While republicans and nationalists have many times expressed regret for the hurt caused to Unionists and the unionist community during the conflict, Unionists seem to have great difficulty reciprocating. They seem to have difficulty in understanding the pain caused by unionism to the nationalist/republican community- not just during the conflict but since Partition when the Orange state was established. They often resort to ‘whataboutery’. When the recent film about the hunger strike was released some unionist victims decided to organise a counter meeting to protest that they also suffered as a result of the conflict.
Unionists often blame republicans for all the trouble in their wee country and show no understanding of just how angry and disgusted northern nationalists and republicans were in 1968 when they joined together to organise the civil rights marches. Unionists do not seem to understand why, in 1981, nationalists and republicans joined together in solidarity with the prisoners to elect Bobby Sands as MP for Fermanagh/South Tyrone.
In 1981 it was more than ten years after the Civil Rights Movement took to the streets for basic civil rights and sixty years after the partition of Ireland which denied the Irish people their right to national self-determination and imprisoned nationalists in the six county Orange statelet. It was ten years after the murder of 13 civilians on the streets of Derry on Bloody Sunday in 1972 which the British lied about. It was in the context on an ongoing campaign of murder of Catholics and the intimidation and harassment of republicans that many felt it necessary to vote for a prisoner in Long Kesh who was nominated in the Fermanagh/South Tyrone constituency.
In the years since the Civil Rights movement began marching in 1968, there had been no meaningful reform, no legislation for equality, no recognition of Nationalist rights. The British government, instead of seeking a political solution that involved all parties to the conflict went all out for a military solution. Part of that strategy was to lock up as many republicans as they could find while undermining all local initiatives and non-violent movements for justice. They relentlessly pursued a strategy of defeating republicanism.
Nationalists and republicans in Fermanagh/South Tyrone chose to answer 60 years of Unionist misrule and British intransigence and repression by going out to vote for a republican prisoner, Bobby Sands. The British intransigence was especially evident in the arrogance of Margaret Thatcher’s attitude to Ireland and to Ireland’s leaders in the state and in the Catholic Church. By 1981, Irish nationalism had their fill of British arrogance and wanted to send her a clear message, not just about the prisoners in Long Kesh and Armagh but about all their deeply felt grievances in that part of Ireland they claimed to control.
When unionists grasp this reality and the context in which that election took place and the context in which the IRA campaign began and continued for so long then we will be able to move forward as a people respecting one another’s experiences. Then together we can create the new Ireland where people of all religions and none can work for the good of all and live together in peace and harmony.
When the admission of responsibility takes place as part of the ongoing peace process Ireland will become a real example of how bitter conflicts can be resolved by honesty, dialogue and mutual respect. On many occasions unionists have failed to show honesty in relation to the oppression of nationalists and have refused to take responsibility for bringing about the conflict in the first place.
Most nationalists and republicans are satisfied that with the signing of the Good Friday Agreement their grievances were tackled and implicitly admitted by the British government. The Saville Report on Bloody Sunday was further evidence that, at last, the British government was beginning to face up to its responsibility for the past and for its destructive role in Ireland. They have yet to repair the disastrous decision to partition the island of Ireland in 1920.
Meanwhile unionist leaders could aid the process of reconciliation by accepting their responsibility for creating and maintaining a repressive regime in the six counties until it came crashing down. They could sometimes recognise the pain and hurt they caused in the past to the nationalist community.
The Assembly at Stormont is a constructive interim solution for a deeply divided society but it is by no means the final or an adequate solution to right the wrongs of the past and to restore Irish sovereignty to the Irish people as a whole. Only when Ireland’s right to nationhood and self-determination is recognised and enshrined in international law will there be a real foundation for lasting peace on this island.
“While republicans and nationalists have many times expressed regret for the hurt caused to Unionists and the unionist community during the conflict:
A very qualified and limited expression of regret extending only to non-military, police and prison service victims.
Provisional republicans do not express regret for their terror campaign insofar as it targeted police officers, prison officers, armes forces and probably other categories of so-called ‘legitimate targets’.
The conflict was not a republican terror campaign MT and it is only political unionism that to date has refused to acknowledge its role in starting the conflict in the first place let alone apologise for it.
It is about time it did.
What we need is a museum that tells the full story so people like yourself can see that hurt was caused on both sides and how the same events can have completely different narratives based on point of view. It would be the first museum of its kind on this planet and could help other nations to learn that things are not always as simple as they seem and perhaps help prevent suffering in other parts of the world. Not to mention the revenue it would bring in just as Auschwitz and other sorrowful events are also tourist attractions to remind us of humanity’s cruelty to one another.
Have unionists expressed any regret for their misgovernment and their criminality? Have they even acknowledged their wrongdoing?
The republican and nationalist expressions of regret and their determination to follow through on their commitment to peace are monumental whwen compared with the pusillanimous response of the unionist community, who have apologised for none of their crimes, so far as I know, and seem to be in a permanent state of readiness to undermine or otherwise wreck the peace process.
MT finds republican and nationalist regrets “qualified and limited”. Perhaps they are qualified and limited, but how generous and magnanimous their efforts appear against the meanminded selfrighteousness of unionism.
“Have unionists expressed any regret for their misgovernment and their criminality? Have they even acknowledged their wrongdoing?”
I’m not aware of the criminality to which you refer, but David Trimble did acknowledge that Stormont was a cold house for Catholics. And many unionists on an individual level, when asked, express similar sentiments.
“The republican and nationalist expressions of regret and their determination to follow through on their commitment to peace are monumental whwen compared with the pusillanimous response of the unionist community, who have apologised for none of their crimes, so far as I know, and seem to be in a permanent state of readiness to undermine or otherwise wreck the peace process.”
What crimes?
“MT finds republican and nationalist regrets “qualified and limited”. Perhaps they are qualified and limited, but how generous and magnanimous their efforts appear against the meanminded selfrighteousness of unionism.”
In think you need to appreciate the difference in scale between unionist and nationalist wrongdoing. Discrimination is not as great a wrongdoing as is.murder, bombing etc. Unionists don’t laud past discrimination yet republicans continue to laud past terror.
I think it was gb who said unionists aren’t one for grand gestures, so we can’t really expect big announcements or apologies. It seems that nationalists do prefer to make big gestures, announcements etc.
When people talk of unionists refusing to face up to their responsibilities of starting and escalating the conflict, this is exactly what they mean.
Well done MT, you complain about unionists being painted in a poor picture by contributors on here and then live up to all their descriptions.
“When people talk of unionists refusing to face up to their responsibilities of starting and escalating the conflict, this is exactly what they mean.”
I don’t follow. I wasn’t even born in the period leasing up to the Troubles, so I don’t accept any responsibility for starting or escalating them. If you mean examining the role of unionists generally in starting or escalating the Troubles, I haven’t commented on that. Obviously they had a role and I’ve never argued that they didn’t. Can you point yo anywhere where I’ve denied unionists’ contribution to escalation?
So you’ll need to be clearer about what you mean.
“Well done MT, you complain about unionists being painted in a poor picture by contributors on here”
I do?
“and then live up to all their descriptions.”
What descriptions do I live up to?
“In the years since the Civil Rights movement began marching in 1968 [until 1981], there had been no meaningful reform, no legislation for equality, no recognition of Nationalist rights.”
This is a bare-faced lie.
Between 1968 and 1981 the following reforms had been made.
-housing reform and creation of Housing Executive
-local government electoral franchise reform
-abolition of Londonderry Corporation
-introduction of proportional representation
-establishment of Ombudsman
-Boundary Commission
-abolition of Stormont
-Fair Employment Act
-repeal of Special Powers Act
-abolition of B Specials
-creation of the Police Authority
The British government, instead of seeking a political solution that involved all parties to the conflict went all out for a military solution. Part of that strategy was to lock up as many republicans as they could find while undermining all local initiatives and non-violent movements for justice. They relentlessly pursued a strategy of defeating republicanism.
Which year did the first of those reforms occur?
Because it wasn’t 1968. Nor was it 1969. Nor was it 1970…..
It is always those constantly accusing others of mendacity that are the most mendacious.
Which of those were initiated by unionists or were they imposed on them? How many received political support fro unionism?
“Which of those were initiated by unionists or were they imposed on them? How many received political support fro unionism?”
Most were initiated by unionists and most received political support from unionism. They wouldn’t have been possible otherwise given the unionist majority in Stormont.
“Which year did the first of those reforms occur?”
1969. Why?
“Because it wasn’t 1968. Nor was it 1969. Nor was it 1970…..”
Yes it was.
“It is always those constantly accusing others of mendacity that are the most mendacious.”
Eh? Please explain .
“The British government, instead of seeking a political solution that involved all parties to the conflict went all out for a military solution.”
Again this us untrue. The Government’s policy from 1972 was for a political solution based on power-sharing. It also negotiated for a period with terror groupings including the PIRA.
“Part of that strategy was to lock up as many republicans as they could find while undermining all local initiatives and non-violent movements for justice. They relentlessly pursued a strategy of defeating republicanism.”
If this refers to internment, it had ended in 1975. A strategy of aiming to defeat *violent* republicanism was entirely reasonable. Indeed it was a duty.
Was the British government serious about making Sunningdale work though?
The Prime minister sabotages the agreement by calling unionists ‘spongers’ on television. According to the UUP leader Molyneaux he did this deliberately to destroy the development of a devolved power sharing agreement.
Then we have the Ulster workers council strike where the security forces turn a blind eye to lots of intimidation and forcing people (mostly unionists) to go on strike.
I’ve never been convinced the British government was serious about making a power sharing agreement work in the early 70s
But at the end of the day it was unionism/loyalism that destroyed the possibility of power sharing arangment in the 1970s. It was they who brought down sunningdale. Not nationalists, not even Republicans
“Was the British government serious about making Sunningdale work though?”
Yes.
“The Prime minister sabotages the agreement by calling unionists ‘spongers’ on television. According to the UUP leader Molyneaux he did this deliberately to destroy the development of a devolved power sharing agreement.”
You think Molyneaux’s claim was plausible?
“Then we have the Ulster workers council strike where the security forces turn a blind eye to lots of intimidation and forcing people (mostly unionists) to go on strike.”
A tactical decision, probably (sadly) a sensible one.
“I’ve never been convinced the British government was serious about making a power sharing agreement work in the early 70s”
Why would they want it to fail? Why devote so much political energy into it if they didn’t want it to succeed?
“But at the end of the day it was unionism/loyalism that destroyed the possibility of power sharing arangment in the 1970s. It was they who brought down sunningdale. Not nationalists, not even Republicans”
Indeed. Though republicans also opposed it.
Careful there MT, you’re ……again!
Sorry – that’s just straight mockery/abuse. Please – enough. – Jude
When you are watching Zulu with Michael Caine do you root for the good guys or the British?
I listened to Talkback yesterday when they were discussing the attitude toward West Belfast in the 1980s. While Alison Morris and Eamon Phoenix were clear in putting across their evidence it was clear that Malochi O’Doherty was, as someone who has embraced unionism, unprepared to
Discuss the attitude of the state without equivocation and blaming republicans for all that was wrong here. It seems all the trouble began out of nowhere when the Provisional IRA was formed in January 1970. The previous 49 years of pogrom against nationalists obviously never happened, there was no discrimination against Catholic Nationalists in either housing or employment. It was just that RC/nationalists refused to cooperate with the state, they caused all the ills.
Could you enlighten us and list all the “pogroms” against nationalists in the 49 years before 1970. I did a couple of history degrees and am not aware of any before the communal violence of 1969 and as a pogrom is/was usually defined as the planned killing of hundreds, if not thousands, I would even be reluctant to use that term in relation to the events of the latter year.
“The previous 49 years of pogrom against nationalists obviously never happened,”
49-year pogrom???
“49-year pogrom???”
Well pointed out MT. More like a 490 year pogrom.
“Well pointed out MT. More like a 490 year pogrom.”
Ask yourself why your ‘arguments’ rely on exaggeration and ****
Calling someone that without evidence – and maybe even with it, if you’re trying for dialogue – is a no-no, MT. .
Please Joe say a prayer for MT. He does not realise he and his ilk are the problem.His list of reforms are his and our Civil Right.He says Republican/Nationalists only apologised for some of the hurt to his people. Is he serious that we apologise to the British War Machine for their behaviour. I may well join you, Joe in, that prayer!!!
Not trying to be flippant here Joe, but If Unionists were a caring understanding bunch, then perhaps we wouldn’t find ourselves bogged down in the current political quagmire. Is there any incentive for Unionists to compromise ? You simply cannot compromise with bigots. The wise thing to do is just move right around them and carry on with our goal of a United Ireland. I have no wish to be in conflict with Unionists, and as a republican I would always endeavour to live in a society where all people are respected. Right now I find Unionists behaviour more of an annoyance. Pity they just couldn’t find a quiet corner somewhere to practice the things that seem so important to them, but hey, at least they would be guaranteed that much in a United Ireland.
Couldn’t agree moser, but we must keep pointing it out to them and hopefully eventually some of it will sink in with some of them.
If not, we least we are finally over the apex and their number is at last on the decline. It will be a steep decline over the coming elections so the end is in sight.
Good grief banging on about a United Ireland its amusing I hope you are not disappointed when it doesn’t happen in your lifetime!
“Good grief banging on about a United Ireland its amusing I hope you are not disappointed when it doesn’t happen in your lifetime!”
That may well be the case Robert, but it wont be too long before the now in decline unionist majority disappears forever.
If I live long enough to see that I will be happy.
The list of reforms that MT says were implemented (his dates are way off) were fought against tooth and nail by unionist politicians. If they had been left to implement reforms not one of those things on that list would EVER have been realised
“The list of reforms that MT says were implemented (his dates are way off) were fought against tooth and nail by unionist politicians. If they had been left to implement reforms not one of those things on that list would EVER have been realised”
So you accept that the reforms happened and that Joe was telling porkies?
The dates aren’t way off. They’re not even off.
And the reforms were fought tooth and nail by *some* unionist politicians.