BS: Statue of Michael Collins

Subject: RE: BS: Statue of Michael Collins
From: GUEST,Guest, Big Tim
Date: 28 Aug 02 - 07:11 AM

According to Brian Feeney's new bok "Sinn Fein:a hundred turbulent years" (O'Brien, 2002) the party was founded in 1905. He lists the Presidents as follows: Edward Marten (1905-08), John Sweetman (1908), Arthur Griffith (1908-17), Eamon de Valera (1917-22 and 1923-26), J.J. O'Kelly ('Scellg') (1926-31), Brian O'Higgins (1931-33 [author of many well-known rebel songs- BT], Fr Michael O'Flanagan (1933-35), Cathal O Murchadha (1935-37), Mrs Margaret Buckley (1937-50), Padraig MacLogain (1950-53), Tomas O Dubhgaill (1953-54), Padraig MacLogain (1954-62), Tomas MacGiolla (1962-70), Ruairi O Bradaigh [Rory Brady] (1970-83), Gerry Adams (1983-).

Of the Ulster Unionist Party, the Oxford Companion to Irish History says ""the governing party of NI between 1921 and 1972. The Party evolved in 1885-86 as a protest movement, united by a broad antipathy to Home Rule but otherwise highly fissile". [this entry was written by Alvin Jackson, Reader in History at Queens Univ Belfast).

Jimmy C: I'm truly sorry for your troubles. Enoch Kent is here at present for the Edinburgh Festival, he appeared on the Archie Fisher BBC radio folk show last week, gave an extensive interview and sang a few songs. It was great to hear him again.

Subject: RE: BS: Statue of Michael Collins
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 28 Aug 02 - 07:58 AM

As far as I know, no information from the English, Welsh and Sccttish elements of the UK census has been published either. The first was due in August, but I've not seen anything and there have long been rumours that the whole process of data collection was seriously flawed.

Pooka, that analysis is probably dead on. I'm just not absolutely sure about the republic vote first time round. They've been having the time of their lives in recent years, so there will be some reluctance to bring nearly a million belligerent, seige-mentality prods into the equation. They could do as much damage to the republic as the Provos ever did to the north.

Jimmy, I don't doubt a word of your experience. And I agree about Westminster's 50 years of indifference. That was shameful, as was nearly everything to do with the British Empire. But blaming present-day Brits for that is as facile as Brits thinking present-day Germans are Nazis.

Good luck to you in Canada, but what you overlook is that over the years Westminster treated many Brits as badly as it treated people elsewhere in the empire. The Irish have always been entitled to vote in British elections, and their influence along with that of other pissed-off people helped shape British politics for the better. People change. Nations change. But for some reason many diasporic Irish just don't see it.

Your casual acceptance of any mistreatment of prods, on the grounds of what their fathers and grandfathers did, is the kind of negative vibe that feeds conflict. Any demagogue can whip up a mob to that frame of mind, but you should be able to come up with better than that in the cold light of day.

My guess is that the present-day prods will do enough themselves to earn any mistreatment they get. But let's recognise that their crazy (sometimes self-defeating) behaviour is driven by them having their backs against the wall, in the context of the whole island, and knowing this full well. (The idea that any think they have a 3-1 majority in the north is sheer rubbish.)

Once people believe they have nothing left to lose, they are beyond the reach of rational argument. People in the republic could hardly be blamed if they decided to leave those northern prods as someone else's problem. They are a bit closer to the practicalities than those who cherish a homeland that exists only in their dreams.

By the way, northern catholics are now heading to the republic in fistfuls, attracted by the booming economy. And the census is likely to show a declining catholic birthrate as catholics have become better off. You can count on notten, Jimmy! The show ain't over till the fat lady sings.

Subject: RE: BS: Statue of Michael Collins
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 02 - 08:00 AM

Well that would make the Unionists the oldest party in Ireland then, wouldn't it? So I suppose the history books best get reprinted to correct the error. Or are we, perhaps, not looking at the modern Unionist party which ruled NI between 1921 and 1972. I find it rather difficult to accept that their rulership ended in 1972 as well.

As to the accusation of trolling, well...it looks like a case of the Mudcat "member/anon guest" bunker mentality that michaelr spoke of in another thread this week. I think the conversation is every bit as civil now as it was 48 hours ago. Disagreement is not trolling, despite the desperate efforts of some to present it as such.

Subject: RE: BS: Statue of Michael Collins
From: Fiolar
Date: 28 Aug 02 - 09:30 AM

Getting back to the unveiling ceremony - Liam Neeson said that Michael had helped him when he was in hospital in New York following a serious accident. He asked himself:"What would Mick do?" and in a great rendition of a West Cork accent, Liam declared: "You were told to do one-hour physical therapy - you will do two hours and be thankful for it." Liam went on to say that, "If my presence here today will help to keep alive his memory, I will be doubly honoured."

Subject: RE: BS: Statue of Michael Collins
From: Airto
Date: 28 Aug 02 - 11:00 AM

I agree with you, Guest. There's a difference between stimulating discussion and looking for an argument.

I'm sorry for straying off the subject of Michael Collins, but one of the purposes of his commemmoration is to encourage some fresh thinking about our situation. I personally think we underestimate the effect 80 years of partition has had on all of us in Ireland and on those who left.

The day the Catholic population in the North reaches 50% plus one, if it ever comes, won't change the need for both traditions on the island to co-exist peacefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Statue of Michael Collins
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 28 Aug 02 - 12:18 PM

Been menaing to say thanks for the eye-witness accounts, Fiolar. Almost feel I'd been there

Subject: RE: BS: Statue of Michael Collins
From: Jimmy C
Date: 28 Aug 02 - 01:03 PM

Fionn, I am not accepting ill-tratment of prods as casual, what I meant is they will be treated as they treat others, and if they follow or try to follow the same path that their fathers and grandfathers followed they have to live with the results.
I agree that the both communities have to learn to live together, my God I pray for it every night. I still have 4 brothers, 1 sister and a daughter there ,plus numerous nephews, nieces and in-laws. I worry about their safety.
As far as blaming present days brits is concerned, are you saying they are not part of the problem ?. when in reality they treated the problems in northen Ireland with apathy as if it was another planet UNTIL the bombs started going off in England. They should have taken steps to nip it in the bud much earlier, what they did do was send over an army that by their behaviour actually helped create the I.R.A.. The nationalist population could never depend on the police for protection and after a few months of the army coming in it was shown that they could not depend on it either so they had to take steps to protect themselves and the only avenue open to them was the resurrection of the I.R.A. Their behaviour in the nationalist areas of Belfast and Derry was disgraceful, their behaviour in South Armagh in particular was disgraceful and the acceptance of this behaviour by senior officers and politicians was disgraceful. I firmly believe that if the British army had acted in a non-partisan manner and tried to fulfil their mandate as peacekeepers the I.R.A. would not have had the hundreds of young men and women flocking into their ranks. instead they came into some districts like soccer hooligans with guns and uniforms, so yes they were and still are a big part of the problem

This will be my last posting to this particular thread - I would much prefer to get back to music.

Take care everybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Statue of Michael Collins
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 02 - 01:14 PM

I've a close friend from a well known Ardoyne republican family, who once said to me that if the Brits had only been just and fair in ending the systemic and institutionalized racism and bigotry in 1969, and opened the way up for the civil rights reforms which are now being implemented, none of the Troubles would have happened. Even in the republican communities in 1969, people wanted peace, security, living wage jobs, and decent homes and schools much, much more than they ever wanted a reuinited Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Statue of Michael Collins
From: paddymac
Date: 28 Aug 02 - 11:01 PM

Thanks to all who have meaningfully contributed in ways big and small to this very informative thread, and to hell with the trolls.

My 2p in re SF is to suggest that today's SF can not be fairly compared to the earlier versions. The party has substantively metamorphosed more than once, which probably explains its current vitality.

Subject: RE: BS: Statue of Michael Collins
From: GUEST,Guest, Big Tim
Date: 29 Aug 02 - 06:48 AM

Good point Paddymac. I haven't read Feeney's book yet but I do know that SF wasn't a republican party until after the 1916 Rising, in which it didn't participate. Griffith supported a dual monarchy, making him non-republican by definition. Tom Clarke's widow Kathleen has some very scathing things to say about his politics (not the man himself) in her memoirs. Although he possessed an "old Howth gun" and was picked up in the big post-Rising sweep, he was quickly released. I guess abstentionism was another major policy change. Count Plunkett and De Valera, SF's first two MP's (TDs), both stood on abstentionist tickets, ie not sitting at Westminster. There's a great pic of Brady and Adams shaking hands in Feeney's book after abstentionism was ditched, captioned "The parting of the ways: following his defeat in the ard fheis on abstention, Ruariri O Bradaigh gives a less than cordial handshake to Gerry Adams. The two men's facial expressions say it all ". (Brady is looking resigned and beaten, Adams is smiling broadly). The book also as another good quote, among many, "Hello Sinn Fein, Westminster" - Gerry Adams answering his London office phone, 2002.

Subject: RE: BS: Statue of Michael Collins
From: GUEST,Guest, Big Tim
Date: 29 Aug 02 - 02:44 PM

Most of you probably know this but...I've dipped a bit further into Feeney's book: abstentionism, both Westminster and Dail, was abandoned in 1986.

Subject: RE: BS: Statue of Michael Collins
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Aug 02 - 04:12 PM

Jimmy, I think you accept that when Callaghan committed the army in 1969 it was to protect catholics, because the RUC had gone native with their prod brethren. The soldiers were welcomed on that basis, and yet as you indicate, they soon became the enemy. Why?

In no small degree, this was the doing of the IRA, which had been deeply, deeply humiliated by the arrival of the British Army. They had simply not been there when needed -provoking graffiti on some catholic streets which said: IRA = I Ran Away.

Now I'd be the first to say that any standing army is a clumsy instrument to deploy on the streets, whether Brit, Israeli, American, or any other. And there's no defending the response to the IRA campaign. Their strategy, so far as they had one, was to get the IRA out on the the streets so they had a chance of shooting them.

Any time the Provos went quiet, the Army would searh a few hundred catholic homes (that is, trash them at three or four in the morning, ripping out floorboards, bathrooms, pissing on beds etc, while terrified kids and mothers looked on) in the hope of forcing another gunfight. Some of the soldiers and some of the officers were simply thugs, such as armies tend to attract. But even with the army I would hesitate to generalise. I know people in both the Turf Lodge and New Lodge areas who had great respect for some individual officers.

My only point is that the way it all evolved was more complex than Westminster simply selling catholics down the river. That was never the intention, not even of the Tories, and not even with their biggest blunder (which you forgot to mention, Jimmy!) which was giving Faulkner his way on internment.

With Northern Ireland spilling on to the agenda in Westminster at last, the Tories soon regarded their unionist pals as a monumental embarrassment. (Incidentally although it was a Labour government that tried to implement the Sunningdale agreement - wrecked by loyalists - it was drawn up while the Tories were in office.)

Yes, the politicians cocked up and yes, they did listen too much to their own army chiefs. And yes, they were as soft on their criminal squaddies as most nations sadly seem to be. But to condemn a whole nation for these failures - and to condemn fellow Irish who have been welcomed in that nation in their thousands - seems a tad mean-spirited to me.

Especially so in the present climate. Not every government (witness Spain) would allow a political party to play a full part in the democratic process while it still kept at its disposal a private army, under arms.

If you want to see reconciliation, Jimmy, don't waste your time praying for it. Let's start trying to understand other people's points of view, as I believe Martin McGuinness and David Irvine are both trying to do. (If any of us had been born and bred on Sandy Row, there's a good chance we'd be die-hard loyalists now, or a least supporting Rangers.)