Focus on a century of constitutional division diminishes those on the margins of our complex social history…

SDLP leader, Colin Eastwood MP is as entitled to express an opinion as any other politician. However, whether his passionate, if not petulant assertion, that the use of Seamus Heaney’s portrait, by an admittedly lazy binary view of culture by the NIO when launching the NI Centenary, was down to cynicism is very much open to debate.

In reality such an assertion of motive is very hard to prove or disprove; but is perhaps indicative of no great enthusiasm for the Centenary of Northern Ireland. But, does this render his or any similar ‘grumble’ being due to ‘intolerance and blind bigotry’, as Peter Robinson suggests this week in the Newsletter?

Certainly, Seamus Heaney’s poetry is celebrated by all shades of opinion in Northern Ireland and there are many who would be quick to see any non-reference to his contribution to the cultural life of what Seamus Mallon referred to a shared home, inappropriate and neglectful.

Colum like many of us could benefit from the words and advice of Rabbi Yordan ben Yosef (as quoted in Dear Zealots by Amoz Oz) in writing of the Sabbath: “It is committed to your hands; not you to its hands”

The same would serve as useful reference for the former First Minister. But not all of us are bound into a binary view of history and heritage, as the comments of a local friend and author in Derry demonstrate:

‘As a Nationalist, I will not be celebrating the NI Centenary but at the same time I have to acknowledge that whilst there were painful experiences for my co- religionists my family benefitted from a good home in the Creggan, the NHS, education and regular employment. Northern Ireland for much of my lifetime was a better place to live in material terms than the Republic of Ireland.’

This presents as a direct contradiction to that of Deputy First Minister Michelle O’Neill MLA who speaking at the online event at Queens: Reflections of the Government of Ireland Act, parroted the oddly formulaic and seemingly endlessly repeating party line dismissing the NI Centenary thus:

“There will be no celebration of the partition of our country. Partition rests at the heart of many of our divisions here in the North and between Britain and Ireland.”

 Speaking on the same occasion, Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney TD, encouraged a more inclusive and ethical approach:

Just because we ourselves do not celebrate an event in history, does not mean we cannot give the room and respect to others for whom it is important. Just because we do not share the experience of loss of another tradition, does not mean we cannot give the space and sympathy for those who feel it.

It is indeed incumbent on us to ensure a hospitality for all those narratives. We lose nothing – not our beliefs, nor our sense of identity, nor our narratives – by doing so. If any of us reach the end of next year without having given a respectful hearing to a story or perspective from someone else’s tradition, then I believe we will have fallen short.

Referencing President Michael D Higgins, Mr Coveney called on political leaders to “provide a comprehensive, ethical framework within which memory, history and forgiveness can be accommodated.”

These words would surely resonate with Archbishop Eamon Martin who, in an interview for the Irish Catholic and quoted in the Irish News, voiced criticism of Nationalist politicians who refuse to engage with the NI Centenary and views the:

…2021 Centenary as an opportunity for greater mutual understanding, for opportunities to build fresh reconciliation and peace.

Fuller consideration of the comments of President Higgins indicate an endorsement of the need to first live in good neighbourly relations even with those with whom we may have profound differences. For him, it seems, as for many, polemical and strategic manipulation of narratives have reached their expiry date.

His words advocate understanding, inclusion, respect and compassion and are distinguished by his promotion of moral responsibility and ethical remembering when addressing the past and the interpretation of the past.

They serve to invite those, without exception, who are buttressed within entrenched and stale dogma to think afresh, collaboratively; to seek evidenced and open-minded analysis in the context of how we can re-imagine, beyond rituals and symbols, our history and heritage.

The implication is clear. In shining a light on the past and the NI Centenary, it is imperative to acknowledge that there is not just one light, but many.

This is true of partition and the emergence of two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland. We need to try to understand from the inside and not just by looking in the windows as political nationalism has opted to do.

Unionism too has a responsibility to challenge its narratives beyond the binary caricatures. As Peter Robinson points out there has been much achievement in a variety of spheres across and within the various communities and these merit celebration and recognition but celebration without reflection and reconciliation will not address the problems we face.

Judging them as due to intolerance and bigotry only exacerbates the problem and shows all the hallmark of denial politics under Peter Robinson’s watch, the legacy of which survives. If you design a system to serve a specific purpose, you cannot be surprised if it ‘delivers the goods.’

In referring to the faults and failings in a Unionist controlled Northern Ireland as a failure to build a utopia is to diminish groups left to watch from the margins, not least women, LGBT and politically, socially and economically vulnerable. Unionism cannot afford to get caught up in the vanity of its own imagined past.

Not if Northern Ireland is to arrive where it needs to be; where in the words of John Hewitt: ‘each may grasp his neighbours’ hand as friend.”

Photo by Pixabay is licensed under CC0