Wednesday, October 31, 2007
“While I was of the view that no military solution was possible..”
I don’t intend to comment much on the fulsome apology of Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams, or the PIRA apology for their “mistakes” he referenced, beyond noting that the man it was directed at, Colin Parry, had already dealt with the possibility that such an apology would be proffered
“I don’t want an apology, I don’t expect an apology. That is not on the agenda, if I got one it wouldn’t mean anything.”
Nor do I intend to comment much on the attempt to usurp the consultation of the Eames/Bradley group, beyond noting that a focus on the perpetrators and what they have to say to their own people might be more beneficial than what Adams is suggesting.
However, he also called for a victim-centred truth process to help Northern Ireland deal with its bloody past. That process, he proposed, should involve all people, including those in England and the Republic of Ireland, bereaved or maimed during the Troubles. “A truth process must reach out to these people,” he argued.
But it is worth noting that his actual speech included his own version of his truth about the past..
On the one side there were nationalists and republicans who were denied basic human and civil rights, including the right to vote, access to housing and work. The north existed under a permanent state of emergency, with special laws, special courts and a range of state armed paramilitary organisations to implement its will. The civil rights campaign of the 1960s was an attempt to initiate reform. The demands were simple—the right to vote, an end to discrimination in jobs and housing, and the repeal of the special laws. On the other side was the unionist government, the unionist establishment and the British government.
Adams goes on to argue that
By the mid to late 1970s it was obvious that there was a military stalemate. The British could not defeat the IRA—the IRA could not militarily defeat the British.
And the violence continued with each side seeking to develop new strategies, new tactics, new and more deadly ways of killing each other.
Within republicanism, armed struggle was the dominating tendency. There was a belief that only the IRA could move the British government. There may have been misgivings or serious concerns about particular military operations but there was no real dissent from armed struggle. It was taken for granted that that was the way of things.
While I was of the view that no military solution was possible I also felt armed struggle was a necessary form of struggle and I defended this position without being dogmatic about it.
But how to break the impasse?
The Sinn Fein leadership carefully considered this and concluded that if the impasse was to be broken then republicans needed to go on a political offensive. And we realised very early on that this would require republicans taking initiatives. At its core it would require Sinn Féin constructing a viable political alternative to armed struggle which could deliver republican goals.
In a letter I wrote in the early 1980s to Catholic Bishop Cahal Daly, who was a vocal opponent of republicans I said: ‘Those republicans who engage in armed struggle, or who defend the legitimacy of armed struggle in pursuance of Irish independence, do so, not through any fixation with physical force, but through a necessity. Those who voice a moral condemnation of this tactic have a responsibility to spell out an alternative course by which Irish independence can be secured. I for one would be pleased to consider such an alternative.’
I have to say it became clear very quickly to me and to others in our leadership that if we were to wait on others providing the alternative it would never happen. They were locked in a mindset.
The quote from the letter dated in the 1980s, however, would not seem to be as conclusive as Adams would appear to believe.
And it ignores other elements of the struggle which were deployed - in a “campaign which drew its lessons from previous such periods in Irish history, as well as from contemporary experience around the world.”
And for an alternative analysis of the outworking of that Process™ see this previous post. Or this one.
After all, it might already be too late..
Pete Baker @ 11:19 PM
I wonder,
Re Adams / Clare. I think I remember discussion about the interview though I loathed In the Psychiatrists chair and never listened to it. I am happy to be wrong and indeed I could not find any mention of it on the internet.Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 11:02 PMAnyway 9 hours from Dublin to Cardiff - ridiculous - could have got to Kabul in less time. Nos effing da.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 11:47 PMT/G,
I don’t doubt you’re right.
I was just wondering about the context.
You’ll appreciate my point, as I am a deffo NON-SF person, that the chronological factor needs to be built in.?
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 11:52 PMI agree with a lot that has been said, even with those like Harry Flashman who were annoyed by my earlier posts. He and others make a lot of valid points from a unionist perspective. The last 35 years or so in the north of Ireland are a good example of what I mean when I say we “construct truth”. Even though all of you lived in the same place at the same time you all have very different views or positions on what happened in your recent history. That is why I said there is no “real” truth, only our own truth. Once we engage in dialogue we can begin to construct the truth by understanding events from a number of different perspectives. In this way we can construct truth as individuals and as a society, this will help us understand events and each other. Our own truth commission, one based on public dialogue.
Truth is a social construction.
Sorry if I offended anyone, Adams was giving his vesion of the truth and he is entitled to it, as is Ervine, Hume and many others ( I can’t include religious fundamentalists in this as I think they are retards). I think Adams actually stuck to the point well by apologising to the families of the dead British boys. He didn’t mention the Irish children killed in the conflict or try to score political points anywhere, he was focused and stuck to the task at hand which makes me feel that these and other comments were genuine. I feel this is to his credit but others are quick to denounce him, perhaps understandably.
Blue Hammer,
Yes there are racial issues here in the US, I think things have got a lot better but concede it is still a work in progress. I hope things continue to imporve.
But no need to look so far over the ocean. Just over in Britain they have the same issues with Asians and Blacks, and in the north with anti-Irish, anti-Catholic, anti-Orange, anti-Chinese, anti-Immigrant, anti-Polish, anti-freeze.Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 12:57 AMUSA,
Your claim that there is no truth is of course offensive. There is truth. The truth is that people were killed here. There is also intrepretation. Different people have different intrepretations. For example Gerry Asdams’s current intrepretation is that the IRA campaign could not win by the mid 1970s but that it was other people’s moral responsibility to find a way for the IRA to stop. My intrepretation is that this is a totally dishonest and morally bankcrupt explanation from someone who whilst styling himself as a liberal intellectual is actually a terrorist cheerleader if not a terrorist himself. Clearly others may have a different intreptration.There is, however, no getting away from the truth that the IRA killed people (as did the alphabet soup of loyalist terrorists). People some of us knew and no amount of spin, lies or historical revisionism will change that.
USA,
“ I can’t include religious fundamentalists in this as I think they are retards”So everyone else is entitled to their opinion but not people like me. Why not? Oh yes I am a “retard”. Firstly the term “retard” is offensive to myself as well as those who have learning disabilities. Secondly I fail to understand why my views have no value. Am I some sort of sub human? Oh yes I guess as a “retard” I cannot understand why my views are invalid. Just like I cannot understand how the fact that people like me would not give in to the IRA forced the IRA to kill our kith and kin and it was actually the victims fault all along. Indeed I am a retard.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 01:56 AMUSA
If you ever find yourself in a court of law (hopefully somewhere like Texas), I suggest you try your truth theory out on them.
Let us know how it goes, should be interesting.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 09:36 AMI would like to see the fact documented about the so-called “discrimination.” To my knowledge, both Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness both HAD jobs in 1969 and both gave them up to become fulltime genocide directors. It is also interesting that John Hume, Austin Currie et al also held lucrative jobs at the same time and that the majority of the protestors in teh Civil rights Marches in Belfast were from QUB - hardly indicative of widespread discrimination in education!
As someone whose relatives were simply told by their employers in the Free State that they had to leave because they were Protestants, I am a tad irked by the constant one-sided revisionism of Irish history. My Grandfather simply moved across the border and took his family to Co Fermanagh. I certainly do not think his treatment justifies a Kingsmill or Ormeau Road no matter how the Bearded One now spins it. Of course, unlike the majority of Catholics in the North, Protestants in the main have no ambiquity about muderering in cold blood another human being just because he has a different religion!
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 06:30 PMusa
to say that the ira are entitled to their point but religous fundamentalists are not-weird logic-its ok to open fire into a gospel hall in Darkley but the people inside are religous and therefore their opinion doesn’t matter-that seems to be what you are saying.with a brain like your’s you should run for president.Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 08:53 PMI can recall shops in larne needing workers putting ads on their shop windows with the suffix roman catholics need not apply.It may have been different in other areas but there most certainly was discrimination against catholics here ,maybe protestants got hard done by in other towns -it maynot all have been one sided but it most certainly did happen.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 09:00 PMI apologise, I should not have used the term “retards” when referring to religious fundamentalists, as it is offensive those with learning dissabilities. I should have used the term “idiots” instead. And yes, idiots are entitled to have an opinion, even if their “reality” involves arks, Adam and Eve, omnipotent beings etc.
Veritas,
All too often people on Slugger bring thier own agenda to the keyboard. I said people were entitled to their opinion and to express a viewpoint, at no time did I say it was okay to gun down unarmed civilians in a gospel hall. So don’t put words in my mouth, thank you very much.
The Penguin,
‘A major focus of social constructionism is to uncover the ways in which individuals and groups participate in the creation of their perceived social reality. It involves looking at the ways social phenomena are created, institutionalized, and made into tradition by humans. Socially constructed reality is seen as an ongoing, dynamic process; reality is re-produced by people acting on their interpretations and their knowledge of it.”
Go here to learn more about social constructionismPosted by on Nov 03, 2007 @ 06:53 PM
