating rebuttals you’re coming up with these days.
At least unlike you I am able to remember what I said in previous posts and not keep rewriting a different version only to slink off ignominiously when your mistakes are pointed out to you.
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 09:58 AMTime for International Enquiry into UK State Collusion in Criminality
http://organizedrage.blogspot.com/
Posted by on Aug 13, 2007 @ 10:02 AM
