There’s a strange sense of vacuum this morning. The poignancy of Martin McGuinness’s funeral is over, I’ve had time to recover from my trip to Derry (No, Virginia, I didn’t trip), and now, with the fat sun (copyright paddykool) melting the morning frost, I’m thinking, oddly enough, of Maggie Thatcher. You’ll remember the morning after she was almost killed in the IRA bomb at the Brighton hotel, she said “This is the day I was meant never to see.” As with the death of anyone you love or respect, it seems somehow wrong to be enjoying the ordinary things of life – eating, talking, inhaling a perfect Spring morning.
But we are left and we carry on.
Two online pieces caught my attention this morning. The first is a very measured piece by Professor Diarmaid Ferriter. Among southern columnists, Ferriter is outstanding, and I don’t say that because he was kind enough to star at the Dublin launch of my last book, Whose Past Is It Anyway? (If you haven’t bought a copy, (i) for God’s sake don’t tell anyone; and (ii) Put in your order immediately.)
Where was I? Right, a piece by Ferriter in today’s Irish Times. In it he challenges the clichéd thinking about the IRA and Martin McGuinness. I’ll give the link below, but one paragraph is worth quoting. Under the sub-heading ‘Beyond Stereotypes’, Ferriter says:
‘Undoubtedly, during these decades [of the Troubles], there were disastrous and vindictive strategies from republican warmongers that unnecessarily prolonged and coarsened the conflict, but on the British side there was also duplicity, brutality and crude stereotyping, and censorship did not help. An assessment of the IRA written by intelligence specialist Brigadier James Glover in 1978 observed “our evidence of the calibre of rank and file IRA terrorists does not support the view that they are mindless hooligans”. Authoritative surveys of republican offenders made clear they were “reasonably representative of the working class community of which they form a substantial part . . . they do not fit the stereotype of criminality which the authorities have from time to time attempted to attach to them.”’
While there are southern writers who can look at the past in that measured way, there is hope for us all. Maith thú, Diarmaid.
Here’s the link to his piece: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/diarmaid-ferriter-unpicking-mcguinness-legacy-will-take-time-1.3023691
The other piece that impressed me today was one written by a blogger called ‘Richard’. One has to approach statistics – and statisticians – carefully (statistics, damned lies and all that), but ‘Richard’ argues a convincing case. He looks at a piece on the RTÉ website, particularly two statements in it:
“ ‘(McGuinness) quickly rose through the ranks of the Provisional IRA, as its campaign of violence targeted unionists, and Catholics who did not toe the line.
Bloody Sunday, which resulted in the deaths of 14 men and boys, bolstered support for the IRA and McGuinness.’
And then, further along, narrating events from the 1990s:
As the countless deaths continued, the IRA began to realise that it was not going to end this by military means. A ceasefire was announced and negotiations began, resulting in the Good Friday Agreement.’ “
Instead of quarrelling in general terms about these two statements, ‘Richard’ does a detailed analysis which challenges the truth of the paragraphs quoted. He does it as someone clearly familiar with data and the different ways they can be presented and have an impact on those who read them. Again, I’ll give the link, but it is more than commendable that there are those with the patience and skills who are prepared to analyse the information and picture of the past which establishment media nourish us with. If ‘Richard’ is right, there might be just a trace of toxin in that mainstream diet.
Read it yourselves and see. (Yes of course, Virginia – read it in the sunshine if you wish, although I’m not sure it’s a totally good idea to get out your bikini just yet.)
https://medium.com/@hiredknave/facts-an-obituary-f1c0d76f1cb3#.4awpx8k1o
Do Ferriter’s willingness to look at all of the violent past and ‘Richard’ ‘s preparedness to challenge plausible clichés represent a shift in the writing about our past? I suspect they may. It’s amazing what a strikingly successful election can do.
and then there’s Ruthie and her Indo cohorts !!!!!!!!!!!, Jude. I actually read that Daily Mail article this morning and she’s certainly up there with Tebbit for unabated historical revisionism and her naked vile vitriolic hatred of Republicanism and anything even remotely that is anti British and Unionist.
The second link doesn’t seem to be working Jude.
Apologies, Scott – I think I’ve fixed the sodding thing now…
Yip working now. Cheers Jude.
The links do not appear to be working, Jude…
Oops found the first one…the second one from Richard is not appearing..
Jude as already stated the link is down.
Richard is from Armagh…..
Both links should be working now. I wish he had given his full name, Barry…
This Richard/Hired Knave fellow does appear to be from Armagh though I think he lives down south now. I don’t know the man but his occasional blogs are considered and thoughtful, such as this one from the other day –
https://hiredknaves.wordpress.com/2017/03/21/men-of-peace/
Lets cut to the chase, where did PIRA get their authority from?
And there was me thinking there was only one MT!
Valid question, is that your answer?
What ever happened to MT?
I don’t know if authority would be the right term Dominic, what authority would you respect to start war or conflict?
When the Irish Army lined the border but feared to move in to help because they felt they could not defeat the british army, it was the PIRA who prevented the attempted pogrom of Catholics continuing and who would take on the british army and the state forces.
The only authority came from within the communities they came from. It was not an approval, but a cry for help that the PIRA responded to when no one else would.
The british army came over to help, but ended up joining in with the unionists.
I will never forget the panic that ensued when the RUC and army land rovers lined up the road. The bin lids were the alarm from the community to the IRA to get their asses out and defend the area. There was a cheer when they appeared.
I witnessed it so no one can tell me otherwise.
If you want to know where authority came from, I would look no further than Bloody Sunday, the Ballymurphy massacre, the falls curfew, the actions of the state forces in general that lost the trust and faith of the nationalist community.
The bombing campaign was not a defensive action Jessica and when that started people didn’t like it. You then had the spectacle of British soldiers defending businesses in nationalist towns putting a whole new perspective on the conflict to the world. This took pressure of political Unionism which was were the real problem lay and still does. The interview with Martin McGuinness which we have seen several times recently bears this out and his answer that we will always take into consideration the people of Derry was clearly not adhered to. PIRA had there own agenda then which was impossible to achieve by violence, and so it proved. Meanwhile election after election showed who the people gave their approval to,and thus, authority culminating in Sunningdale which proved to be the template for political movement though not before much unnecessary suffering and political turmoil.
Now you are asking a different question Dominic.
You are now asking to justify conflict.
All conflicts take on a life of their own and in my view can not be justified, nor should we try to.
The conflict should have ended with the ceasefires in 1975.
Robert Nairac saw to it that it didn’t.
Where did he get his authority to do what he did from?
British soldiers were never defending nationalist anything’s though.
They were always fully engaged in the conflict.
I agree with you though, the conflict changed tact around that time, and britain pursued a criminalisation policy which led to the hunger strikes and took the pressure totally of unionism which is why they are so against the truth coming out or rewriting history as gregory campbell calls it.
The decision to seek an end to the conflict was taken in the mid 80s and talks went on for years trying to convince the british state to end the conflict.
The problem was the terms, the british wanted an IRA defeat which would have resulted in a change of leadership and not brought everyone on board.
It was the canary wharf bombings and finally heathrow being closed for three days that changed their position.
When the british army were asked directly and could not guarantee they could prevent such attacks, the no score draw solution was accepted and the peace process became possible.
That is why Gerry Adams claimed his biggest regret was that the conflict did not end sooner.
By the 30 year rule, we will learn more about these talks over the next 5 years.
The peace process was successful, because Gerry and Martin made sure to bring the IRA with them.
It should not have taken IRA spectaculars for the british to allow peace to happen here, but they cared nothing for deaths and destruction in Ireland.
They only cared when it hit their pockets in London.
That is the truth Dominic.
Was the bombing campaign an act of self defence or had another agenda not connected to the injustices suffered by the Catholic community come into the equation. Who decided this? Where did their authority come from. Did it change the dynamic of the conflict?
Where does any authority come from in any conflict?
Personally I don’t believe there is any authority that can approve the killing of anyone.
Individuals make their own minds up whether or not to get involved in a conflict. They don’t do it blindly and are aware of the terrible things that happen in conflicts, that killing and bombing is part and parcel of it, that death or imprisonment are likely outcomes.
If any army came to my street and killed my friends and family. I would decide for myself whether or not to fight back and take responsibility for any killing I was involved in thereafter. I doubt it was a decision taken lightly.
Every action has a reaction and we become embroiled in a cycle of violence against one another.
The only solution is not to let it start in the first place.
Why did it start in the first place?
Was the bombing campaign an act of self defence or an act of aggression?
I don’t think it would be that unfair to say that all acts of violence carried out in conflicts by all sides are acts of aggression.
Would you not agree?
You always characterise PIRA as defenders of the Nationalist people. What were they defending them against by blowing up shops?
Are you still harping on about Ken Fletchers shop Dominic?
There were worse things happened in the conflict than bloody shops and houses getting wrecked. It is a lot easier to fix bricks and mortar than flesh and bone or even the mental scars and trauma.
Get over it
You can’t defend your position so you attack me.
I didn’t know I was defending anything and I did not attack you.
That is all you wanted to say and the whole purpose of your questions in the first place.
The whole purpose of my questions is to understand, what else.
“We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready…….”. A common enough military quote that even Dominic should understand? Enough said.
There is understanding something and admitting to understanding something.
I wouldn’t trust anyone who claimed not to understand that WT.
Something I don’t understand however, is how so many people who claim the high moral ground over the conflict, are less outspoken against starving health services of money while our tax contributions are going towards spending 100 billion on a trident submarine armed with nuclear missiles, or worse supportive of it.
Now that I do not understand. Perhaps Dominic has pondered that question also.
I’m against Trident and I’ve never sought the high moral ground. I don’t like hard men either.
Do you really know any?
Why would I really want to?
“Why would I really want to?”
You don’t have to Dominic, I just thought you wanted to have understanding.
I don’t know how you can have that without getting to know those you wish to understand.
In conflict, we dehumanise people we don’t like because it is easier to hate them when we don’t truly know them.
That is why the DUP and unionists in general are so frosty towards befriending republicans.
They will work with us, but they don’t want to get to know us as people and human beings.
You are being no different.
As Ian Paisley found out, when you get to know these hard men, they often have soft cores and are the kindest friendliest people and more importantly they are people you can trust and rely on.
But that is not what you want to hear, is it Dominic?
You’re away on a tangent there Jessica.
So you say
And then there’s Ian O’Doherty, Esteemed Blogmeister, the not so solemn columnist with the (chuckle ye not, Chuckie Heads) Irish Independent.
The shock-jock of Shoneen Central featured in a ‘conversation’ on Thursday’s edish of the Morning Show on Newstalk fm. This neigh-saying station is part of the DOB media stable ( DOB is short for DOBBIN) making it the broadcasting wing of d’Indon (which is , of course, the French for t’urkey).
He was lassooed it as a corrective, specifially to rope-a-dope Kevin Meagher, author of ‘An United Ireland: Why it is Inevitable and How it will come about’. .
Ian O’Dohety, as a gabby gobbler, TELLS. IT. LIKE. IT. IS..
His favourite go-to phrase is: The Great Unspoken Truth (GUT). And in this instance his GUT feeling was that WE (meaning us down here on Loyal Liffeyside) JUST. DON’T. WANT a United Ireland. Full stop.
-It’s a different country up there. Sorry about that, folks, but that’s the way it is. We don’t want you. Plain and simple. You live in a foreign country. Nothing to do with us down here. AT ALL.
Naturally, IOD in that IOD (pronounced YOD) yaddayadda way of his when on the radio as a talking head , burps a lot as befits a shock-jock who tells it the way it is, speaking as he does, from the GUT.
This means he burps a lot at those guilty of mental turpitude. Those UP THERE who will not FACE FACTS.
Hmmmmmm.
This item went on for about 16 minutes up till 8 am. Whch is peculiar in a chronological kind of a way. Evoking as it does a year in the life, or rather, a year in the death of another O’Doherty, one, (gulp) Sir Cahir O’Doherty:
-1608.
That was the year of our lord when Sir Cahir – who looked down on rather than up at Dery from the heights of the Inishowen Peninsula – had a, erm, glover’s quarrel with Paulet the Guv of Derry.
They were great boys altogether back in the day for removing the old gauntlet from the forearm (to be forewarned etc) and tossing it on the flagstoned floor .
Purpose being, to flag a knock-down-and-drag-out.
Cahir had been conferred with a knighthood for siding with the Sasanaigh against the rebellious Tyrone and had been already been known as the (gasp) Queen’s O’Doherty.
And now it was his turn to try his hand at the old Re belli-on. (These Queen’s O’Doherty’s have a thingy about the old midriff).
Mainly on account of his peevishness for failing to land the job he really craved: that of flunkey in the entourage of Henry, the funky Prince of Wales.
Wales, is right. Sir Cahir’s wails and lamentations on being prodded in the GUT by (in all probabilty) a Prod with a particurlay sharp bodkin and a metaphorical axe to grind could be heard from Kilmacrennan all the way to Yemen and back again. A post-mortem later revaled that the GUT of Sir Cahir O’Doherty had been stuffed with the contents of his last fish supper, halibut, but.
There was a grisly sequel to this sad tale of the cross, double cross and (gulp) cross dressing.
In the highly unlikely event of Ian ‘Don’t Care’ O’Doherty’s being familiar with this detail of pre-hisotry (in his GUT feeling history only really took off , as he has oft averred on air with that, erm, Triumph of FAI-lure, The Charlton Years) he might, with a certain measure of benefit, chilling though it is, take note of the following:
Pour décourager les autres, wasn’t Sir Cahir O Doherty, the former head of the O’Doherty Clan, himself decaptiated and his head fast-tracked to the Gates of Dublin. There it was displayed high upon a spike for daws to peck at, all of which sounds like a very reasonable return on his heavy inverstment in treason, your Majesty.
We are talking here about the Non-talking Head of a different O’Doherty in a prior era.
Should hystery ever repeat itself – as farce – this need not necessarily indicate the imminent rear-ending of Sir Ian ‘Don’t Care’ O’Doherty’s stellar career as a Talking Head to other fellers of a like mindlessness. Blokey blokes south of the Black Sow’s Dyke who have thrown off the Yoke of Bespoke Bog-Oak Tokenism from the Slowpokes of Sunningdale.
After all, when one speaks, as he does, from the GUT it follows that the mouth is not the only orifice through which his GUT feelings might be aired over and indeed under the airwaves.
Fundamentally speaking, going backwards, we’re talking here and hearabouts about the, erm, Talking Arse.
Tiocfaidh a T.A.