Building on peace and a shared future together through reconciliation requires mutual respect, for without it how can there be compromise, an essential ingredient in any recipe for prosperity where there is religious, cultural or social diversity let alone a community that has been polarised through a prolonged period of conflict following decades of discrimination.
So why is this seemingly so impossibly difficult?
Throughout the year, we work together, live together and share the place without any issues, in general we all get along regardless of religion or identity. I assume we all want what is best for us economically, better standards of living, better health care, better public services, better prospects for our children. When we travel, people from all over Ireland often unite over our common roots, all being Irish abroad in a foreign land.
A single economy on one small island makes total sense.
So how come every year when summer approaches and the marching season begins, the 12th of July once again focusses our attention on what divides us, both traditionally, culturally and religiously. Yet even with more orange marches today than ever before, only a small number cause any offence, and this is where the orange order shows its true colours. How hard would it be you would think it sit down face to face and show common courtesy and respect to the people in those communities where you wished to march with orange regalia to show no disrespect or desire to cause offence is intended?
So what is the problem?
In the case of the Orange Order, their whole ethos is that of Protestant supremacy, their role to keep Ireland loyal to the crown.
Members are not permitted to be Catholic or to marry a Catholic and are to scrupulously avoid countenancing (by his presence or otherwise) any act or ceremony of Roman Catholic or other non-Reformed worship.
Consider that for decades they had their hooks in many of the churches and within the political leadership of unionism which with their outdated mentality firmly set in another century and many still acting like the penal laws were never lifted. This is now so deeply ingrained into the unionist psyche it eclipses everything else and it has resulted in a fear, mistrust and a deep rooted hatred of Catholics in a larger percentage of unionism than they would like to admit to.
In the 1960s this manifested itself in appalling attacks against Catholics seeking civil rights and resulted in a emergence of the UVF who started killing again in 1966. Paisley rallied people onto the streets, raising tensions and resulting in more violence with thousands of Catholics driven out of their homes and fleeing across the border to safety by unionist mobs assisted by the RUC and B specials who murdered innocent civilians in their homes for no reason other than they were catholic which culminated in the battle of the Bogside in 1969.
All of the murders in this period were driven by unionism which was in a state of fear and paranoia which it has since been accepted had no justification and led to the start of the troubles for no reason whatsoever which resulted in 30 years of bloody conflict for which unionism has yet to acknowledge any part in starting.
And now almost 20 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, we have a permanent end to the conflict and what have we learned?
Political unionism remains as intransigent as it ever has been.
It lacks the charisma of people like Paisley but the bigotry remains though is better dressed. Despite 20 years of Dublin bending over backwards to accommodate them and to convince them there is nothing to fear from unification, unionism still refuses to discuss it and still uses the fear factor and sectarianism to help prevent its community from buying into it.
And I don’t mean the Willie Frazer types that are given a fool’s pardon, but if you pay attention, it is those who pose as moderates who promote this fear which encourages others usually in working class impoverished communities to come out and do their dirty work for them, while at the same time condemning the very actions that they help to inspire.
I recently suggested a Boyne festival to celebrate the 12th in a way which could be family oriented and would help keep the tradition of the 11th night bonfires alive into a future united Ireland. And what is the response? So called moderates suggest that it would be controlled at gunpoint. Not only is it ridiculous but it was this unfounded promotion of fear and loathing that resulted in conflict in the first place.
Then you realise the truth, that Unionism in Ireland cannot change, it needs these sectarian divisions for its very existence, for without them reconciliation has only one outcome, an end of the union and an acceptance we are stronger together on this island than we are divided. Hence, unionism has developed into a culture of fear. By inciting this fear of a united Ireland, the same fear that led to the start of the conflict, they can control public opinion and use it to help achieve its political aims which is the continued division of Ireland and the prevention of a single Irish nation for as long as is possible.
But what is the logical outcome of such a culture? I would imagine fight or flight.
Some will face up to it and find their fears were unfounded and they will go through a honeymoon period when the south will welcome them like long lost brothers and sisters at the expense of their fellow Irish citizens in the north who will be taken for granted once again. But then there are others who will choose to flee across the water unwilling to risk the revenge and harsh treatment expected after decades of such beliefs no matter how unrealistic they are.
Sin saol
I wonder why the OO and associated Os demand to walk through areas their members refuse to live in. Often it is cited that Nationalists took the areas over. They never say that when Catholics starting to live among them as neighbours, they sold up and moved to more salubrious (Protestant) locales. Yet they are never called out on their refusal to share housing estates despite their call to walk where they like, the so called ‘shared space’ roads.
Perhaps in the interest of peace (an immodest proposal) people in the Short Strand could swop places with those in the upper Ormeau Road. The marches would be welcomed all along the lower Newtownards Road and those in Upper Ormeau would be spared the annual hate fest as well. Should this be successful we could then think of furth r swops. There are huge swathes of unused land in the doughnut that the Shankill has become, perhaps thos in Ballysillan could be moved in, in new hous s and the shortage of housing for Catholics in north Belfast could b addressed by moving them into Ballysillan. No more bills for contentious marches.
Ok, ok I’m awake and I’m getting up now!
Jessica
I think you too hard on the OO, but as I am not a member shall not seek to defend them.
Of more interest is the problem of the fear factor.
Unionists (although more accurately this is my perception of Unionism) fear a number of things including the following (although not all will fear everything, and not every fear may be legitimate):
A Catholic Republic for a Catholic people.
The eradication of any hint of their British culture.
An Ireland made in the image of anti-British Gaelic culture, and that alone.
Loss of an ‘Ulster’ voice.
A fall in living standards.
Having to accept a version of Irish history and identity which ignores not only them, but also the wider links within the British Isles.
Having to accept a version of Irish History which makes 1916 the pivot of all things.
A requirement to be republicans (small ‘r’).
Loss of a State Schools sector.
An inability to celebrate their traditions.
Loss of identity.
Others may wish to add other concerns.
I would agree but I still think they are unwarranted fears and I will try to explain why.
“A Catholic Republic for a Catholic people.”
What does that even mean, that only Catholics are allowed in?
Am I going to be forced to start going to mass? Although that would probably make my mother happy. 🙂
“The eradication of any hint of their British culture.”
Unionism tried this Peter and it only served to encourage nationalists to embrace Irish culture more seeing it come under attack.
Unionism still has not learned this but I suspect the same thing would happen to British culture if we did likewise.
I also don’t quite understand what British culture is so it would be difficult for us to eradicate it.
If you mean less union flags then unfortunately they may well be the case but we have had to endure this since the conception of the state.
I can tell you that flags will not be shoved down your throat the ways the union flag was for us even in places of work where it would not be allowed today.
“An Ireland made in the image of anti-British Gaelic culture, and that alone.”
Gaelic culture is not anti-British. Irish music and dancing, our language, poetry and art are our own, yourself included and have nothing to do with Britain.
“Loss of an ‘Ulster’ voice.”
I am an Ulster voice.
“A fall in living standards.”
For too many that day is already here, the question should be what can we do to help those that are suffering now.
“Having to accept a version of Irish history and identity which ignores not only them, but also the wider links within the British Isles.”
I want to see a conflict museum which presents the troubled history between our islands from many narratives so no one version is lost and the historic links between our nations are preserved forever. I would like it to be not only acceptable to all parts of our community, but to be the biggest grossing tourist attraction on this island and help to alleviate the point above.
“Having to accept a version of Irish History which makes 1916 the pivot of all things.”
I want an agreed Ireland so we can have an accepted independence day which all sections of our people can celebrate as they do in the US and other nations.
“A requirement to be republicans (small ‘r’)”
I don’t even really understand what a republican is. I am simply Irish but accept the term republican because I supported the IRA in the conflict.
Perhaps I shouldn’t, some have questioned it here because of my contradictory comments. But I don’t see how anyone can hold a solid unwavering opinion on such a complex set of circumstances that exist in Ireland. Especially when there is emotional attachment and we are passionate about our homeland are we not?
“Loss of a State Schools sector.”
I want to see a dramatic reduction in the 90% catholic church ownership of the school estate in Ireland.
This should be a compulsory requirement in any agreement to go to a border poll
“An inability to celebrate their traditions.”
Do you really think we Irish would to try to stop celebrations?
The DUP might but if there is music and drink going or even a bit of craic it will be joined in with.
“Loss of identity.”
Perhaps after too many bevvies in the celebration but other than that, I don’t know what you mean.
The GFA guarantees your British identity and this should also be respected constitutionally.
It would not be in our power to grant you the right to vote in English elections but from what is in our power to offer I don’t see what would be denied.
A lot if not all of these fears are unfounded in terms of unification.
Without unification however and there became a nationalist majority in the north, there would be a real risk of the tables turning.
When unionism gets my back up, I would lash out and want to remove all traces of unionism. How realistic this would be is another thing.
It would be a lot easier to reach agreement than spend our days trying to remove objects which would keep returning.
I don’t believe we have anywhere near the level of dedication and commitment that unionism has to pursue such an endeavour.
Not saying we are lazy, but it just sounds like herding cats
Jessica
“Am I going to be forced to start going to mass? Although that would probably make my mother happy. ”
A forced religion never works; but your mother is right, you probably should attend Mass. And I say that as a believing Protestant. You should probably also think on your baptism, and how it means God’s calling is on your life.
I know you’ll pardon me saying!
“Building on peace and a shared future together through reconciliation requires mutual respect”
Says the woman who would destroy every war memorial on the island.
I didn’t say every war memorial I said only the British ones. And in the context of revenge if unionism insisted in pursuing the current demonisation of republican memorials. I accept that two wrongs don’t make a right, but when the wrongs keep coming hitting back sure makes you feel better.
Unlikely to get rid of them so adding plaques to each one, enumerating the list of people and/or acts that are excluded from the memorial might be the next best way to go. We always hear about what plaques are supposed to be memorialising and what they aren’t, but they never say that on anywhere on the memorial. Best to make it explicit.
For example the UDR could get one saying “Except those who were in the UDA and/or the Glenanne gang”.
The RAF could get “Except everyone involved in Dresden/Hamburg”.
The BA “Sorry about the empire and post-colonialism and Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya….”
Ideally legislation from Stormont requiring these clarifications would be the way to go, but I could see impatient street artists creating their own.
That’s a lotta fear, PF and inevitably fear leads to hatred and irrational hatred mostly. Perhaps you would be gallant enough to rewind as far as the plantation. Who might have suffered fear over those many decades? Not much lamentation from unionism on that issue. Or maybe I’m just being unfair with my dates. I don’t mean to be facetious but merely to alert you to others fears and grievances.
Hello Freddie
“That’s a lotta fear, PF ”
It certainly is, although as I suggested not all of it may be valid.
“I don’t mean to be facetious but merely to alert you to others fears and grievances.”
I can perfectly understand the fears of others, and agree with you that mutual, albeit different fears, are part of our problem.
“Not much lamentation from unionism on that issue.”
I think each ‘side’ is as guilty as the other in terms of empathy.
I suppose that all in all it is very difficult for a Unionist such as myself to know how to approach commenting on this site, especially so when we have been openly called many things, but I can certainly understand your own grievances and think conversation preferable to silence.
I main trouble I have however, with many of the articles posted here, is that the many negative descriptions given of Unionism, even if true, are also often used to demonstrate how intransigent we are supposed to be, and that in spite of the attempts at genuine interaction.
The list I gave above was an honest attempt to articulate Unionist fears as I see them, and in the hope it may lead to better understanding of each other.
“Or maybe I’m just being unfair with my dates.”
I don’t think you are being unfair, but I do think that our different perspectives highlight the difficulties we face.
“I can perfectly understand the fears of others, and agree with you that mutual, albeit different fears, are part of our problem.”
Fear is natural, but it can be used to control us so we need to be careful not to allow our fears to become prejudices and prevent us from developing new and improved relationships with one another.
“I suppose that all in all it is very difficult for a Unionist such as myself to know how to approach commenting on this site, especially so when we have been openly called many things, but I can certainly understand your own grievances and think conversation preferable to silence.”
And that should be respected and I think it will help us all to move in the right direction.
“I main trouble I have however, with many of the articles posted here, is that the many negative descriptions given of Unionism, even if true, are also often used to demonstrate how intransigent we are supposed to be, and that in spite of the attempts at genuine interaction.”
Leadership usually comes from the top, and while I am satisfied overall Sinn Fein are being genuine in their efforts, I think the leadership of unionism could do more to show the same commitment to reconciliation.
Perhaps our problems need to be resolved over the heads of our political leadership, by people on the ground and let all of the politicians get stuffed.
“I recently suggested a Boyne festival to celebrate the 12th in a way which could be family oriented and would help keep the tradition of the 11th night bonfires alive into a future united Ireland. And what is the response? So called moderates suggest that it would be controlled at gunpoint. Not only is it ridiculous but it was this unfounded promotion of fear and loathing that resulted in conflict in the first place.”
Nope.
The moderate used hyperbole as means of ramming home a point after yet another of Jessica’s inconsistencies. But why let the truth get in the way of a good rant about themuns?
Jessica’s points are well made and have factual evidence to back them up. She does make her points vehemently but they are a lot more than just mindless rants.
Perhaps if we stopped speaking in hyperbole and just say what we mean our conversations would be less convoluted
Good man PF, very fair response as always. Fred
” By sharing power, unionists are negating the reason they insisted on the state being created in the first place.”
I can’t remember the person responsible for the above quote, but it fits the situation in this blog perfectly.
Good blog Jessica, keep up the good work.