In the past few days I’ve done a blog for Francis Teeney’s Mindfields blogsite and a radio discussion with Ruth Dudley Edwards on the question of how we handle the past – in this case not our own unhappy post-conflict past, but the past of the British Empire. More specifically, the question was asked: should prominent figures from the heyday of that Empire continue to have statues in their honour positioned in public places?
The debate came out of a campaign by Oxford students to have a statue to Cecil Rhodes removed from an Oxford College. On the one hand, Rhodes gave the college lots of lovely money (Rhodes Scholarship, anyone?); on the other hand he was a thorough-going racist. So which of these qualities triumphs? Should the statue stay in honour of a man who supported the Oxford College, or should it be removed since no respectable educational institution should be honouring a man with such views? And now the same question is being asked about the many statues to Queen Victoria throughout the world, including the one at the front of Belfast City Hall.
Let me come clean: I think the Rhodes statue and the Victoria statues should, all things considered, stay.
The tag Irish people have for decades given Victoria is that of the Famine Queen. The claim is that she donated £5 to the starving Irish, at a time when she had a personal fortune of £5 million, received an annual grant from the British government of more than £350,000 and owned vast tracts of land.
Pretty disgusting – except it’s not true. She didn’t give a fiver – she gave £2000 to the starving Irish. At first she was going to give £1000, but then she was advised it’d look a bit tight so she upped it to £2000. Better than a piddling fiver but still not that much, given her wealth.
Actually it was Victoria’s ministers who were the people responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Ireland. Just one example: Sir Charles Trevelyan, the assistant secretary to the Treasury and so responsible for administering relief during An Gorta Mor. Here’s his take on the calamity:
“The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated…The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people”.
So if there’s a statue of Trevelyan somewhere and you hand me a sledge-hammer, I’ll happily demolish the booby’s effigy. As to Queen Victoria, I’m not her top fan but I appreciate that almost half the population in the north, for reasons of their own, revere her and her descendants, so I’d accept that she stay.
With one proviso: since nationalists and republicans accept the icons of Britain so liberally sprinkled around Belfast City Hall and throughout the city – the King’s Hall, the Queen’s Bridge, Balmoral, Prince Charles’s Way, etc, – let’s have less caterwauling from unionists the next time nationalists and/or republicans unveil a memorial honouring those they revere.
However, Jude, Unionists do not do fairness or equality, all the evidence is there………..
Its unfortunate but its absolutely true Bridget. Anyone who argues otherwise will certainly and easily lose the argument.
The vast majority of people on this Planet can be reasoned with and compromises can be made. Unionism is in the minority of people who cant be reasoned with (Nelson McCausland on the Nolan show with Danny Morrison a fortnight ago is just one example of this).
I’m currently rereading “Northern Protestants” by Susan McKay. A Great book. When you read the interviews done by Susan McKay, most of the people she interviewed have a uncompromising and unreasonable attitude. Susan McKay, a Protestant herself, even points this out.
Bernadette Martin’s story is told in the book. Bernadette was an 18 year old Catholic girl dating a Protestant. Bernadette was murdered by her Protestant partners friend simply because she was a Catholic. She was shot in the eye, through the mouth and twice more whilst she slept in her boyfriends arms in his house. The man who murdered her was a lifelong friend of Bernadette’s boyfriend and also murdered Michael McGoldrick, a Catholic taxi driver, as a warning if the parade at drumcree was stopped.
When reporters went to interview people in the Unionist area where Bernadette was murdered the vast majority of people refused to speak to them. Some people of the area just said it was wrong what happened but “We’re proud to be protestant”. The same people were supporting the Orange men at Drumcree, where Billy Wright was in attendance….
That’s the mentality of some of the people we’re trying to compromise and reason with……
Hi Jude . i’m not a great fan of re-writing the past and that includes razing statues and artwork from less politically-correct times. Monuments should be left as part of our education about those times.Nobody is perfect and it’s a fact of life that casual racism , for one example, would have been the “norm” for many people a few generation ago …a few hundred years ago .We tend to view these people and events through modern-day eyes. That said , there are many who still hang on to these racist mores even in the present.Rather than tear down a statue , leave it as a symbol of what was wrong in a society at that time …not what was right….and educate people as to why why that is so.
There was a time when Liverpool , for one example, was one of the hubs of the slaving -trade in England and society thought it was perfectly fine to run around the world conquering other peoples and enslaving them and trading and treating them like animals. Things change… We see things differently now. We don’t make an exhibition and a carnival of executing criminals in public places for a thrill like we did not so long ago. We decided as a society that behaviour like that wasn’t quite right . We shouldn’t forget how much we have changed things.Statues and art remind us of these things.We really don’t want to do an ISIS and pretend that we can re-make a world with a Ground Zero scenario and destroy our past.
Things that were done for “God and Country” some years ago ,aren’t seen in quite the same light by rational people .People are much more sceptical about the need and nature of wars. The idea that God sent down a plague on the Irish, for one example , set very well in a time of casual superstition when people still believed in ghosts and ghoulies. No rational person would believe such tripe now but those were different times with much less education and knowledge available. Many could not read or write and relied on possibly a few local dignitaries or clergymen to guide their lives. The British aristocracy obviously assumed that they were God’s chosen people on earth , given that they had the most success with their empire -building across the world. The twentieth century changed all that.
As for the future…If it’s time to honour anyone with a statue , a bridge , a street or a plaque, I’d prefer that honours went to those who united us in song ,vision, literature, poetry or any damn thing … rather than divided us in the sticky morass of political tinkering and religious division…
Hear hear!
In Tim Pat Coogan’s book , ‘The Famine Plot’, there are references to anti-Irish, simian imagery and allied anti-black prejudice. Many of the contributors to the ‘Punch’ journal were Irish, confirming:
“…whenever the British needed a stage Irishman for a West End part, they could always be certain of getting an Irishman to portray him…The historian James Anthony Froude bolstered the ‘Punch’ image by writing in 1845 that the people in Catholic Ireland were:
…more like tribes of squalid apes than human beings….Charles Kingsley, an Anglican clergyman…
I am daunted by the human chimpanzees I saw…they are happier, better and more comfortably fed and lodged under our rules…but to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black, one would not feel it so much but their skins, except when tanned by exposure, are as white as ours.” (2012:218-219)
In 1830, the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek was signed. It represented one of the largest transfers of land that was signed between the U.S. Government and Native Americans without being instigated by warfare. Historian Edward O’Donnell wrote:
“Of the 21,000 Choctaws who started the journey, more than half perished from exposure, malnutrition, and disease.”
In 1847, the Choctaw nation raised $170 for An Gorta Mór, worth tens of thousands of dollars today. The Choctaws sent the money at the height of An Gorta Mór, “Black 47,” when close to a million Irish were starving to death.
The gift is remembered in Ireland to the present day. The plaque in Dublin’s Mansion House that honors the Choctaw contribution reads:
“Their humanity calls us to remember the millions of human beings throughout our world today who die of hunger and hunger-related illness in a world of plenty.”
seems the good brethren of ballymena have more to worry about than job loses,somebodys went and put manhole covers in the town with irish writing on them lol.
good article Jude. Through work i frequent ‘our’ city Hall a lot, i find it rather amusing that the hall is completely decked out with British symbolism – that represent less than half of Belfast’s population – well at least the flag is gone !.
Oh how times have changed and will continue to. Although i cant see them accepting an irishness about that place. Their kin in Ballymena kicking up a stink about the word ‘Uisce’ on the water covers, dont mention the 2000 jobs lost in 18 months. The town’s name and all the surrounding townland names are all of irish origin.
Oh don’t mention equality in the wee 6, that’s what they cant comprehend. ‘Catholics & nationalists were meant to keep their heads down, their population rise wasn’t foreseen, gerrymandering hasn’t worked’
and yet at home, the old British crown symbol is positioned high and mightily above Monaghan Court House, its never interfered with and no body bats an eye-lid.
Grma, O27…
I just wrote a massive post and then accidentally closed the window……
So, in short:
The entries area of Belfast has edifices named after the United Irishmen and their associates.
This does not make them ‘nationalist’.
It makes them like a historical tree-ring that depicts an era of Belfast’s history; the now gone (alas) era of Presbyterian Republicanism.
It happened. Names were named (like the pubs) and that’s that.
To come in with a political broom and sweep away these names because they now retrospectively conflict with one’s political viewpoints is bitter and narrow minded and a failure to posterity.
It happened. Preserve the timeframe and move on.
Re-naming things because a fashion or era has passed is a dangerous path to go down. Where does it stop?
If one can’t have a statue of Victoria outside a Victorian era landmark building in a Victorian era built city then where can one find them?
(Well, in India actually, they didn’t rip them all down in a fit of post-colonial spite.)
Victoria was not so contentious when the statue went up (not even all of Belfast’s Catholics at the time were out and out republicans despite what their descendants may say).
So I believe attaching conditions to her remaining there is also a dangerous path.
She’s a part of Irish history (whether one likes it or not) as were the Normans and Vikings (and in Dublin you can see tourists in Viking helmets on those weird tour buses).
In the years to come there’ll be ample opportunity to name streets after people (anything’s better than the modern bland names like ‘meadow vale’ or ‘oakvale drive’ or whatever….)
But we don’t HAVE to go down the path of revenge naming, which, I fear is what numerous people in the nationalist community are chomping at the bit to do (and then the unionist community will do the same no doubt, in a pointless tit-for-tat battle for nothingness).
Equality is not to be confused with ‘revenge’ and I thing there needs to be an honest discussion regarding that particular topic.
I say rename the unnecessary names like King’s Hall (named post partition, post civil war ergo utterly insensitive) or Craigavon (named after a not very nice man, sod it, why not rename it ‘O’Neillstown’ after Captain O’Neill?) or William III court in Maghera or even Londonderry, it misses out on the posterity argument as no one called it Londonderry until the 70’s…
But as for the rest, they’re merely indications of the fashion of the time, they’re not an act of wrongdoing or spite and don’t deserve to be re-written in that way.
AmG.
A thoughtful post as always.
‘Revenge naming’ is a good term for what some are suggesting.
I agree the passage of time will right the balance to some degree,as Unionists lose sway over councils. I hope change will happen in a considered way rather than “now it’s our turn, let’s do what they did to us”.
I don’t think many people want more Raymond McCreesh playparks but I daresay it wont be the last of it’s kind.
It would make more sense to look for things that unite us rather than divide us.
What we need gio, is tolerance over Raymond McCreesh playparks. If anyone cannot afford that respect for someone who starved themselves to death to fight british injustice then you have no right to ask for or expect anything in return.
“It would make more sense to look for things that unite us rather than divide us.”
Your attitude is very divisive gio. Perhaps you should take a look at yourself first.
But do tell me why you think that I should want to be united anywhere with unionists? In fact, tell me why should I even give a shit about what any unionist wants while all I hear is how bad we are and how great they are?
“What we need gio, is tolerance over Raymond McCreesh playparks. If anyone cannot afford that respect for someone who starved themselves to death to fight british injustice then you have no right to ask for or expect anything in return.”
On the contrary, we need zero tolerance of the glorification of terrorism. It should be an offence. We have suffered too much to allow future generations to grow up in a society tjhat has normalised or terrorism and murder as acceptable, or virtuous. It is too dangerous.
“On the contrary, we need zero tolerance of the glorification of terrorism. It should be an offence. We have suffered too much to allow future generations to grow up in a society tjhat has normalised or terrorism and murder as acceptable, or virtuous. It is too dangerous.”
We could start with releasing evidence of state terrorism and stop hiding it behind national security.
How does that fit in with zero tolerance. Should all soldiers implemented face imprisonment then?
What about state ministers who signed off murder?
What about ongoing recruitment of agents, should that come under zero tolerance also?
“We could start with releasing evidence of state terrorism and stop hiding it behind national security.How does that fit in with zero tolerance.”
We should have zero tolerance of terrorism from any quarter.
“Should all soldiers implemented face imprisonment then?”
I presume you mean implicated. The arbitrary imprisonment of people suspected of crimes is an abhorrent concept. Justice demands that people must be tried and convicted before being sentenced.
“What about state ministers who signed off murder.”
I’m not aware of any, but if anyone signed off murder he or she should obviously be broughtto justice.
“What about ongoing recruitment of agents, should that come under zero tolerance also?”
Of course not.
“We should have zero tolerance of terrorism from any quarter.”
I agree MT.
“I presume you mean implicated. The arbitrary imprisonment of people suspected of crimes is an abhorrent concept. Justice demands that people must be tried and convicted before being sentenced. ”
No, I mean the people in the MRF and FRU who were committing acts of terrorism under their job description.
The PSNI don’t consider it a crime as it was signed off by the state.
Evidence of their actions has been locked away under the guide of national security.
I could even live with that if it weren’t for the one sided blame and the criminalisation of republicans while state terrorists get cushy pensions and medals for their crimes.
It is clear from yours and many others comments, that Stormont should be brought down and everything stopped until this is resolved and everything blocked under national security is released.
Lets hope if movement doesn’t come on this issue, it will come down and stay closed until we are on a fairer playing field.
This cannot be allowed to continue.
“I agree MT.”
But you don’t. You supported PIRA terror.
“I presume you mean implicated. The arbitrary imprisonment of people suspected of crimes is an abhorrent concept. Justice demands that people must be tried and convicted before being sentenced. ”
“No, I mean the people in the MRF and FRU who were committing acts of terrorism under their job description.”
You’re proposing that all members of MRF and FRU should be imprisoned without trial?
“The PSNI don’t consider it a crime as it was signed off by the state.”
When did the PSNI say this?
“But you don’t. You supported PIRA terror.”
Which to many peoples opinion, especially in Ireland, is no different from you supporting British state terror.
We either both of us do not support terror, or we both of us do depending on point of view.
If you feel your opinion is better and more important than mine, then that is your choice and nothing I can do about it.
It does not change either of our opinions however.
We either agree to differ and move on in mutual respect or we just fall out and go each others way.
I rally don’t care either way any more.
“Which to many peoples opinion, especially in Ireland, is no different from you supporting British state terror.”
That doesn’t make sense because I don’t support any terror, British state or otherwise.
“We either both of us do not support terror, or we both of us do depending on point of view.”
That’s a fallacy. It doesn’t follow that because one person supports terror so must another person .
I get it MT, you are intolerant towards my point of view and want to force your opinion as the only show in town.
I will never see the British army activities here as anything other than terrorism.
They treated working class people in your own community just as badly MT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Reaction_Force
If you choose to ignore what actually went on then that is your choice.
But why are you trying to force your opinions onto me when I have had different experiences of the troubles that you?
Why do you insist my opinion is worth less than yours?
“I get it MT, you are intolerant towards my point of view and want to force your opinion as the only show in town.”
I’m opposed to views in support of terrorism and unjust violence.
“I will never see the British army activities here as anything other than terrorism.”
That’s just silly.
“If you choose to ignore what actually went on then that is your choice.”
I don’t choose to ignore anything that went on.
“But why are you trying to force your opinions onto me when I have had different experiences of the troubles that you? Why do you insist my opinion is worth less than yours?”
I’m simply challenging your extreme and dangerous views with reason in the hope that some day you will mature and form a more reasonable world view.
“I’m opposed to views in support of terrorism and unjust violence. ”
MT, I have made it quite clear that I do not support “terrorism or unjust violence”, tough I still struggle to understand what violence is justified.
Perhaps you could enlighten me with an example?
Everyone that doesn’t support the british in their conflicts is not a terrorist.
In fact, you could say the greater terrorists are the ones committing the violence in someone else’s country and not their own, in this case the british.
“MT, I have made it quite clear that I do not support “terrorism or unjust violence”,”
But we know that is a lie, as you continually express support for the Provisional IRA.
“tough I still struggle to understand what violence is justified.
Perhaps you could enlighten me with an example?”
You have already been pointed in the direction of just war theory. Your continued ignorance, however, unsurprising.
“Everyone that doesn’t support the british in their conflicts is not a terrorist.”
Nobody said such people were terrorists.
“MT, I have made it quite clear that I do not support “terrorism or unjust violence”,”
But we know that is a lie, as you continually express support for the Provisional IRA.
“tough I still struggle to understand what violence is justified.
Perhaps you could enlighten me with an example?”
You have already been pointed in the direction of just war theory. Your continued ignorance, however, unsurprising.
“Everyone that doesn’t support the british in their conflicts is not a terrorist.”
Nobody said such people were terrorists.
1
Not everyone believes in just war theory, some think it is immoral and unethical and are entitled to that opinion.
I would say most foot soldiers and innocent civilians who suffer in a conflict are not reassured by theological arseholes deciding that their suffering was just or not.
2
The PIRA did not exist when the conflict started, the conflict was therefore started by unionists and British militants.
So tell me MT, was it justified?
“Not everyone believes in just war theory, some think it is immoral and unethical and are entitled to that opinion.”
We’re not talking about everyone. You asked for my view.
But out of interest, who thinks just war theory is immoral and unethical? I suspect nobody.
“The PIRA did not exist when the conflict started, the conflict was therefore started by unionists and British militants.”
That’s a logical fallacy.It doesn’t follow that because the PIRA didn’t exist at the start that the “conflict” must therefore have been started by “unionists and British militants”.
“So tell me MT, was it justified?”
Was what justified?
“We’re not talking about everyone. You asked for my view.
But out of interest, who thinks just war theory is immoral and unethical? I suspect nobody.”
I do for one.
I take it I am entitled to an opinion in your book?
“The PIRA did not exist when the conflict started, the conflict was therefore started by unionists and British militants.”
That’s a logical fallacy.It doesn’t follow that because the PIRA didn’t exist at the start that the “conflict” must therefore have been started by “unionists and British militants”.
OK, since you know best.
Which militant group started the conflict here?
And since your view supports “just war theory” which determines whether or not it was just for a war to start, and let us know if the conflict here was justified according to just war theory?
“I do for one.”
And why do you think just war theory is “immoral and unethuc”? (This should be good.)
“OK, since you know best.
Which militant group started the conflict here?”
It wasn’t started by one militant group. There was a number of long-term and short-term causes.
“And since your view supports “just war theory” which determines whether or not it was just for a war to start, and let us know if the conflict here was justified according to just war theory?”
Just war theory doesn’t “determine whether or not it was just for a war to start”. It determines whether or not the use of violence is just.
“Just war theory doesn’t “determine whether or not it was just for a war to start”. It determines whether or not the use of violence is just.”
Just war theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
“Just war theory (jus bellum iustum) is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics studied by theologians, ethicists, policy makers, and military leaders. The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The criteria are split into two groups: ‘the right to go to war’ (jus ad bellum) and ‘right conduct in war’ (jus in bello). The first concerns the morality of going to war and the second with moral conduct within war.”
I will say to you again MT, as per criteria 1.
Was the start of the conflict justified?
“Was the start of the conflict justified?”
What do you mean by the “start of the conflict”?
“Was the start of the conflict justified?”
What do you mean by the “start of the conflict”?”
We have more or less agreed on what started the conflict MT.
We have also established that you follow just war theory, the criteria of which is split into two groups: ‘the right to go to war’ (jus ad bellum) and ‘right conduct in war’ (jus in bello). The first concerns the morality of going to war and the second with moral conduct within war.”
I said I don’t believe any war is justified, including our own conflict and that just war theory was immoral.
You disagree, so I am asking whether in your opinion, applying your just war theory to the conflict here, was going to war over the spectre of the IRA imagined or otherwise as you put it, justified?
“We have more or less agreed on what started the conflict MT.”
We have? You’re now accepting it was 1969?
“You disagree, so I am asking whether in your opinion, applying your just war theory to the conflict here, was going to war over the spectre of the IRA imagined or otherwise as you put it, justified?”
Are you referring to the UVF in 1966? Of course it wasn’t justified. What a strange question.
MT, You say you believe in just war theory and mock me for saying it is immoral, yet you are unable to use it to state whether the start of the conflict whether it be the UVF declaration of war in 1966, or the killings which they say was inspired by unionist politicians who encouraged them and held many meetings with the Spence brothers at the time or the unionist aggression against civil rights marches, the unionist pogrom, loyalist guns attacks and British army murdering civilians in 1969; was justified according to your own just war theory.
Is it because it is immoral that you struggle to answer?
“MT, You say you believe in just war theory and mock me for saying it is immoral,”
You haven’t explained why you think it is immoral. Why not?
“yet you are unable to use it to state whether the start of the conflict whether it be the UVF declaration of war in 1966, or the killings which they say was inspired by unionist politicians who encouraged them and held many meetings with the Spence brothers at the time or the unionist aggression against civil rights marches, the unionist pogrom, loyalist guns attacks and British army murdering civilians in 1969; was justified according to your own just war theory”
Eh? Obviously all of that was unjustified. And I already answered in relation to 1966.
“Is it because it is immoral that you struggle to answer?”
That doesn’t make sense. If it’s immoral then by definition it isn’t justified.
“You haven’t explained why you think it is immoral. Why not?”
It is immoral to try and justify any conflict because there are innocent victims who are casualties in every conflict MT.
Like many, you are quite happy to use those victims and your just war theory to make political attacks but when it comes to admitting that it was unionism responsible for starting the conflict, the words stick in your throat.
The truth will come out. Unionisms day is over, the mask is gone and no one buys the crocodile tears anymore.
“It is immoral to try and justify any conflict because there are innocent victims who are casualties in every conflict MT.”
So it was immoral to go to war to prevent the Nazis to take over Europe? What a ludicrous view.
“It is immoral to try and justify any conflict because there are innocent victims who are casualties in every conflict MT.”
So it was immoral to go to war to prevent the Nazis to take over Europe? What a ludicrous view.
Exactly my point MT.
It immoral for the Nazis to go to war to try and take over Europe just as it was immoral for the unionists and British to start conflict in Ireland.
Once conflict starts, morality goes out the window and all hell breaks loose.
You blame PIRA for a conflict they didn’t start because it suits your morality, whereas I hold those who started it in first place with the greater responsibility.
Awful things are done in all conflicts. British troops were involved in the mass rape and sexual exploitation of starving german women after the war, on a few occasions shooting them dead after raping them in cold blood.
We should never try to justify conflict as there is no such thing as a good war.
gio, ten men didn’t starve themselves to death just for the hell of it.
They did so to face down thatchers attempt at criminalisation of one side in a conflict they did not start or bring about.
To sacrifice your life is not an easy thing to do, to do so in a prolonged an agonising way while trying to hold on as long as you can as the last and purely desperate means of facing down injustice is respected by many people on this planet.
Unionists do not have Irelands best interests in heart of head, they don’t even really want peace and many would jump at a chance of the army getting more involved once again and doing the job more effectively in eradicating republicanism from the north through force.
As they say, making peace is not easy and sometimes you have to just accept other point of views some of which you may not be not comfortable with.
The Irish have had to endure worse for decades and will still be expected to watch our flag burning every year.
Republican ideology will be around in any future Ireland partitioned or not gio, are you going to live with it?
“ten men didn’t starve themselves to death just for the hell of it.”
They did so as an act of emotional blackmail to garner sympathy within the Roman Catholic community and as a propaganda exercise. It was a despicable exercise in trying to portray the perpetrators of heinous crimes as victims.
“They did so to face down thatchers attempt at criminalisation of one side in a conflict they did not start or bring about.”
The starvos criminalized themselves when they committed crimes.
So you think that there was a massive upsurge of criminality here, MT, which lasted for around 30 years, then subsided. How odd.
“So you think that there was a massive upsurge of criminality here, MT, which lasted for around 30 years, then subsided. How odd.”
It’s not odd at all. It was the Troubles, which lasted around 30 years. They ended when the terror gangs called their ceasefires and their members stopped committing murders and other crimes.
Yes, but you haven’t explained the reason for this massive upsurge. Crime rates tend to be much less dramatic than that. Odd that we’ve had such a massive bulge in criminal actions.
“Yes, but you haven’t explained the reason for this massive upsurge. Crime rates tend to be much less dramatic than that. Odd that we’ve had such a massive bulge in criminal actions.”
Why would I explain the reason? Isn’t it obvious. As I already said, it was the Troubles. There was a violent political conflict in which people joined terrorist groups and took part in thousands of murders and other crimes.
So they were engaged in political violence, then. We’re agreed, MT. That’s good.
“So they were engaged in political violence, then. We’re agreed, MT. That’s good.”
Obviously. If we’re agreed what point were you trying to make?
“It wasn’t started by one militant group. There was a number of long-term and short-term causes.”
No there wasn’t.
The UVF declared war on the IRA in 1966 encouraged by political unionism, committed murders with the killers claiming they were inspired by Paisley and wishing they had never heard of him as they went to jail.
Paisey and unionism did not stop there but raised the tensions further over the coming years, encouraged the UVF to begin a bombing campaign, organised attacks against civil rights marches which led to rioting and discontent which was about to bring down the state resulting in the army getting involved.
All this was caused by unionism only, one cause. The web is full of the history you can verify it for yourself.
It was further killings by the police and army, burning Catholics out of their homes and thousands of people being displaced along with gun attacks by loyalist groups which were watched by both army and police that led to republican militarism in response and the start of the conflict.
Get your facts right MT.
Unionism has caused the problems here since partition and it is time it ended.
“No there wasn’t.”
Yes there was.
“The UVF declared war on the IRA in 1966 encouraged by political unionism, committed murders with the killers claiming they were inspired by Paisley and wishing they had never heard of him as they went to jail.”
That wasn’t the start of the Troubles, though the UVF activity in 1966 was doubtless among the causes. The Troubles started in 1969.
“Paisey and unionism did not stop there but raised the tensions further over the coming years, encouraged the UVF to begin a bombing campaign, organised attacks against civil rights marches which led to rioting and discontent which was about to bring down the state resulting in the army getting involved.”
“Unionism” didn’t encourage the UVF to begin a bombing campaign. Nor did it organisze attacks on civil rights matches.
Obviously the Paisleyite campaign against civil rights was a primary cause of the Troubles.
“It was further killings by the police and army, burning Catholics out of their homes and thousands of people being displaced along with gun attacks by loyalist groups which were watched by both army and police that led to republican militarism in response and the start of the conflict.”
Obviously those were other important factors, as was the Catholic rioting in 1969, and of course the spectre of the IRA, imagined or otherwise.
“Get your facts right MT.”
Unlike you, I haven’t got any facts wrong.
“That wasn’t the start of the Troubles, though the UVF activity in 1966 was doubtless among the causes. The Troubles started in 1969.
Obviously the Paisleyite campaign against civil rights was a primary cause of the Troubles.
Obviously those were other important factors, as was the Catholic rioting in 1969, and of course the spectre of the IRA, imagined or otherwise. ”
There is not a lot I wouldn’t agree with there MT.
What happened during the conflict was awful and hurt a large proportion of all sections of our people. It will not be easy to repair that damage.
The PIRA have gone away and will never be coming back in any capacity.
Lets hope we can learn from our mistakes and “the spectre of the IRA, imagined or otherwise” will never again be the cause of conflict.
“What happened during the conflict was awful and hurt a large proportion of all sections of our people. It will not be easy to repair that damage.”
Yet you supported most if those awful things. Shame on you.
“Why would I explain the reason? Isn’t it obvious. As I already said, it was the Troubles. There was a violent political conflict in which people joined terrorist groups and took part in thousands of murders and other crimes.”
So what started the troubles MT?
“Why would I explain the reason? ”
Or more why you wont.
Could it be, because it was the actions of militant unionism that caused the upsurge in the first place perhaps?
jessica
If you think the Raymond McCreesh playpark is going to help heal a divided society then I take it you have no interest in the ideal of uniting Protestant Catholic and dissenter.
Did he do anything else apart from starve himself to death?
It is up to you if you want to be united with your fellow Irishmen and women or not,but the alternative is what?
“Did he do anything else apart from starve himself to death?” – would you say that’s a helpful sort of remark about someone you know republicans – and others – hold in high regard?
“– would you say that’s a helpful sort of remark about someone you know republicans – and others – hold in high regard?”
It’s the fact that he’s held.in high regard that is the problem. We should not be tolersting the glorification of terrorism. It’s too dangerous.
Did you know that terrorism is a methodology, not a philosophy, MT?
“Did you know that terrorism is a methodology, not a philosophy, MT?”
It’s a method more than a methodology, I think. But, yes, of course. Why do you ask?
“Did you know that terrorism is a methodology, not a philosophy, MT?”
It has become a byword for people some don’t like and want to destroy.
Russia played them at their own game in Syria, still attacking the “terrorists” that happen to be the west allies who they armed in the first place.
I heard politicians in the south calling drug gangs shootings as terrorists.
It is just an acceptable means of insulting republicans.
“If you think the Raymond McCreesh playpark is going to help heal a divided society then I take it you have no interest in the ideal of uniting Protestant Catholic and dissenter.”
On the contrary am all for uniting all Irish people whether them be catholic, protestant, Muslim, Jew or even a mad old heathen like harry. 🙂 Also whether they be gay, lesbian, transexual, come from the EU, Syria or wherever.
What I don’t want in society is embittered people like yourself, who do nothing but take every opportunity to attack one section of the community which is still coming out of a conflict and who’s people are still suffering the traumatic effects from of which I am one.
“Did he do anything else apart from starve himself to death?”
Hatred will spawn hatred. Sinn Fein are leading by example in tolerance and reaching out.
Why dont you try and do the same before mocking them.
“It is up to you if you want to be united with your fellow Irishmen and women or not, but the alternative is what?”
We are united, we just don’t all get along and we have the added complication of two jurisdictions in one country.
If you want to be friends, try being friendly.
If you want to insult me or be opinions, don’t expect me to want to be your friend or be friendly back.
“Did he do anything else apart from starve himself to death?”
He waa convicted of trying to murder people.
Jude
I’m not sure what you mean?
If it is the ‘starve himself to death’ phrase that was jessica’s and you should take it up with her.
I am only querying her notion that it should not be a problem for unionists, given his involvement in the S Armagh brigade, and suspected connection to Kingsmill.
What others apart from republicans (and not all of those by any means) hold him in high regard?
I’m talking solely about the ‘what else did he do besides starve himself to death’. It has a nasty sort of ring to it – not like you, to be honest.
“I am only querying her notion that it should not be a problem for unionists”
gio, peace is about tolerance, respect and forgiveness.
To be honest, I have a problem with the union flag, with unionist attitudes, in fact I have a problem with everything british in ireland period,
Plenty of people could easily have a problem with 12th night bonfires, the burning of the irish flag and catholic figure effigies.
Plenty of people could easily have a problem with sectarian marches glorifying William of orange and the 1690 battle victory over Catholics, with orange order carrying weapons and symbols on main roads.
Plenty of people could easily have a problem with the commemoration of the british armed forces in Ireland.
Plenty of people could easily have a problem with british war memorials in ireland full stop.
Should we insist all are removed or is it only republican memorials you have issue with gio?
You sound very much like a unionist bigot to me.
Jude
I am not intending to be nasty but as Mark points out he is not remembered by everyone for the hunger strike alone.
That is why jessica’s expectation of tolerance is stretching things a bit in my view.
And that is why I think it is divisive rather than unifying, in the same way as the many unionist symbols have been divisive over the years.
Would you not agree?
jessica
You did not address the point. Do you think such things are divisive or unifying?
You pour out out hatred for unionists on an almost daily basis (do I need to provide quotes?) and accuse me of being bitter.
You support naming a playpark after a member of an organisation that killed hundreds of Irish men women and children yet you call me divisive?
You have suggested at different times I am a unionist, a supporter of FF, a supporter of SDLP, a defender of British Army murders, all without any evidence, all totally wrong since you seem to only half read what people write and make up the rest.
Depressing.
“You did not address the point. Do you think such things are divisive or unifying?”
gio, the country is divided, we have just had a 30 year conflict over that division.
There are polarised points of view and various shades in between.
There is no solution that will please everyone.
I know you think your opinion is more important than anyone else’s and you know best.
But lets take a reality check for a moment.
If you look up the word bigot, google describes it as “a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.”
Yes, I have had my fill of self righteousness being preached by people like yourself.
But lets stick to reality.
12th night bonfires are important to people in protestant estates, the like to burn my countries flag and symbols which I relate to.
I dont like what they do, but I respect it is important to them
I have said I would like to see Sinn Fein do more to help people in those areas. I would be happy that they get public money to help keep them safe and I can even live with the flag burning so long as no-one gets hurt and it doesn’t lead to gang fights with neighbouring catholics.
I hate seeing poppies every where ever year, it sickens me to my stomach, but it is important to a lot of people.
I think the UDR statue in lisburn is wring as is any memorial to the british army on this island.
There are lots of things nationalists could bitch and moan about, but I ask you to look again at the definition of bigot.
I could not think of anything more unifying and positive than unionist reciprocation in showing tolerance and respect towards at the very least memorials to the 10 men who gave their lives to defy british oppression in Ireland.
If you cannot do this, then don’t talk to me about unifying acts or peace.
There is no unification possible with unrepentant bigots.
jessica
Less of the bigot stuff please. Jude might notice (eventually).
When did I ever suggest my opinion had any more value than anyone elses?
We are just exchanging views here.
Some of the things you mention above are clearly divisive.
The statue in Lisburn is an example of one (in my view), as is the Raymond McCreesh playpark.
I have asked you several times if you agree but you are not answering.
Thank you, gio, for drawing my attention (as requested). Jessica – name-calling is OUT. If you’re going to label somebody as something uncomplimentary, supply evidence. Otherwise don’t post.
Jude, I think by now I have shown I can be more than reasonable and do not engage in name calling without good reason.
While no-one seems to deny there was a conflict in Ireland, it appears it is acceptable to label those who did not choose to support the british side as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. Gio has claimed he holds this group of which I am one, with nothing but contempt which are his words on your site.
You are perfectly well aware the derogatory remark against raymonds death was meant as an insult.
In his attempt to demonise this section of society, he also called into question whether I was committed to healing between catholic, protestant and dissenter because of my opinions, to which I responded, not only catholic and protestant, but Muslim, Jew and whatever race, creed, religion or sexual orientation.
My point being, that we should respect one another’s point of view whether we agree with it or not.
I have given examples where unionist flag burning, UDR statues and other things important to those from a unionist community could equally be seen as divisive, but the better response to support healing is not to attack them but to show tolerance, support and understanding.
I also said bonfires whether they burn my flag or not should receive public funding if it will ensure they are kept safe so children are not harmed and conditional that the events do not lead to fighting.
This is tolerance.
I did not simply call gio a bigot.
I posted this
“If you look up the word bigot, google describes it as “a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.”
Yes, I have had my fill of self righteousness being preached by people like yourself.”
I was comparing gios refusal to accept the opinions of this section of our community with Googles description of the word bigot.
I apologise if this was out of line but I did provide evidence to back up my assertion and will let people make their own minds up on the call.
My opinion is it is not by censorship or demonisation we will heal out community but by showing tolerance and understanding to one another’s views.
While Sinn Fein seem to have the patience of the saints to tolerate these attacks to the point they look more like whipping boys, I do not, and if you start a fight with me ,you will get a fight.
“I have asked you several times if you agree but you are not answering.”
No, it absolutely is not divisive gio. Not in the slightest, not one little bit more divisive than the statue in lisburn for example.
The only difference is Catholics and nationalists are more tolerant towards unionists and don’t make a song and dance about their behaviour.
Unionists on the other hand are less tolerant of other opinions and therefore will make a song and dance about such things.
It doesn’t matter to them, or you apparently that the majority of people in the location of the play park are perfectly happy with the name.
Answer me this, is it the name of the play park or the song and dance unionists create about that is divisive really?
How many times have unionists abused the veto of concern to control every single thing they don’t like.
It is peoples behaviour including your own that is divisive, not the name of the play park.
“Some of the things you mention above are clearly divisive.
The statue in Lisburn is an example of one (in my view), as is the Raymond McCreesh playpark.”
There are a lot of divisive things in our society, the border being only one.
Do you think tagging London into Derry was unifying or divisive?
Do you think having two soccer and hockey teams instead of one like all of the other sports including Rugby is unifying or divisive?
Is the Ulster Banner being flown at Northern Ireland football matches unifying or divisive?
Is God Save The Queen being sung at Northern Ireland football matches unifying or divisive?
I think we already agreed that bonfires and burning country flags is divisive.
Most of the rules and activities of the Orange Order are divisive.
If nationalists were constantly protesting about these things and demanding change, do you think some unionists would consider it as showing intolerance to their culture and things that are important to that community?
You have already stated that you have nothing but contempt for those who supported the republican movement during the conflict.
You then insult the memory of a hunger striker
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but you know well that there are those who will take offense at your remarks.
When you go down this road, we are not longer exchanging views, we are having an argument and a disagreement, hence the more aggressive response and my comparing the meaning of the word bigot to the intolerance being shown to republicans.
You said before, unionists will always be here and we should try to accommodate them.
Well, republicans or Irish who support physical force to remove britain will likewise always be here in all parts of this island.
So how do you think we should be accommodated, or perhaps you don’t and would prefer us to just go away?
The Pope coming to the North of Ireland is highly likely to be considered even more divisive than the name of a play park?
Should we tell the Pope to stay away as unionists might be offended at his presence?
I disagree completely that there is any issue over the play park.
Should we also rename Connolly station in Dublin as unionists in all parts of this island did not support the rising and don’t want the city station named after what they would describe as a terrorist justly executed for treason against the crown?
If you keep pushing this agenda, you wont bring unionists one bit closer but you will further divide the nationalist community.
That is the point I am trying to make to you.
jessica
You list lots of things that are divisive yet you think there is no issue over the Raymond McCreesh playpark? Bizarre. I must have dreamed it.
How did I insult his memory by the way?
You said he starved himself to death. I agreed but suggested that as a member of the S Armagh Brigade he was involved in other activities as well.Not only is that a matter of fact but from your point of view it is not insulting, but surely something to be proud of!
jessica,
You said;
“it appears it is acceptable to label those who did not choose to support the british side as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. Gio has claimed he holds this group of which I am one, with nothing but contempt”
It is the PIRA and other violent groups that I hold in contempt.
(I don’t think I used the term ‘terrorist’ as it inevitably leads to an argument about semantics.)
Those that now justify their actions are I believe wrong but they are perfectly entitled to hold that view.
Our whole society has tolerated flags bonfires parades all the stuff you mention for a long time. I would like us to have less of that kind of thing in the future. The same goes for things like childrens playparks named after IRA members.
If that makes me intolerant well then I hold my hands up.
But surely you would like to see less of these type of things in the future too,whether in a United Ireland or in our present situation?
I’m hoping we might reach agreement here rather than go round in circles for ever.
“It is the PIRA and other violent groups that I hold in contempt.”
And you are entitled to.
I feel the same way towards the British army and the British state who sent them here, allowed them to participate in violent actions and still today unjustly abuse control of legislation to cover it up.
But, we are a divided society coming out of conflict. There are going to be a lot of people who supported one side or another in that conflict and we cannot expect to have everything our own way. .
We are not going to get agreement if we do not show tolerance to one another’s differences and as you say, we will just go around in circles.
That means we respect to the things that are important in the other community. Can you imagine in the US, the American citizens watching a black march ending in a bonfire where they burn the American flag on television?
If the people in Leicester are happy to name their park after nelson Mandela, does it matter that a small minority might object to it over his connections to the ANC?
More importantly, what are the chances of peace if we refuse to show tolerance?
Us that the type of future you want, where we eternally condemn one another over our past?
Vilification of either side over the other is not acceptable and not wanted by most people on this island who just want peace and what is best for our futures.
If you think there is the slightest chance that PIRA will universally be condemned as the bad guys and we will all unite and move on, I assure you it isn’t going to happen.
jessica
How about a straight answer.
Do you agree that it would be better if we had less of these divisive things in the future.?
Less bonfires’ less flag burning’ less parades,less Raymond McCreesh playparks?
I know it will probably be a long reply but try and put either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ at the start of it!
“Do you agree that it would be better if we had less of these divisive things in the future.?”
Yes, the border for one and gradually all.
In terms of “bonfires’ less flag burning’ less parades, less Raymond McCreesh playparks?”
No, these things need to happen at the pace of those involved and not imposed by you or I for our own selfish opinions.
You cannot rush change through in a post conflict society.
Show me any one example of a country coming out of decades of conflict where such intolerance that you want to see has been imposed?
Is that clear enough for you.
jessica
I have already said previously that change will come about gradually.
But even though it may be a slow process I still want to see parks streets bridges whatever being named in a way that is not divisive and may even invoke some pride from all sections of our society.
I am baffled why we cannot agree on that but let us leave it at that.
“But even though it may be a slow process I still want to see parks streets bridges whatever being named in a way that is not divisive and may even invoke some pride from all sections of our society. I am baffled why we cannot agree on that but let us leave it at that.”
Well, lets hope that is where we get to in the end, but we aren’t going to get there is we cannot show tolerance to opinions we may not share or even agree with.
Now, if we could agree on that, that would be something.
What do you say gio?
To tangentialize slightly. It surfaced first on this fair blog and was later carried in the Irish News that hundreds of thousands of GBPs had been spent upgrading a junction on the main Dún Geanainn/A n Chorr Chríochach. This work was carried out for no apparent reason in the middle of nowhere on a road that has more dangerous junctions than this. Then the pingin dropped. This was the major turnoff for the great jewelled RUC trainining college to be (or not to be). Many redfaces in the DRD were quick to deny any link. But more was to come. A massive water main is in the process of being installed from a reserve reservoir out side Dún Geanainn in the direction of An Chorr Chríochach – a distance of 11 km – that just happens to terminate in the middle of nowhere. Yep, you’re right! The same nowhere that the new road junction had been constructed. All the rest of An C C’s water comes from Lough Fea – a massive supplier – but this water comes at great expense from the other direction. Could DRD have jumped the gun twice?
There is something serendipitously apt , Esteemed Blogmeister, about the fact that the sculptor who chiseled the blocky statue of Queen Victoria from a block of granite which graces the centre of Beal Feirste , was named Sir Thomas Brock.
As Gregory Campbell will be among the first to tell you, brock is the Leprechaun for badger. And during the melancholic childhood of Victoria, a childhood which verged on the gothic at times, the future Grandmother of Europe found herself being, erm, badgered on a daily basis.
As her mutter was Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg Saafeld this meant that her mutter’s mutter tongue was German and both mutter und tochter only ever uttered German to each utter in the mutter tongue of the mutter. Victoria’s vater, on the other hand, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn, was a native speaker of the Queen’s English. He died precipitously, and before his daughter had begun to mutter her first words.
Incidentally, contrary to rancid Republican propaganda of a goose-stepping nature, and lest a mistaken impression be given, the jolly song which the Hollies subsequently made popular is in no way applicable in this instance:
-Just one look, is all it took
Just one look.
For Victoria, unprepossessing tochterchen though she was, as contemporary portraits will attest, and despite the contemporary equivalent of servile air-brushing, was all of eight months of age, when her vater kicked the kubel. Now, this would have allowed the prematurely deceased Prince Edward ample opportunity to take more than one look at his tochter, even allowing for the legendary though cultivated disinterest royalty have always shown in their offspring.
Thus, the very first words which Victoria every uttered, at the early age of einz, were in her mutter tongue even thought it was not her mutter who taught he how to utter. This was a task handed over to a Hanover governess, the strict but unfair and fair-haired Louise Lehzen.
Thus, the infant Victoria was badgered into uttering German. Then, at the age of drei she was also badgered into speaking French and (of all things !) English, a compulsion which led her to be heard uttering many terms of less than endearment in her mutter tongue.
No doubt, Ruth, who is as famous for her ruthless pursuit of the accurate historical truth with all the civilized ferocity of Rhodesian Ridgeback as she is for stylish Edwardian duds, will have mentioned, even in passing, these linguistic, erm, secrets of Victoria, during the course, of the radio discussion, EB.
(The reference to the RR is purely of a thoroughbred complimentary nature, ar ndoigh,/sa va sans, dear).
According to one school of zoological psychology, badgering is a two way process. And so, at the age of zwanzig, Victoria (20) badgered Price Albert into morphing her into Hausfrau Saxe-Coburg Gotha. The universally recognized badge of badgering was evident in the date of her proposa: it did not coincide with the 29th of February. Which is not at all the same as the 15th of October, second fiddle with the figures with all the ferocity of a Paganini though one might. Or, even when it is translated into German.
Speaking of which, as Prince Albert was unable to mutter a word of the Q’s English, and with the by now Queen Victoria not much better, their lingua franca was the mutter tongue of both, not least in their pillow talk. Which proved as fluent as it was fertile: nine kinder all of whom went on to become betrothed with royal kinder of other European monarchies.
Hence the sobriquet: Grossmutter of Europe, the proto-type Angela Merkel of her era.
Rather reluctantly , it ought be pointed out (1) that just because Bertie A’s grasp of the Q’s English is truly Albertian, this is not sufficient prima facie evidence that he was named after his namesake; nor (2) the fact that Albert and Victoria were in fact (gasp) first cousins that this is the reason their progeny and descendants sport so many octagon-shaped heads, Morris Minor wing-mirror ears and Narcissistic eyes is down.
True, some are born grating, some have grateness thrust upon them but, let it never be overlooked, some achieve grateness solely on their own efforts. By gad, only cads of the deepest dye would wish (gulp) consanguinity to become as much a topic du jour as concussion.
Sadly, Prince Albert’s early demise was hastened by reports of his eldest son’s indulging in some rumpy pumpy on the Curragh of Kildare to which the Prince of Wales (for it was he !) did repair to, erm, bond with a bare-assed wench from the short-grass county.
Queen Victoria was amused at neither the reported rumpy pumpiness of her son or the definitive trump card of The Albert and so went into seclusion. The Widow of Windsor took to wearing the widow’s weeds for the rest of her long and lengthy life. Taking indeed to the deprivacy of her curtained four poster for much of that time, with only an uber-sized German Shepherd for company. If her pet basset hound of childhood, was called plain ‘Dash’, this canine of her widowhood was called ‘Das Hund’.
When, in her second widowhood, i.e., after the demise of ‘Das Hund’ she looked north and found solace in Balmoral. When seemingly she put the lilt into the kilt of a real Highland terrier of the boudoir and noted, erm, tosser of the caber. Who was also widely known as a whistler of ‘A bunch of tyme’, even as he pursued his favourite nocturnal sport.
When Billy Connolly was chosen to play the part of John Brown (for it was he !) in the fillum of that name, it came as no surprise to the average cineaste. For it is a given that the arch anti-Scottish Independence Connolly would gladly be buried in the bicycle shed of Buckingham Palace and/or Balmoral , with his thumping rump loyally protruding above the cement.
The easier, presumably, for the regal penny farthing to be parked.
As the long-sitting statue of Queen Victoria stands contagious to the Belfast City Hall, one is reminded that she was subject in her time to as many pot-shots as G. Adams is in, say, the Sindo. One example will suffice.
On 2nd March, 1882, Roderick McLean, a disgruntled poet apparently offended by Queen Victoria’s refusal to accept one of his pomes, shot at her carriage as it left Windsor Railway Station. Luckily, two schoolboys from nearby Eton College attacked him with their umbrellas until he was hustled away by a policeman. It wouldn’t be the first time in the history of these islands that a brolly was used in times of strife, as a implement of subjection.
Queen Victoria was reported to be outraged by the court’s finding the accused ‘innocent by reason of insanity’. A lady of rare mental acuity Her Majesty would have preferred if he had been found ‘ guilty by reason of his poetasting’.
To conclude, this being the day of the frightful 50th anniversary of the downing of Nelson’s whatchamaycolumn on Dublin’s Sackville Street by dint of a rear naked choke or sumpin, perhaps it might be prudent if not indeed politic to remove the statue of Queen Victoria in Belfast to a safer haven, at least till this 1916 commemoration thingy is safely over.
Mother Nature abhorring a vacuum , perhaps the historical hiatus might be filled best (as a reminder of how hund-loving a person Hausfrau Saxe-Coburg Goth was) by erecting twin statues:
-One of a Alsatian dog, the other a Rhodesia Ridgeback.
Not necessarily with their stickie bums conjoined.
Great.story.Jude.
Ta.J.i.m.
To be honest I would move a lot of the Imperial street furniture into museums where it would be well conserved (not attacked by weathering ), surrounded by fitting exhibition material, on view for whoever wanted to see it and studied and appreciated for what used to be.
i would include the statues of Edward Carson and arch-bigot Henry Cooke, the black man –
A better fate wouldn’t you say than what happened to Admiral Nelson in Dublin,( the 50th anniversary of whose demise as a public statue is around this time) or even Roaring Hugh Hanna who used to stand at Carlisle Circus in Belfast. he was the one that started all the sectarian bigotry in St patrick’s parish – which endures to this day, nearly 150 years later
https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/tale-of-a-blue-plaque-and-two-statues-presbyterianism-and-sectarianism-in-belfast/
I have to disagree with you on this one Jude.
I believe all symbols of Imperialism, of any sort, should be removed from society. It was wrong then and it is wrong now, so why should it be glorified?
Its the same with racism in old cartoons. We see racism being removed or edited from our TV screens (and rightly so). One I always remember is the racism seen in “Tom and Jerry”. Tom the Cat has a black owner who is fat lipped (though you very rarely ever see her face, just her lower body), she has a black, southern voice, its implied that she mostly eats water melon and chicken (a sterotype of African Americans), etc There’s many other examples. That racism was removed because, as one person put it: “it was wrong then and its wrong now”.
I think the statue of Queen Victoria should be removed from Belfast City Hall. Queen Victoria did very little good for Ireland, so why should it be there? She also died in 1901, I believe, so she and her era is long gone. I also believe the Royal Victoria Hospital should be renamed.
Belfast City Hall should reflect the population of the city. Its 2016, not 1916, Belfast is very far from the Unionist Citadel it use to be. Its disgraceful that 98% of all the emblems in BCH is British/Unionist when Irish Republicans have more seats than Unionists. Sinn Fein and the SDLP seem very inactive on this topic. True they got the Union flag moved to designated days but that’s nothing really. There are still very few Irish emblems. I remember going into BCH when I was on a school trip and there was just Unionist emblems everywhere. I even remember some of our school teachers making comments about this at the time.
I understand you are compromising Jude when you say you support the statue of Queen Victoria staying at BCH because it reflects the Unionist tradition but don’t hold your breath waiting for reciprocation from Unionism because none will be coming….
PS: In Ballymena Unionists are going on a campaign of removing water lids because they have a small, barely noticeable Irish word on them. This is the same people who are demanding respect for Orange “culture”……
Ryan
I went into the city hall in my school days and noticed a lot of Irish symbols, you’ve simply lazily pasted the ‘unionist’ symbols into the ‘non-Irish’ category.
For example, a UVF flag or a YCV flag or an Irish regimental flag are in effect ‘Irish symbols’ in the same way Scottish Highland regimental regalia is firmly in the ‘Scottish symbol’ camp.
If you went around city hall with greater tolerance as to what constitutes ‘Irish’ you might find that there are more Irish symbols than what you recall. Granted, they maybe ‘Irish unionist’ symbols but that doesn’t give anyone the right to purge them from the Irish category.
Republicans and Irish nationalists don’t get the final say on what is ‘Irish’.
(Though I agree with you on the yapping in Ballymena, they could just tell them that the offending signs were brought in from a Western Scottish water board of something and that it’s Scottish Gaelic or something; if you can’t convince them then confuse them!)
You are funny AG, I do like you.
You are my favourite unionist.
So what you are saying is, unionists should have total say over what symbols are on display and even though they see them all as british, because unionists are, in reality in fact Irish, then the same british symbols should sufficiently cover the Irish community also.
Brilliant!!
Problem sorts and no changes needed at all.
“So what you are saying is, unionists should have total say over what symbols are on display and even though they see them all as british”
Nope, that’s not what I’m saying at all.
Most unionists (politicians) are too nationalistic to judge fairly on such matters.
A red hand for example is clearly an Irish symbol. There’s no way around it. Is it a symbol that has been tainted by unionism and loyalism?
Most definitely. It’s still Irish though.
Jessica, could you try and apply a more literal approach to the words that I write please?
Sure, I use crap analogies and metaphors but when I give an example of Irish regimental standards as being ‘Irish’ that’s what I mean.
I do not imply a hidden layer of unionism-uber-alles or anything like that.
“A red hand for example is clearly an Irish symbol.”
I have never seen it as anything other than an Irish symbol. Usually I think of the Tyrone football team more than unionism and loyalism.
It is most definitely Irish, it is also on the Ulster flag which is also Irish.
What you are referring to is loyalists making up new British symbols which incorporate Irish symbols.
It wasn’t that long ago that unionists spoke Gaelic and considered themselves Irish only. Division came when a minority chose partition over independence for selfish reasons.
You analogies are ok AG, I just haven’t figured them out yet. It takes me a while to get an understanding so bear with me.
You still sound reasonable to me.
“It wasn’t that long ago that unionists spoke Gaelic and considered themselves Irish only.”
When was this?
MT
““It wasn’t that long ago that unionists spoke Gaelic and considered themselves Irish only.”
When was this?”
In the mid 19th century Belfast was arguably the academic Gaelic capital of Ireland courtesy of people like Lord Downshire and Robert Shipboy MacAdam.
Although not the everyday tongue of your average northern Protestant nonetheless people wouldn’t have batted an eyelid at Protestants speaking Gaelic (there was as many Gaelic speakers in the Shankill at the time as there were in the Falls area) and some unionist big wigs were proficient in Irish e.g. Edward Carson.
There’s so many examples that I couldn’t possibly highlight them here, a great place to start is here
http://www.ultach.dsl.pipex.com/ForLearners/A%20history%20of%20Protestant%20Irish%20speakers.pdf
or Dr Ian Malcolm’s book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Towards-Inclusion-Protestants-Irish-Language/dp/0856408484
As for unionists being ‘Irish’ Dr Brian Walker of QUB shows this to be the dominant attitude of northern Protestants over the course of the past 2 centuries and his dates show a correlation of sorts between certain events and the ‘surrender’ of Irish identity e.g. partition and then of course the Troubles (the final nail in the coffin).
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dancing-Historys-Tune-History-Politics/dp/0853896194/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457548823&sr=1-1&keywords=dancing+to+history%27s+tune
Another fascinating book.
“As for unionists being ‘Irish’ Dr Brian Walker of QUB shows this to be the dominant attitude of northern Protestants over the course of the past 2 centuries and his dates show a correlation of sorts between certain events and the ‘surrender’ of Irish identity e.g. partition and then of course the Troubles (the final nail in the coffin).”
It died out rapidly after partition, and both the catholic church trying to revive it and the nationalist resurgence when the troubles started would of course have made it untouchable for unionist protestants, the final nail in the coffin as you say AG.
I suppose many unionists today would see acceptance of anything irish as likely to help move things towards re-unification and to be honest, they would probably be right but that is the way things are going to go regardless.
It would make more sense for all parts of this island to reconcile with one another on equal terms, no winners and no losers and you never know where it may lead. The only thing we have in common is our irishness. Unless unionism can somehow reclaim the right to their irish identity in terms that it can live with, unionism is doomed to a downward spiral towards non existence via the road to irrelevance.
The drumcree march and the flag protests are examples of its future if it continues to isolate itself on this island.
The conflict may be over but until we understand exactly what happened, how can we put it behind us?
“It died out rapidly after partition”
What is the evidence to support this assertion that Irish identity died out rapidly after partition?
“It died out rapidly after partition”
What is the evidence to support this assertion that Irish identity died out rapidly after partition?”
Jeez, can you not have a conversation without asking for evidence for every bloody statement?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language_in_Northern_Ireland
“From the early years of the Northern Ireland government, education in Irish was marginalised. The number of primary schools teaching Irish was halved between 1924 and 1927, and numbers studying Irish as an extra subject fell from 5531 to 1290 between 1923 and 1926. The subsidy for Irish as an extra subject was abolished in 1934.[5]”
That is all I meant. I struggle greatly with Irish, but it something I would like to be able to do.
Hopefully as I get older and (I hope) start to slow things down work wise, I can take the time to learn it properly.
“From the early years of the Northern Ireland government, education in Irish was marginalised. The number of primary schools teaching Irish was halved between 1924 and 1927, and numbers studying Irish as an extra subject fell from 5531 to 1290 between 1923 and 1926. The subsidy for Irish as an extra subject was abolished in 1934.[5]”
Why are you quoting information about Gaelic language education? I asked got evidence to support your claim that the Irish identity died out rapidly among unionists after partition?
“I asked got evidence to support your claim that the Irish identity died out rapidly among unionists after partition?”
I didn’t mean among unionists, I meant full stop. I can barely string a sentence together.
I don’t give a shit about unionists MT
I respect that some people do, but I don’t. I’ve had my fill im afraid.
“I didn’t mean among unionists, I meant full stop.”
That still doesn’t explain why you provided evidence about the Gaelic language.
“That still doesn’t explain why you provided evidence about the Gaelic language.”
It was just what came up on a Google search MT, best I could get im afraid.
AG is much more prepared for these things, obviously an experienced blogger where I just ramble off the top of my head more from life’s experiences than evidence based conversation.
When was this?”
“In the mid 19th century Belfast was arguably the academic Gaelic capital of Ireland courtesy of people like Lord Downshire and Robert Shipboy MacAdam.”
Sure, but that was a tiny academic elite. When did unionists in general speak Gaelic and consider themselves Irish only? And where is the evidence that even this academic elite thought of itself as Irish only (i. e. not British)?
“Although not the everyday tongue of your average northern Protestant nonetheless people wouldn’t have batted an eyelid at Protestants speaking Gaelic (there was as many Gaelic speakers in the Shankill at the time as there were in the Falls area) and some unionist big wigs were proficient in Irish e.g. Edward Carson.”
And where’s the evidence that they considered themselves to be Irish only?
“As for unionists being ‘Irish’ Dr Brian Walker of QUB shows this to be the dominant attitude of northern Protestants over the course of the past 2 centuries …”
Obviously. But where’s the evidence that they considered themselves to be Irish only?
MT
As I said earlier Gaelic wouldn’t have been the everyday language of your everyday northern Protestant.
It depends how you interpret Jessica’s comment i.e. I didn’t interpret it to mean ‘ALL unionists’ rather I interpreted it as ‘there was a time when it wasn’t uncommon or frowned upon for unionists to speak Gaelic’ and as I said before there are just so many examples of this that I don’t have the time to list them, if you are truly interested then follow the first link.
It’s a shame that there wasn’t much research done on the Gaelic speakers of the Ulster 36th, having their stories documented would have done wonders for the modern discussion of the topic.
With regards to the ‘Irish only’ aspect, well yes, that’s a stretch.
My understanding is that most unionists and/or Protestants regarded themselves as Irish but also (being part of the UK and empire) saw themselves as British too.
Ghandi for a while saw himself as British and numerous people throughout the empire were ‘British’ but also something else e.g. Sir Edmund Hillary was obviously a British hero (in those days) but he was a Kiwi too.
So if you want evidence that they considered themselves ‘Irish only’ then of course you won’t find it likewise if you go searching for evidence that pre-partition Irish Protestants saw themselves as ‘British only’ you won’t find that either.
Being ‘British’ wasn’t the big deal then that it is now, it was probably more of a ‘given’ back then, similar to the way most of us now don’t bat an eyelid at being called European these days (UKIP notwithstanding), something that would have been frowned upon a century ago in polite UK society.
“It’s a shame that there wasn’t much research done on the Gaelic speakers of the Ulster 36th, having their stories documented would have done wonders for the modern discussion of the topic.”
I only recently discovered by great grandfather was in the Ulster 36th.
A family member has researched it more and has all of the details.
He died in the war in an explosion but won medals. My great grandmother binned them later after partition and how Catholics were treated, it was never really talked about in my family thereafter, as if it was something to be ashamed about.
I wonder how many northern republicans also fought in the Ulster 36th?
I know there was at least 1 and probably a lot more.
I get the feeling that partition and the troubles have created the gulf between us and that prior to partition, we had a lot more in common than we have today.
MT
““It died out rapidly after partition”
What is the evidence to support this assertion that Irish identity died out rapidly after partition?”
I suppose it depends if you get hung-up on the adverb ‘rapidly’ but between partition (or the Home Rule era) the number of Northern Protestants who saw themselves as Irish fell from something like 90+% to 20% by the time of the late 60’s.
After the troubles kicked off this fell to something like 2%.
Now, this is coming from Dr Brian Walker’s book that I linked earlier (chapter 6, ‘Irish identity’ methinks).
If you really want the evidence for this then I suggest you contact him.
But the man is a respected academic in what is a very tricky field in Northern Ireland (political history) and that should surely count for something as given the cut throat nature of academic rivalry one fell-step could sink his reputation.
Thanks, AG
“It was wrong then and it is wrong now, so why should it be glorified?”
Do you think republicans should be allowed to have their own memorials in their own communities or should they be disallowed because some see it as wrong?
They are trying to stop a 1916 commemoration being built in a republican estate in Lurgan because it is on public property. Our taxes are less important than theirs I assume.
But do you really think leaving british symbols is glorifying them, even in Dublin for example where there are plenty of symbols of queen victoria?
“I think the statue of Queen Victoria should be removed from Belfast City Hall. ”
I would rather leave it and add one of James Connolly who spent more time in Belfast than she ever did.
“PS: In Ballymena Unionists are going on a campaign of removing water lids because they have a small, barely noticeable Irish word on them. This is the same people who are demanding respect for Orange “culture”……”
Just because unionists are bigots, does not mean we should follow suit.
I agree with your post Ryan and everything you are saying. But we must show equality even though it wasn’t shown to Nationalists. We must give respect in order to receive it.
Martin McGuinness’s idea of having Joint First Ministers is good, its shows equality and maturity and promotes an Ireland of equals.
The nationalists in NI have been greatly wronged in many ways throughout the years, but so have people of unionist persuasion in the 26 and the 6.
Id say let the British symbols stay there, let it be a reminder to them of times gone by. But let Irish symbols be equally displayed too.
As i said earlier, the old British crown symbol hangs high and mightily beside the Tricolour on Monaghan Court House, the town itself a planned diamond plantation town. Both traditions respected.
“Martin McGuinness’s idea of having Joint First Ministers is good, its shows equality and maturity and promotes an Ireland of equals.”
Makes sense when both positions are equal and the DUP are using the fear and division tactic just to get their vote out.
Hardly the best interest of the people but then, when have they ever been honest with their electorate?
Enda Kenny as Taoiseach for another 5 years, now that is a scary thought.
“With one proviso: since nationalists and republicans accept the icons of Britain so liberally sprinkled around Belfast City Hall and throughout the city – the King’s Hall, the Queen’s Bridge, Balmoral, Prince Charles’s Way, etc, – let’s have less caterwauling from unionists the next time nationalists and/or republicans unveil a memorial honouring those they revere.”
It would have been nice to have had a memorial to James Connolly unveiled in Belfast for the centenary.
a large bronze statue of Connolly is to unveiled on the Falls in time for the centenary. The statue is to be erected outside the Falls Community Council.
http://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/northern-ireland-home-james-connolly-9959344
link’s rather old – I don’t know how or indeed if this project is progressing
“It would have been nice to have had a memorial to James Connolly unveiled in Belfast for the centenary.”
I agree Jessica, Sinn Fein and the SDLP have been very lax when they could’ve been putting through proposals for a new state for the grounds of Belfast City Hall or somewhere similar.
“I agree Jessica, Sinn Fein and the SDLP have been very lax when they could’ve been putting through proposals for a new state for the grounds of Belfast City Hall or somewhere similar.”
I think Sinn Fein are trying to distance themselves from such things which could and would be used against them to show how divisive and bad they are (just kook at gios posts to see what I mean), and to a degree I can see the merit in them keeping out.
It is time the irish community in the north started seeking such things themselves through other mechanisms and not to be completely dependant on Sinn Fein to fight for every single thing we want.
Sorry meant “statue”, instead of state.
Everyone was racist in Rhodes’ day. Different times.
Different times indeed MT, the distinction being that Unionism/Loyalism today is still inherently racist ,sectarian and unable to leave the red mist of losing their past inglorious days of dominance and assumed superiority behind. Is Éireannach mé, poblachtach , tá Gaeilge agam….I am an Irishman, a repblican , I speak Irish ……that does not make me a monster …….I don’t harbour or possess a racist or sectarian thought , my ethos is equality for all irrespective of race, religion or sexual orientation but that can only be attained when we have true parity of esteem….something that appears to be alien to 50% of the population here and that in itself is a throwback to Britain and her shameful, dishonourable past …..her ignominious days of imperial empire