 sj |
||
|
||
Today in Ireland's History-II
|
|
|
Subject: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Cara Date: 15 Feb 00 - 03:39 PM Please continue... |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: InOBU Date: 15 Feb 00 - 06:47 PM Well Trevor, and thanks to Cara for the realization this is taking too long to load... Can we at least agree that our friend Crying Child has a view of South African history that you and I would find to be off the mark? One of the classes I found truely remarkable in law school was a class in South African law. The degree to which that state legislated racialism is beyond my comprehension as the work of modern minds. It was a regime which existed borne up on ignorence and greed. As to your observation about placing Provos in place of humans, have you known many IRA volunteers, read their life storries? I would ask that you take a moment to read about the life of Bobby Sands MP. Ask yourself what your responce to that degree of victemization. I have to run, time for a rehersal. All the best old and new friends, and speak to you soon. Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Brendy Date: 15 Feb 00 - 07:30 PM And of course, Trevor, it was you who parapharsed Larry, not quoted him. As for the whinging child, I really don't know wat your point was, except to make some remarks about 'cock-fighting' I hardly think that that elevates you to the rank of 'intellectually involved'. Did you see the news tonight? Back to square one. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: katlaughing Date: 15 Feb 00 - 09:32 PM Change is always scary, even change that is expected to be for the better. Sometimes when we get into a rut and things have ever been thus, it seems safer and more comfortable to stay the same way, then the fear of change is held at bay. I do not feel at all qualified to make any more comments, but am following this with great interest. It is all so sad. I pray that all involved will overcome the fear of change, the hatred and distrust of one another, and let go and move on. Respectfully, katlaughing |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: GUEST,Crying child Date: 16 Feb 00 - 01:20 AM Brendy I'm sorry if the cockfighting allegory was too difficult for your intellect, but please don't be unpleasant. InOBU, my knowledge of South African history is that the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, conducted a terrorist campaign against South African society and against the law, which resulted in Mandela being jailed. Over the course of time, ably assisted by intellectuals and ladies in cardigans, they won the day, thus proving to the world that terrorism works. My silent majority view is that terrorism is wrong - even if we sympathise with those who believe themselves oppressed there is still no justification for buying into it. That only means that I support those who obey the law more than I support those who disobey. Society makes laws to protect itself from violence. Sure, some laws are bad and need to be changed, but we should surely be steering away from violence rather than towards it? It is well documented that the IRA has/had links with Libya, providing expertise in bomb making and setting techniques. Do you equally support the Libyan "armed struggle"? So was Locherbie OK in your book? |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: GUEST,Crying child Date: 16 Feb 00 - 01:22 AM Oh and I nearly forgot to mention that in Zimbabwe it has become illegal for white people to own land. How racist is that? |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: alison Date: 16 Feb 00 - 01:24 AM Ah well.. looks like everything is back to normal at home.... hijackings, bomb scares..... For those of you who haven't heard.. the IRA have pulled out of the peace talks..... CNN report damn shame........ still peace was nice while it lasted.... slainte alison |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: alison Date: 16 Feb 00 - 01:27 AM from CNN "Sinn Fein accused Britain of defaulting on the Good Friday pact by suspending the Belfast government, and Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams on Tuesday blamed Mandelson for rejecting the IRA's latest offers. "It was a bad meeting, quite frankly," Adams said "And this Sinn Fein leadership has now no further room to move. We have seen the failure of politics." But the province's major Catholic party, the Social Democratic and Labor Party, condemned the IRA decision. Seamus Mallon, the SDLP's deputy leader and senior Catholic in the suspended Cabinet, said the IRA and Sinn Fein seemed bent on treating disarmament as "a bargaining chip" rather than an obligation. "We must now clearly establish if in effect the IRA are going to be part of the new future," Mallon said. "Or are they going to believe that they can thwart the wishes of the Irish government, the British government, the people of the island of Ireland, and indeed world opinion?" " slainte alison
|
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: alison Date: 16 Feb 00 - 01:38 AM Today in Irelands History 1st thread |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Lonesome EJ Date: 16 Feb 00 - 01:44 AM I find the Adams statement that "we have seen the failure of politics" quite disturbing. Is there a substantial difference between making a statement like this, and threatening outright violence as a remedy? If, as I believe, Adams is aware of the ineffectiveness of terror and violence as an ongoing strategy for Sinn Fein and the IRA, then such a statement must be viewed as a form of extortion...using a renewal of terrorist activity as a threat. I sincerely hope clearer heads, and the will of all the people of Northern Ireland toward peace, prevails. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Banjer Date: 16 Feb 00 - 04:49 AM I try hard to understand the position of England in this case. The nearest comparison I can make to try to understand what has been happening is our Federal government stepping in and telling us our state governments are null and void. The nearest example I can compare this to is our own Civil War, or as we like to call it, the War of Northern Aggression. Are there any similarities for comaparison? |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: InOBU Date: 16 Feb 00 - 07:49 AM By dear Crying Child: England has far greater ties to Lybia than does the IRA. England, while objecting to the IRA recieving arms from Lybia, recieves oil from Lybia. If you are a serrious student of history, you would agree that oil is a far more important military resourse than any gun. As far as your belief that one must not violently oppose law which oppresses human rights, I expect that you are not a citizen of the US or any other nation which was, as is said, born in blood. In fact, the war that created the US, was a minority undertaking up until the very last, when the methods of waring against civilians employed by England popularised the war. The opinion of the majority in the world, as I understand it, is that Nelson Mandela was jailed for his work as a lawyer, not because he was, as you alledge, a terrorist. He was jailed for the same reason that your allies in that conflict, blew up Albi Sachs with a bomb, for doing a lawyers work, for the same reason that the side you support in the Irish question blew up Rosemary Nelson and shot Patrick Finucane, for doing a lawyers job, exposing the actions of government that offend the basic rights of humanity. Now, your belief that the IRA is a terrorist organisation, again, I direct you to read the Doherty decision, quoted in another post here, in which a concertive judge in an inparticial court in the US, found that the IRA is not a terrorist organization, but is involved in an armed insurection, a huge differece. And, reflected the findings of international human rights courts, that England WAS involved in human rights denial as policy in dealing with the insurection that its anti democratic history in Ireland has brought on. Once again, England chose the path leading away from democracy. I hope that thouse who still believe that the IRA was not justified, will be equally vocal, demanding that England keep to a democratic road, (as flawed as it was in its wieght towards the loyalist side)thereby giving Ireland its best hope of a peaceful future. All the best Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: GUEST,James Date: 16 Feb 00 - 08:58 AM Frankly, I find the "Irish Question" not to be a question at all. I observe the following...there is always England to blame....It is alright to be a religious bigot because our ancestors were the same....the Ira are heroes because they blow up Pubs and gerry adams is part of the peace process because he bombed his way there. personally, I think that the country needs to be set loose and made to live with itself. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Jon Freeman Date: 16 Feb 00 - 09:21 AM Here is the report from todays Daily Telegraph: THE IRA yesterday broke off contacts with Gen John de Chastelain, the decommissioning chief, and said that it was withdrawing "all propositions" on disarmament in protest at the suspension of power-sharing institutions in Northern Ireland last Friday. The statement - issued shortly after Gerry Adams, Sinn Fein's president, held what he described as a "bad meeting" with Peter Mandelson, the Northern Ireland Secretary - deepens the Ulster crisis and will exacerbate a serious rift between London and Dublin. The timing of the announcement appeared designed to increase pressure on Tony Blair to restore the power-sharing executive on the eve of his meeting with the Irish prime minister, Bertie Ahern. Dublin wants the Ulster institutions restored immediately on the basis of a second, more positive report by Gen de Chastelain issued a few hours after they were suspended last Friday. But the Government remains unconvinced that the general's second report represents the "major breakthrough" which Irish nationalists and republicans claim. The IRA announcement is a public relations victory since it restores the terrorist movement to centre stage. Until 5pm yesterday the joint objective of the two governments was to find a way to satisfy Unionist demands for decommissioning. Now they will focus on how to bring the IRA back into the process. Sir Ronnie Flanagan, Chief Constable of the RUC, said the IRA statement had no immediate security implications but was "not good news". The Irish Fine Gael opposition leader John Bruton said the timing of the statement was "the height of impertinence" and that the IRA had treated Mr Ahern "appallingly". The IRA statement said it had agreed to appoint a representative to meet Gen de Chastelain last November "on the basis that it would be part of a series of events including and in particular the establishment of the political institutions set out in the Good Friday Agreement". The gesture was intended to remove the impasse "created and maintained by Unionist intransigence" and the Government. The statement said: "The British Secretary of State has reintroduced the Unionist veto by suspending the political institutions. This has changed the context in which we appointed a representative to meet with the IICD [the decommissioning body] and has created a deeper crisis." Mirroring claims by Mr Adams, it accused the Government and the Ulster Unionists of rejecting Gen de Chastelain's second report. The statement said: "They obviously have no desire to deal with the issue of arms except on their own terms. Those who seek a military victory in this way need to understand that this cannot and will not happen. Those who have made the political process conditional on the decommissioning of silenced IRA guns are responsible for the current crisis. In light of these changed circumstances, the leadership of the IRA have decided to end our engagement with the IICD. We are also withdrawing all propositions put to the IICD by our representative since November." Mr Mandelson said the IRA statement was disappointing. "I believe this is a time when all channels need to be kept open. What was on the table had real potential and people will be sad that it could not be worked on and developed in the way that is needed." But Mr Adams, speaking before the IRA statement was issued, claimed Mr Mandelson was not prepared to take a decision that did not have the approval of Unionism. "As far as we are concerned, we have moved beyond our obligations," he said. The Sinn Fein leadership had "no further room to move". Mr Blair was warned by Gen de Chastelain at the weekend that the IRA was preparing to pull out of the disarmament talks. Government officials last night said the IRA statement had not come as a "great surprise". The Prime Minister was said to "regret" the decision. But Downing Street officials made clear Mr Blair was determined to press for answers from the IRA over whether they would disarm. "We need clarity. We need certainty over the decommissioning of weapons," a senior Government source said last night. The advance warning that the IRA was pulling out of the disarmament talks was one of the reasons for the hectic round of negotiations in London, Dublin and Belfast since Friday's suspension of the power-sharing executive at Stormont.
|
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: InOBU Date: 16 Feb 00 - 10:53 AM Once again, lots of interesting tangents! To begin with, brother James. The insergency in Ireland has nothing to do with religion, other than the fact the England has used fundimentalist protestants as pauns. I am not a Catholic, though I am completely a Republican (not at all in the American sence mind you). Do read the Bobby Sands thread and understand that Englands interests have nothing to do with democracy and religion, but we are dealing with a monster created in the cold war NATO international geo-policical struggle. Ireland has been colateral damage in the struggle between corporate capitalist nations and a state-corporate collective empire. Now, Banjer! War of agression??? No, there is no comparison between the US civil war and what has been going on in Ireland, by my estimation. Further to not see the seeds of the federalist anti-federalist struggle being set in terms also associated with the putting off of the issue of slavery at the time of the constitutional convention in the 1790s is to bring less than carefull scolarship to the table. Without a strong federal government - these United States - rather than The United States, would have remained a third rate power, if that, and matters of civil rights would have made us even more of a pariah nation than we are often thought. Federal power is about balencing minority rights against the tyrony of the local majority, and I realize that many are offended by that, just as many are offended by Black rule in South Africa, or Catholics having equal rights in Ireland. But without balence and fairness, the cure can be as bad as the illness. I would urge you to read Herman Melvilles book, Benito Cerano. It is about a revolt on a slave ship, very loosely based on the Amisad event. His point, made before the war, is that Slavery, without rational civilised abolition, will lead to an uprising and unlease horrors on the nation. In fact, this happened. No, the war was not only about slavery, but slavery made the war inevitable, just as the war in Ireland is not about religion, but oppression of Catholics and Nationalists, makes war inevitable unless there are democratic solutions to the deprivations. Jon, thank you for posting the text of that report. Let us all agree to urge both sides to return to this flawed agreement, as it is preferable to war. However,to those who see threats in Gerry Addams statements, I would remind you that Irish voters were told by England, accept this agreement or there would be war. As Bernadette Devlin McCalisky said at the time, If we dont intend to start a war, what England is saying is sign this paper or we will kill you. Again, let us write to both sides and urge progress. Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: katlaughing Date: 16 Feb 00 - 11:10 AM Here is a link to the Irish Times, on line and the front page article about this, for today, as well as numerous links which include the full text of the IRA statement, op/ed pieces, etc. I don't know how this paper is viewed by either side, but it looked like it was offering positions from all sides, so may be worth perusing. Up north, in New England, the "Civil War" is referred to, even on monuments, as the "War of the Rebellion", perhaps that puts a bit of a different light on the comparison? Mitakuye Oyasin (We are all related) kat |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: GUEST,guest from belfast Date: 16 Feb 00 - 03:24 PM Does anyone ever state an opposing side to the IRA in this forum? I don't actually mean taking the UDA, orange, or Unionist side. Why is most of this type of thread taken up with postings about the nationalist causes and their so called heros - in their eyes. Why is there no one who submits postings on the rest of the people in Ireland? Comments from the middle ground on all sides, from people who want to get on with living, there's more to life than living in the past. To some people, InObu in particular, it seems that we only have the ira and then the rest over here. Curious |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Rick Fielding Date: 16 Feb 00 - 03:34 PM Dear Curious, the IRA always had better songs. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: InOBU Date: 16 Feb 00 - 04:18 PM God Bless you Rick, that is an answer right out of the old Tom Lehr song about the Spanish Civil War, they might have one all the battles but we had all the good songs! On a serrious note, my currious and anonimous friend, if you have been following this tread, there is a HUGE amount of suport for opposing points of view, and in general, with a few exceptions, real respect for listening to the other side and presenting an opposing oppion. As to why I speak to the side which I do, in the North, though I, as an Anglo Irish American, have spent time in both the loyalist and nationalist communities, as well as less defined communities in the North, I have to admit that most of my community are Nationalists, either IRA, INLA, and even the occational old dusty Sticky (no offence I hope, as Joe Doherty once said to me, once upon a time we were all stickies). As such, it is for others than I to give voice to communities they represent. There is an old saying in the US, not often heard in Ireland and England, where political censorship is codified, that the answer to speach is more speach. So if there is something you have to say, other than, why are you talking, which is the main point you seem to make, speak! We are all listening and in a mind to concider what you have to say, and if we were all in the same place, and my liver worked, I would have a pint with you while you say what is on your mind. Well, at least a diet coke to your beer. So, Chears! What is on your mind, Currious? Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: alison Date: 16 Feb 00 - 07:46 PM Yes Curious, we have, many times, (Den and I are both from Belfast (originally) too)...... ... I just don't see the point in ramming it down people's throats over and over.... I have my views, others have their own... and none of us are likely to change... ... I try to stay out of these arguments now.... because they will just cover the same old ground..... but if you want to read what has gone before check out some of these threads are not pleasant..... but they give you an idea of what has gone on before...... I just don't see the point of repeating the same argument over and over I hope the peace holds, (for the sake of all the people of Ireland.. and the family and friends I left behind.) slainte alison |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Feb 00 - 08:28 PM "Personally, I think that the country needs to be set loose and made to live with itself." So friend James agrees with the goal envisaged by the IRA, while disagreeing with its methods.
So far as Ireland is concerned, were in danger of going round and round - and the threads Alison picked out are well worth reading. But the suggestion that fighting injustice has to be done within the law, presented above in the context of South Africa, is not one I personally feel can seriously be entertained.
That is quite distinct from holding the position that principled non-violence is a more effective way of struggling against and overcoming oppression. Within the Irish context, the hunger strikes were probably far more effective than any number of bombings. But as Gandhi and Martin Luther King repeatedly reminded people, non-violence does not and cannot mean acquiescence in oppression, or accepting unjust laws as binding.
|
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Gary T Date: 16 Feb 00 - 10:20 PM "The alternative to politics is warfare." I don't know the source of that quote, but I think it makes a good point. My vantage is as an American, essentially neutral in this matter, with no axe to grind or cause to espouse (though with some sympathy for the Irish--all Irish--who I think have gotten a raw deal over the years). I think the IRA blew it. Though skilled in their type of warfare, they appear rather inept at politics. This scuttled peace agreement and coalition government struck me as the first realistic opportunity to move out of the mode of shooting at each other and progress into the mode of arguing with each other (note particularly the prepositions AT and WITH, which are significant). I can't see any compelling reason to not have made a token gesture of decommissioning before now. It really looks like a matter of false pride, putting the appearance of being totally independent above what might actually work to move things along. I can only pray it wasn't the last realistic opportunity for lasting peace. The proposed agreement, however imperfect, represented a drastic change from anything I'd seen or heard before. It could very well have been a stepping-stone to further improvement, all in the context of an ongoing truce. Regardless of what happened last month, or last year, or twenty or eighty years ago, etc., this COULD have worked, and it was there in hand, only to slip away at the last moment. It seems everyone except the IRA--the Yanks, the British, the Irish (most of them), the Unionists--thought it was worth giving a try. It seemed there was so much to gain and so little to lose by TRYING to make it work. It just seems the IRA failed to grasp the staggering potential here. Well, here's hoping things get better anyway. It's still possible, though there's cause to wonder if all parties involved are psychologically capable of embracing peace and the compromise necessary for peace. Sometimes, when everybody else says you're wrong, you really are wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Brendy Date: 17 Feb 00 - 12:54 AM But Gary, there was nothing about a 'token gesture' in the Good Friday agreement. General de Chastelain is on record as saying, not two days ago, that HIS reading of the penultimate statement by the IRA just before Peter Mandelson dissolved the Assembly, was that he believed decommissioning could very well be accomplished by the end of May. Alison has said it, really. We have reiterated the same points over and over again, and although I welcome interested discussion on these topics, I feel that there are some who have contributed so far in this thread, that have neither read, or ignored previous threads on related issues. It is curious that many have chosen this thread, and the earlier one, to debút on the Mudcat. They don't seem to want to discuss, or add to, any other threads that are circulating around. I have no desire, therefore, to go over again anything else said before for the purpose of those who either choose not to be objective about 'Where do we go from here', or who deliberately post the way they do in order to get a response. Handles like 'Crying Child'. Is that what you call yourself on other chat forums?, or were you trying to suit the handle to the thread. I know all about crying children. I was one myself from 1968 until I knew better. Your cheap shot at emotionalism stopped dead at my front door. I have always had the greatest contempt for right wing thought, and that at least has not changed over the years. The bottom line is that the pro-British faction have always been the most bitterest of the protagonists. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Jon Freeman Date: 17 Feb 00 - 09:14 AM It is all beyond me. I am just a simpleton who just whishes to see long term peace in Ireland and I hope to see the day when it is finaly achieved. One thing that often gets me in these type of debates is the use of the term "British". I do not claim to have a clear understanding of the situation and try my best to remain neutral but even though I am English, if it really came to taking sides, I guess I would be more green than orange. The one thing I can not agree with are the violent methods used by members on both sides. Jn |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Gary T Date: 17 Feb 00 - 09:27 AM Thanks for the response, Brendy. I too am glad the guns are silent, and don't envy the unfortunate situation you have obviously lived with for a long while. True, the agreement did not mention a token gesture or a February date. It just seemed to me that it would have been wise and politically expedient, under last week's conditions, for the IRA to have made such a move. I think it would have made them look good, reinforced the notion of their sincerity (which the cease-fire has indeed demonstrated), and perhaps taken some ill wind out of the Unionists' sails, precluding the "veto". And I'm just talking about STARTING decommissioning, as there's plenty of time between now and the end of May to work out further progress. From my vantage point, the rather hard stance the IRA has taken on this issue has the appearance of intransigence, which seems contrary to the overall spirit I believe most see, or want to see, in the implementation of the agreement. Given the "it's like pulling teeth" nature of getting all the involved parties to cooperate, I don't think this was a good time to make an unyielding stand on that particular issue. What was accomplished by it? I'm not saying it can't be justified, but I feel it wasn't the best course to choose at this juncture. On the heartening side, the guns are still silent, as you say, and there is still discussion. No one said it would be easy. I'm sure we all still fervently hope this process will wend its way towards a lasting peace. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: InOBU Date: 17 Feb 00 - 10:45 AM Dear Jon: A note of clarification. As one member of an ancient and dusty Anglo Irish family, with leavings in Wales and Scotland as well as Austrailia, New Zeland, Canada and the US, I for one, and expect others who voice similar oppinions to me, use the term British to refer to government policies and not to generalise the thoughts of the British people. In point of fact, some of the great voices for progressive change in Ireland come from, (for a few examples) Richard Harvey an English Barrister who is the US lawyer for Sinn Fien, The Troops Out movement, an organisation of British ex-soliers who fought in Ireland and oppose the policies which sent them their, Helen Mirrin, who on US TV described her self as a Republican when asked her oppions reguarding the occupation of Ireland. In fact, the English arts community has often played a very progressive and educative role in the conflict and I would expect that when speaking of British policy on Ireland, they exempt themselves from a sense that that referrs to them, in the same way thouse of us who opposed the Viet Nam war, feel exempted from statements about American policy reguarding that war. Last note, Jon, when feeling green, try a small glass of sherry, it will put you right back in the pink, or a glass of Vodka if you prefer to be as red as my comrads and I. (Im going to hear from Petr in the Czech Republic on that one, boys, wont I!?) Chears to all Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: GUEST,Seonaid Date: 17 Feb 00 - 03:47 PM I can only say this. There will never be peace in Northern Ireland. The best thing that could happen would be for it to become its own country. Britain doesn't want to be bothered with it anymore, and the Irish certainly don't want the trouble. Set it free. Let the good people sort it out. The IRA and its equivalents are nothing more than a mafia outfit. They only want to extort money from people who are trying to make an honest living. They are feared and hated by the Irish people. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: InOBU Date: 17 Feb 00 - 05:51 PM My dear Seonaid: It is as wrong to say that THE Irish people hate the IRA, as to say that the BRITISH people oppress the nationalist community in occupied Ireland. Some Irish people do hate the IRA, and after the revisionist history taught in the Free State, it may be said to be a majority. However, Republicans continue to be elected from districts where the oppression of the British Government is most obvious and is felt. It was the same way in the Free State, that in places like Cork, where English forces comitted the gravest war crimes, you found the greatest support for the IRA. It is reasonable to assume, on the street in Belfast, where Carol Anne Kelly was shot point blank in the head by a British Soldier, on a quiet day, in retaliation for military actions by the IRA, there would be the kind of support for the IRA that you found among the generation that saw that same army machine gun a crowd watching a football match in Cork, and then burn the town in the early part of the twentieth century. My question for free staters who say it is a different IRA, is, when did it become a different England? The England I saw in action in Belfast reminded me of the England that was seen in Cork in 1919. In the context of this discussion, I would never tell you what to say, however, I would suggest that the conversation is best forwarded by spesific references. Welcome to the table, Seonaid, Lets try and get beyond hate and get to understanding and progressive change, eh? Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: InOBU Date: 17 Feb 00 - 05:54 PM PS. Let me apologise for the term Free Staters. I must say that at times the feelings I have for friends who did not servive the tragic events around the occupation of the Northern counties causes me to, as we all do here, sometimes vent. Again, please excuse the term. Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: paddymac Date: 17 Feb 00 - 07:06 PM A major weakness many of us have in our assessments on the situation in NI is that we tend to view it from our individual perspectives and goals as opposed to trying to understand it from the viewpoints of the players. In this sense, I try to assess and evaluate the postures of participants in relation to whatever goal they are trying to achieve. In the case of Trimble and his hard-core constituency, I believe their goal is to fight what a militarist might call a retrograde movement, i.e.; to do anything to slow down or stop what they see as unwanted change. In my view, NI is a statelet based on apartheid, and the ruling caste doesn't want that to change. Thus, any tactic that supports that strategy is available in their eyes. I believe that the common goal on the other side is parity and and end to apartheid. There is great variation as to the preferred tactics with which to pursue the anti-apartheide strategy. I would characterize what I perceive as the three principle tactical categories as 1) political, 2) accomodation, and 3) force. From an historical perspective, each of those categories has had its time or times in the ascendancy, but all of them have always been present, and there has always been heated debate between adherents of competing camps. I believe it is accurate to say that we have been in a time windo in which political measures have been seen as having the most promise. How long that view might yet prevail is a question for which there is no clear answer. However, I believe that a strong element in the ardent Orange strategy is to push the balance back toward force, because they believe their cause would benefit from renewed violence by the other side. I hasten to add that while the anti-apartheide side has pursued a policy on non-violence for five plus years now, the pro-apartheide forces have continued their violence on a nearly daily basis. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: GUEST Date: 17 Feb 00 - 07:18 PM My mother's friend is an Irish catholic, living in Scotland. Her husband died so she decided she would go back to Belfast to stay with her sister as she had no other family in Scotland. Late one night, during the first week that she was back, the front door was almost battered down. She and her sister were terrified but her sister knew who it was. It was the men from the IRA demanding that they take part in a march in support of the IRA, or else their house would be burned to the ground. They marched. Needless to say, this woman returned to Scotland, saying she could never live in such a country again. The IRA used to be an honourable organisation but those days are gone. Now the cowards blow up pubs and steal money from their own people. Gerry Adams has blood on his hands. Yes, it is time to move forward and peace must reached even if it means dealing with terrorists. But people living in America or any other country shouldn't see the IRA (or the UDA for that matter)as heroes. They murder innocent people. Perhaps it will be left to the women of Northern Ireland to make things right. Some years ago, the IRA had tried to throw a handicapped man over the edge of a building. As they taunted him, the women of the area came together and chased the attackers off. All in all, there is fault on both sides. Nothing is gained by blaming the English for past events just as nothing is gained by blaming present day Americans for something their ancestors did. Most British people and Irish people want peace. The past should be learned from but then we should move on. Stop blaming and start looking forward. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: GUEST,Trevor Date: 17 Feb 00 - 08:07 PM inOBU, I haven't gone away, you know ! Quoting you:- "same (British) army machine gun a crowd watching a football match in Cork, and then burn the town in the early part of the twentieth century." My parentheses. And what football match in Cork would that have been ? Are you not thinking of the incident in Croke Park on what has become known as "Bloody Sunday" ? And before you say anything further, I am *not* confusing it with the Londonderry "Bloody Sunday". Oh, and another thing, before you accuse me on introducing "cock fighting", perhaps you had better read over the past contributions. It was Brendy who brought that particular form of barbarism into the discussion. Trevor. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: GUEST Date: 17 Feb 00 - 08:19 PM I remember, in the early 1980's, walking home one night from a girlfriend's flat. Normally I would have called one of my friends up; he owned a taxi, and would sometimes collect me in those early hours. These were in the days before all-night taxi services in my town. My friend couldn't pick me up, and I had to walk home. The distance between where I was and where I had to go was about 4 miles. And that was in more or less a straight line. That route also included me walking through 4 seperate Loyalist areas in order to get to my own area, which was predominantely Loyalist. He then pulled the trigger. It jammed. I started to struggle. He pulled it again, didn't work neither. This time I grabbed him where all policeman, or other man for that matter, hates to be grabbed. I grabbed my chance, and RAN. At some stage I stopped when I thought I was far away enough from danger that I could look round a bit to get my bearings. As I did, I could see this drunken cop raise his gun, very unsteadily, and fire. I didn't want to leave this nice place, but I thought that this was only make-believe, and that Home was up the street, and that car has bad men in it, and really I should go and be sick at home. There was a building yard, I remember, with lots and lots of those big circular pipes that they fix the water systems with. There were hundreds of these things. I found one, and I lay down. Whatever about the IRA being used to be an honourable organisation, waht does that incident say about a country's Police Force, and the need for it's reformation. I might add to the above by saying I was never a 'member' of any organisation; there were no arrest warrants out against me neither. Just a Catholic walking home from his girlfriend's flat - and I thank whoever needs to be thanked here for the fact that not one drop of alcohol passed my lips that night. We all have our stories, above Guest. The trick is to go forward from it. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Brendy Date: 17 Feb 00 - 08:34 PM Wrong again TrevorClick here to find the real culprit of the the use of the term "'cockfighting'", and "who brought that particular form of barbarism into the discussion." It always helps to read previous threads, Trev. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Brendy Date: 17 Feb 00 - 08:47 PM Apologies all. This should be the right link. Forgot to re - 'thing' my brackets, didn't I. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: InOBU Date: 17 Feb 00 - 09:03 PM Ah Brendy ol skin: Thanks for leaving me only to express how impressed I am that Trev can make parentheses, I have to print out the HTML guide. Trevor, I dont get your point? Is it that you agree and add Bloody Sunday in Derry to the when did England change guestion? Glad you are still here. One of these days we have to get together to celibrate the time when these days will all be in the past. Best to all Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: GUEST,Trevor Date: 18 Feb 00 - 01:58 PM My apologies to Brendy, the culprit was indeed "Crying Child". And I do indeed try to read in retrospect. On this occasion my memory was faulty O.K.? My point was, inOBU, and continues to be, despite that I *did* misdirect a quotation, that if you refer to attestable historical facts, get them right ! Also , you seem to have forgotten the fact that I *have* spoken to IRA men and their fellow-travellers at first hand - and not after they had *retired* from active service to pursue a rather more lucrative literary career. So don't accuse me of being unaware of their thought processes. I, and most thinking people in Northern Ireland, could write the words ourselves. The reference to "Bloody Sunday" was inspired by the misapprehension on your part that I was as unaware of what is/was happening in Ireland as you and other contributors to this thread so patently are. And Brendy, don't patronise me, if there is a *proper name* for the city you refer to it should be "Doire Cholm Cille", but we all live in the real world and if I refer to it as Londonderry, why should you object when you yourself use a "wrong" appellation ? We both know to what we refer and if communication is the point of Language, then where is the obstacle ? After all, local people call Carrickfergus "Carrick", but I don't hear of ignoramuses leaping up and down apoplectically demanding that it be called by its "right" name. Trevor |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: InOBU Date: 18 Feb 00 - 05:45 PM Let me understand you, Tervor, as I still am not quiet clear on your point, you are saying that what game was being played in the 1919 event changes the substantial facts of the event, that the firing a maching gun at civilians by the military is the secondary point? I am truely baffled! Also, to my knowlege, none of my friends who are former IRA volunteers are perusing a literary career - for what ever point to which that is pertanent. In fact, most ex-volunteers I know, left the IRA after being interned for a time, and the IRA does not have generally more than 300 volunteers in action at any one time, for the purpose of proper oversight. So, few volunteers remain in the IRA for very long periods. I am not sure the point you are making, as I havent said you dont know of what you speak, but rather, we have differing oppions, which, being human, can result from similar experiences. That is what makes horse races, and as Brendy points out, in the absence of politics, wars. Well, all the best Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Feb 00 - 07:21 PM I'm sure, Trevor, they don't call it Carrick when they're singing Carrickfergus. And I'm sure if some big foreign company were to arrange with some forerign goivernment to call iot Carrick-Coca-Cola, I don't think they'd be too happy about that either, which is more or less what happened to Derry. And of course the point is, whether it's Carrick or Derry or St Petersburg, it'as the people who live there who decide what it's to be called.
Incidentally,if you spell it Doire or Derry it's the same name, just a different spelling convention - just as if you spell my name Caiohmghen or Kevin, it's the same name. And there's several other ways of spelling Trevor as well.
As for the decommissioning - what is so hard about recognising that getting rid of one lot of weapons is essentially a symbolic gesture, since they can always be replaced? Treating "decommissioning" as a shibboleth is essentially a way of trying to derailthe peace process. The Good Friday agreement recognised that disarming was something that is only going to happen in a significant way as peace becomes the normal state of affairs, and when powersharing has lasted a reasonable length of time. I don'tb think that many people would see seventy-two days is not a reasonable length of time in that context. The last time the IRA got rid of its weapons, there were pogroms in the North in 1969 (not a direct consequence, but when the mobs and B Specials and the RUC came in looting and burning, they knew there wasn't going to be armed resistance).
The outcome of that was the British Army being sent in "to keep the peace", and inevitably soon after that a vastly greater stock of arms in use by the re-formed and expanded IRA. So it's easy to see why there's a certain reluctance on the part of the IRA to disarm again, even aside from the symbolism involved. But some symbolic gestures could still play a useful role, and probably will, before things are through. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Feb 00 - 07:26 PM Just to avoid misunderstanding, I meant to write: "I don't think that many people would see seventy-two days as a reasonable length of time in that context." |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Brendy Date: 18 Feb 00 - 08:03 PM Well Trevor - WRONG AGAIN It's laughable really Dóire Colm Chille indeed. Derry legally (don't you remember they changed the name). But don't worry you still have the county. 'Carrick' is a grand name, and a grand town. And it's also a bit easier to say - cuts the amount of syllables in half, as it were. Oh, and one other thing "my memory was faulty O.K.? My point was, inOBU, and continues to be, despite that I *did* misdirect a quotation, that if you refer to attestable historical facts, get them right ! I think in the circumstances, you could have been referring to 'attestable historical facts' when you 'misdirected a quotation' accusing me of originating certain remarks disingenous to poultry. Enough already. B. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: GUEST,Trevor Date: 18 Feb 00 - 10:08 PM Thanks for nothing, Brendy. I have the grace to admit that I misremembered something and you can't accept it ! Oh, Please !! Where has debate and courtesy got to ? And you accuse ME of miscalling "Derry" !! If you must try to use the Erse name for the place, you could at least do the few speakers of that moribund tongue the courtesy of spelling the name correctly. May I beg leave to spell it for you once more ? "Doire Cholm Cille". Got it ? Kevin Mc Grath's remarks:- "Incidentally,if you spell it Doire or Derry it's the same name, just a different spelling convention - just as if you spell my name Caiohmghen or Kevin, it's the same name. And there's several other ways of spelling Trevor as well" You may well chose to spell your name in the manner above, but I doubt very much if any Erse speaker(at least those few who can read)would recognise it. I take it you are trying to emulate the SF Teachta Dála who spells it in the archaic form "Caoimhghín". Please, if you cannot get the details right, what hope for the important items ? "He who contemneth small things shall fall by little and little." I should be interested in alternative spellings of "Trevor". Trevor. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Brendy Date: 18 Feb 00 - 11:45 PM Where did you learn your Irish then Trev? |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Feb 00 - 02:07 AM There are more ways to spell Kevin than I care to speculate about. I could give you half a dozen, before starting on the mis-spellings and the mistypings. Shakespeare wasn't the only lad who had trouble deciding how he liked his name spelled best.Or spelt best for that matter.
Speculating that I'm emulating anyone else's spelling is both otiose and discourteous - and in his case inaccurate into the bargain.
|
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: GUEST,Trevor Date: 19 Feb 00 - 08:18 AM Get inside your opponent's head. Learn how he thinks, read his papers, books, learn his language, talk to him face to face. then you have the weapons to defeat him. Brendy, why did you not ask me where I learned my English? And what has this got to do with anything ? I didn't ask you where you learned English. Of course, this sort of ploy is a well-known one for trying to suss out the origins of someone. Your type is not happy debating points. You have to know where the person comes from, what school he went to etc. so that you can fall back on the all-condemnatory "Oh, well. What could you expect from one of them !!" put a stop to further conversation and walk away. Debates should depend for their efficacy on the content and presentation and not on the origins of your opponent. I don't really care where you come from, or whether you are male of female, your name is inconclusive in this respect. One more thing, Kevin. It does matter what way you spell a name. If you have any respect for Language and the way it works, then you realist the necessity for a standardised system of orthography to ease communication. It was the very lack of such a system that led Shakespeare to spell his name in so many different ways, and it was this cavalier attitude that, paradoxically enough, led to the standardising of English spelling in subsequent years. Erse is the same. The "Old" standard orthography became regarded as cumbersome - not inaccurate, just cumbersome - and thus was replaced by the "simplified" Standard. In the "old" spelling, your name was spelled as I gave above while under the new régime it is spelled "Caoimhín". While you are free to choose between these two "correct" versions, you are not at liberty to spell in such a way that breaks the most fundamental rules of the language Caiohmghen seems to tell us that the vowel "o" has undergone Lenition, a phenomenon applying only to consonants, while the "-en" ending does not exist. The vowel group "aio" only exists if the "i" is long i.e. "í" and the group indicates a Substantival or Adjectival ending, neither of which applies to the first syllable of a polysyllabic word as instanced by your "name". In any case this is all a red herring and adds not a jot to the debate. Another favourite Nationalist ploy. "Change the subject, quick, distract the attention, move the goalposts." I am still waiting for an alternative spelling of my name. Trevor |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Feb 00 - 09:33 AM "In any case this is all a red herring and adds not a jot to the debate." You're right there - but it was you that raised it Trevor. And since I agree with you there, you wouldn't want me to hunt around looking for other ways of spelling your name? The only point to it all, from my end was that Doire and Derry are not different names, but the same name spelt correctly in two languages, and you clearly know enough about the languages involved to have known that anyway.
The reason I gave my own name as an example, and used the version of it which looks the strangest is prely because it does look so strange, not because I think it's a more Republican way of spelling it or anything - it's a bit like George Bernard Shaw showing how in Engoish you can spell "fish" as "ghoti" - "f" from cough, "o" from women and "ti" from attention, for example. "Where did you learn your Irish then Trev?" from Brendy seemed a reasonable thing to say, the kind of thing you'd say to someone in a pub that might turn the conversation from an argument about politics into one about linguistics, which is clearly something you are pretty interested in. Why read an offensive intent into a remark that can be interpreted in a non-offensive way?
And of course, that's the kind of side issue that is much better dealt with by personal messages, rather than diverting the course of a discussion about more serious things. But since you've clocked in as a GUEST, that isn't an available option.
One more point - and please, this is really meant to be helpful, and it's meant for several of the people who've contribute to this thread. It's easier to read a post of more than a full lines if you break it up into paragraphs, and the way to do that is to put a < at the end of the paragraph, then a P, and then another > (and the reason I have to describe it in that way is because you'd just see another paragraph break, rather than anything showing how it is done.
|
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: InOBU Date: 19 Feb 00 - 10:30 AM Brothers: Respect for ideas has fallen a bit off the table, and we are throwing barbs at each other rather than disscussing the issue, which, if memory serves, is should democratic processes be set aside in order to drive progress towards peace. McGrath makes a good point on this, if I remember correctly, the magority of the IRA arms were given given to our Welsh nationalist cousins, who promtly lost them! But, infact, it can be said that premature disarmament led to the establishment of the Provisional IRA, in both the program that followed, and the impression, fostered by the likes of Charlie Haughey (according to McGill magazine in the 70s) that the Official IRA was not relivant to the defense needs of the northern community. Now, lets all shake hands, pass the drinks around, toast intelect over imotion, agree on the spelling of each others names, and get back to disscussing the issues... Which reminds me of an event with my old friend Bill Kunstler. We sat through two days of opening comments by a prosicutor in pre trial litigation. Bill, slowing rose to his feet and said, Our brother has spoken of many things, Judge, now... let us talk about the case. All the best to all Larry |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Osmium Date: 19 Feb 00 - 11:03 AM Reading this list of threads has given me my first real insight into why we still have problems in the North! It has been said that everyone involved is going to have to forget the past if we are to go forward - there clearly have been atrocious acts committed by both sides. In ancient times whilst msirule was rampant in Ireland the same class of people were also making life just as miserable for the poor of England and Scotland. I don't see any more victimisation of the Irish than was going on in England. That this was a tough period of history and its to late to change it. There is a perception that the reason neither side is in a hurry to give up its weapons is that those weapons are earning some people a living through protection rackets and the like - any comment? Lastly the definition of an angel is that it has no memory and therefore doesn't have to forgive because it can't remember who did the wrong or that there was a wrong. We need some brave people to come forward in the North and remind both sides that nearly everyone who has an interest in the issue wants peace and that they will be respected for their courage when (both sides) decommission. I wish them all well. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 19 Feb 00 - 11:29 AM When did ancient times stop? And that's not a smartarsed remark designed to justify digging back into history for ammunition to use against opponents.
The case I cited of 1969, when the IRA had disposed of its guns, but the conflict had not been in any way resolved, and the outcome was 30 years of war, is recent history, and relevant history. It's not to say some important things haven't changed since then. But it is something to bear in mind when trying to understand what is happening today, and what has happening over the past generation.
I can't remember who said that the trouble between England and Ireland is that the Irish can never forget history, and the English can never remember it. Actually the problem is more subtle than that - it's true that by and large the Irish (all traditions) tend to think in terms of longer stretches of history than the English, but what all of us share is a way of selectively remembering the bits of history that suit us and forgetting the bits that don't. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: GUEST,Renee Date: 20 Feb 00 - 09:19 AM There is a protection racket going on in Northern Ireland. Shop owners have to pay money to both the IRA and their protestant counterparts. If this 'war' discontinues, many of these thugs will lose their income. It's in their best interests to keep the violence going and the only reason Gerry Adams had a change of heart was because he realised that public feeling was going very much against him. Few people voted for him so if he wanted to save his political career, he'd better start trying to look good. Americans don't understand that the people of Ireland live in fear of the IRA and all the other factions of both religions. Religion has nothing to do with the problems anymore. I always thought it was ironic that those I knew in the Orange Lodge never bothered to go to church on a Sunday. Indeed, most of the them know nothing of history (its not taught in schools). All they know is that they're suppose to dislike catholics although they know not why. Most people join the Orange Lodge because they like the social life and its a good place to learn how to play the flute. Please, the Irish kids deserve a chance at a decent life. It can't happen until the people can live without fear from the IRA, the UDA and the police. Stop pointing fingers and get rid of the thugs. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Penny S. Date: 20 Feb 00 - 01:29 PM There was a good piece in The Guardian yesterday (it has a web site) from an ex-soldier. He refers, for example, to the soldiers' attitude to the loyalists, whose loyalty was recognised to be of a different kind. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Penny S. Date: 20 Feb 00 - 01:31 PM That's at www.newsunlimited.co.uk Penny |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Gary T Date: 20 Feb 00 - 04:30 PM Here's the specific article Penny referred to: http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,138343,00.html Sorry I don't have my "blue clicky" instructions handy.
|
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: Penny S. Date: 20 Feb 00 - 05:32 PM Thanks - last time I tried to give a direct link, I found myself held up at the opening page, so I haven't done so since. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: GUEST,James Date: 21 Feb 00 - 08:24 AM I tnink that much of the content of this thread is a perfect example of why there will be no peace...ignorance of the past, distortion of facts, glorifying terrorists, blaming everyone else and all the other forms of denial that have made Ulster its' own worst enemy. It all amounts to sawing sawdust...put down the guns and bloody well get on with it...most people just want peace...rhetoric won't accomplish that...disarmament will. |
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: wysiwyg Date: 21 Feb 00 - 03:25 PM Re-GUEST,Renee's post that included,"Americans don't understand that the people of Ireland live in fear of..." I am NOT comenting on the rest of her posting as I don't know enough to make a start, but I would like to share something I think is related. I never understood my Jewish friends as well as the day I sat in an auditorium in Skokie, IL. I was at this cultural center to see an Israeli dance troupe, and suddenly realized I was surrounded by about a thousand targets of violence. I could barely breathe, much less stay in my seat and relax, knowing I was in a building that could explode at any moment, just because it was being attended by a large number of hated people. I don't remember much about the dancing, except tears streaming down my face to see that Israelis dance even when they are terrified. I could barely sit in my seat with the fear flooding through me. They were dancing. Sometimes I just think about that. It tends to enlighten my perspective whenever I do. So I don't understand what most of you are talking about, and can't pretend to. But from outside it, I pray for all in it, and hope to see that the talking about it has some meaning beyond the scraped-raw feelings.
|
|
Subject: RE: Today in Ireland's History-II From: GUEST,Trevor Date: 22 Feb 00 - 05:15 PM I haven't gone away, you know. Trevor |
| Share Thread: |