Another important point about the gerrymandering is that many unionist-controlled councils simply refused to build new homes in nationalist areas, because to do so would have increased the nationalist vote.
It’s also worth noting that internment of loyalists was not introduced for about a year and a half after internment of “republicans” was (actually a lot of those interned were just nationalists or civil rights activists). And this wasn’t because there was less loyalist violence, because there wasn’t.
Others here are far more versed in the many intricacies of the situaion than I, and so I offer a brief, wideangle perspective. I consider that the history of the island of Ireland and its relation to the island of Great Britain is a textbook example of large state-small state relations and conflicts. From the Dark and Middle Ages onwards, it was characterised by the large state seeking simple dominion over its smaller neighbour by fair means or foul, with resistance following similar means. Following the advent of democracy and industry, outright forceful subjugation was replaced by gunboat diplomacy and political coercion interspersed by occasional violent rebellion, culminating in Partition. The “troubles” can be thought of as characterising a third phase, describing the relationship under modern democracy as the large state tries, often unsuccessfully, to divest itself of its primitive urge to return to outright domination while realising that it cannot merely wash its hands of the matter altogether.
The history of the relationship, I suggest, is simply what small and large states did and do in those situations: seeking to apportion blame on either entity is as absurd as castigating Charlemagne or Robert the Bruce. It is to be hoped that the lesson is that a feasible ‘solution’ ultimately is possible, but only by each side “thinking the unthinkable”, and furthermore doing so sooner rather than later.
Oh, man. I forgot I even put this thread up. The thread, though, was going the way I had hoped. Debate for both sides with no insults or vitriol.
I’ll admit to a main reason I started it. Back in '98 I was pointed to the US arm of the IRA (not Sinn Fein) and I was ready to send the money for a membership. It was an impulse desire based solely on my Catholic heritage. I never got around to it, and I’m glad I didn’t. I just simply didn’t know enough about the situation to make a valid decision to join. I still don’t, but more importantly I don’t think it’s the best way to go. Additionally, I find it hard to justify the stance since all my family from Ireland came to America. But like my Scots heritage, I’d like to see a unified Ireland. However it happens, as long as peace can be had.
I’ll read the previous links, as I trust they’ll add immensely to my knowledge of the situation. If I still have any questions, I’ll post them here.
Thanks for helping me understand, even in a basic way so far, what is happening in this situation.
duffer, I had thought about this issue myself in the last day or so and didn’t know there was a post going on it.
I am an American Protestant (Anglican) and it is my opinion that many Americans other than the Catholics tend to side with the IRA’s viewpoint somewhat. Maybe it’s our ability to identify with rebellion against England or with just the simple longing to be totally self-governing.
Yet another reason I’m glad I didn’t. I never saw them as terrorists in the sense I do Hamas, et al. Though not being Arab nor Muslim, maybe they have the same thinking I did when I considered it. Either side, I can see how they’re both terrorist organizations. Again, the main reason I opened the thread was to get perspective from both sides. And, again, I’m thrilled it’s actually been civil.
A slight digression, but does anyone think that the IRA’s campaign was in any way successful in promoting the goals of Irish nationalism? Compared to, say, a hypothetical campaign of peaceful protest and national strikes? I’m not very inclined to defend the actions of the UK government in Northern Ireland, but it seems to me that they were backed into a corner once the bombings started, and could not be seen to be surrendering to terrorists.
I believe that terrorist groups who claim to be representing their people are in fact damaging their interests. Terrorism has been very effective at escalating and prolonging conflicts, but not so successful as a bargaining tool.
(Disclaimer: I think the root cause of terrorism in Northern Ireland was real and perceived inequality, I don’t think there is anything to be gained by singling out any one group for blame, I’m speculating about what could have been done to avoid the conflict).
Would it be wrong to view the IRA in the same light as the PLO?
In that the PLO wants a unified Palestinian state, and the IRA wants a unified Ireland. Now, I understand, though not fully yet, that there is a huge difference between both situations. But to dumb it down so I can get a starting point of this deal, would that be a fair analogy?
There are differences, of course, but supporters of the two causes certainly consider them to be parallel struggles. And so do opponents, at least in Northern Ireland: in loyalist areas you will sometimes see the Israeli flag flying alongside the Union Jack and paramilitary flags, just as in nationalist areas you’ll see the Palestinian flag along with the tricolour.
There is also a lot of sympathy among nationalists with the Basques and the black South Africans.
That is a horrendously difficult question to answer, because it’s so emotionally loaded.
Bearing in mind that I absolutely despise terrorism in any form - paramilitary or state-backed - I will give my cautious opinion that, at the beginning of the troubles, if the Nationalist/Republican side had remained peaceful even while they were being ignored by the government, beaten by the RUC, having their houses burned down by Loyalists, and shot by the British Army, they would have failed in their goals, given the manner in which their rights were regarded by the British government at the time. And indeed they haven’t succeeded in their ultimate goal, of a united Ireland, which will not be achieved in our lifetimes. But I sadly and grudgingly concede that their tactics were eventually instrumental in winning concessions towards equality, most of which were much needed. It’s a tough admission for me to make.
This is not to say that the form of armed conflict in which they indulged was the ‘best’ or even the most expedient. They may have achieved greater success, and more of the moral high-ground in the eyes of the world, if they had only ever attacked military targets, and indeed I wish they had. But we can never know whether less murderous tactics would have succeeded or failed.
Latest news: according to the News of the World today, the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) put a significant number of weapons - possibly all of them - beyond use this week in Dublin.
Normally I’d agree with you, but in this case they have pictures of de Chastalain’s envoy Andrew Sens and Kenny McClinton standing next to a big pile of mangled guns at Hammond Lane Iron Works, the company hired by the decomissioning body to perform dismantling works.
IMO there was a real “fossilization” in N Ireland because of the need not to be seen to give in to terror – even simple and obvious changes like getting shot of the Flags and Emblems act remained undone for decades.
It was interesting to see the near panic by some Protestant politicians after the first IRA cease-fire, as people from all sides started talking seriously for the first time in a generation about real changes in the status of the province. It was almost as if the IRA had been their guarantee against history.
I wonder sometimes if Protestant terrorism had a role in convincing the IRA to have a cease-fire in the first place. It’s a nasty thought, but there seemed to be a message of “anything you can gain by bomb or bullet we can gain just as easily by randomly killing Catholics on the street – we may not be as sophisticated, but this is terrorism and we can be as ruthless as it takes to stop you getting anywhere”
I was involved in the Civil Rights movement, and you’re right ,yojimbo, it had nothing at all to do with a United Ireland. I left the movement after the IRA got involved.
When I first got online 5 years ago, the question I was always being asked by Americans was ‘why don’t the Brits get out of Northern Ireland?’ I found that Americans had a very simplistic, romanticised notion of the situation here - and I wasn’t at all impressed with Noraid and the like collecting money in the USA to buy guns and bombs to be used on the people here.
I am one of those ‘Brits’, by the way - my father’s family had always lived here, but my mother was born in Letterkenny, and her father moved his family to Portadown at the time of the partition.
Just to keep my toes used to the temp of the water, I’ll dip them in real quick. Zombies, this quote is exactly why I opened the thread. I’ve said it before and I’ll forever say it. Americans simply can’t know everything happening in every country. It’s not that we don’t care what happens elsewhere, it’s just impossible to keep up with every single conflict around the world. But being Scots-Irish, I feel a need to finally get the Dope on what’s happening with N Ireland. If I’m going to explore my stance on this, I’d like to hear real-life opinions from people actually living it.
Earlier I mentioned almost joining the US arm of the IRA. But Noraid doesn’t sound familiar, so maybe it was a US faction of Sinn Fein? (It’s one of those deals where you’d recognize the name if you heard it, but couldn’t come up with on your own if someone was burning your dog’s hair)
