I’m on holidays in France and I can’t begin to tell you how far away our divisions and accusations seem. The weather is warm, the streets full of holiday-makers, most of them French, and nobody knows or cares a damn about the state of society and politics in our North-East Nest. It’s at times like this I wonder what we might have achieved if we didn’t have to expend so much energy on trying to live with each other.
But while I think my blog output will be thin over the next week or so, right now I can’t help myself glancing through the on-line media to find out what people are saying. Simon Berthon appears to have a book to flog, so he’s writing in the Irish Times. As a veteran reporter from here, he should know what’s what, and by and large he does.
The main point of his article – besides mentioning his book – is that the past here has been airbrushed out for the sake of peace and now political opportunism. He has a point. Nobody wants to see Gerry Adams being arrested again (OK, OK, Virginia, some devoutly wish that, but not those concerned with political progress) or that alleged links between the UDA and the DUP be too closely investigated. As Berthon says:
“ We have no ambivalence when the sins and betrayals of purely criminal pasts rebound, sometimes decades later, on lives in the present. We tread less certainly when those sins are not purely “criminal” but associated with conflict where the distinction between “good” and “bad” turns grey.”
It’s an interesting article and I have only a couple of important points that I think Berthon has left out, either deliberately or because he’s been conditioned over the years to think a certain way.
He’s right that we distinguish between those who are criminal and those who, in the course of the conflict, indulged in violent acts. But to talk as he does about good and bad turning to grey when faced with political violence here is simple-minded. You’ll rarely read an article suggesting that the Normandy landing was grey, or that violence today in Syria is grey, or that the wars that mankind has been engaging in since the beginning of time were grey. No, those war-actions are described as the Defence forces ‘serving’ overseas. In the case of the Second World War, no one suggests that German soldiers should be held to account for their actions during that time. If you’re a pacifist, fine: you’ve got every right to criticise the use of political violence in our NEN and elsewhere. If you’re not a pacifist, you have to accept that most of the violence during our Troubles was motivated by desire for a political goal. Which is precisely what just about all wars are fought for. So enough with the grey, Simon.
The second failure in the article, and one which really shouldn’t occur some thirty and more years after our conflict has ended, is that no mention is made of the violence of the British armed forces in our NEN. Only a few days ago I recounted the kind of thing that the British army, directly or indirectly, got up to on a regular basis here. And as we all know, whether we admit it or not, the claim of Britain to jurisdiction over our NEN is at the heart of the differences and conflict here.
It’s about time that the British Secretary of Stage and others were reminded of this, each time they try to present themselves as neutral chairmen, flying in from London to bring peace and civilization to these damned feuding paddies.
We hear much about truth recovery. Let’s start with that one: Britain Was A Combatant. BWAC. Say it three times – it forms the lips in a convenient spitting-shape.
The Wannabe Wallabies of West Britain, whose wall-eyed views find expression via the go-be-the-wall pages of The Unionist Times even as they sup their China cups of Earl Grey Tea in midmorning , with small finger extended at the approved angle, will surely hop, step and jump to purchase ‘Woman of State’ by Richard Brehon, oops, Berthon.
Which TUT has thoughtfully flagged in the full expectation of flogging more copies for one of those former boy-wonder, underpaid coffee-nosed, not, types in the BBC.
The BBC is of course the de jure outlet for the approved views of the Kangaroos.
What the Wannabe Wallabies of West Britian, i.e., in RTE most profoundly desire is to be best mates with the Kangaroos of the Mainland. They wish indeed to be seen – as in the Land of Oz – as the Western Grey Kangaoos of RTE to their Eastern Grey Kangaroos of the BBC.
RTE, ar ndóigh, is the Broadcasting Wing of The Unionist Times and after they have mated with the BBC, i.e. become best mates forever, the results are not quite what they’d hoped for. For, when they look in their pouches – ouch ! – their pay packets are smaller.
Indeed, not unlike the results of the ill-advised union of horse and donkey (see under Great Donkey Derby 14-18) the result is a, erm, mule.
Male mules and female mules are not paid equally, neither.
Hee-Haw get to hew and carry more moola than She-Haw, as it were.
Small wonder that a certain word comes to mind as a result of all this ill-advised cop-ulation. Yes, indeed, The S-word. No, not Shoneenism, but a synonym:
-Sterility.
Think: the Late, Late Show: thus, the soon to be late, latté sipping TUT is, sadly, in the throes of self-induced extinction.
This inevitable lamentable outcome arises because the Wannabe Wallabies of West Britain see themselves as belonging to the same taxonomic family as the Mainland Kangaroo, i.e, the Morsupial or the Morally Superior. Though, in truthiness, the t-term, toxicnomic is nearer the mark, zooogically speakjing, going backward.
On this, the very day when the neo-Chief Justice of the Leo Freeo Southern Stateen is named, it behoves one to diversify into a small Erse-free verse in a big horsehair wig:
50 Shades of Earl Grey Tea
The Brehon Laws never foresaw that Lá
They’d be replaced by local Lord Hawhaw
Kangaroo courts
Aka news reports
Confirm Common L. fits the FSS chihuaha.
Bonnes Vacances, Seigneur honoré Blog !
“…….. And watch where you throw your butts”
I’ve never seen anyone argue that if you arent a pacifist then you can’t express an opinion on the rightness of violence in particular circumstances. That’s a bit mad.
Tam you seem to be reasonably literate, so how do you misinterpret so many pieces of plain English? Maybe you should stick to blogs that are easier to comprehend, you have clearly no idea what is being said in any of the blogs I have seen you comment on.
Tam
Of course not. Being a pacifist or not is irrelevent.
Most of us can distinguish between when violence is clearly justified as in immediate self defence and when it is not as in murder. In between there are all kinds of situations with varying degrees of right and wrong and indeed shades of grey.
That’s why international bodies have tried to establish some kind of criteria by which to judge these things and that is necessary even though it will always be an imperfect instrument.
But Jude appears to think that if you’re not a pacifist, you can’t oppose particular acts of violence unless you oppose them all.
Tam
I have discussed that with Jude in the past and I am not sure that is his view.
Saying that many violent conflicts have been about political goals doesn’t really get us anywhere in my view, since some political goals may be just and necessary while others may be unjust or unnecessary.
Violent actions are often not black and white when we try to judge them.
There is an attempt being made at present (as in this article) to make an equivalence between republican violence in recent times and other conflicts such as WW2, so that we will come to view them as being the same morally.
I would strongly disagree with that view.
I’m afraid I would share your suspicion.
It seems that Jude can’t bring himself to condemn the IRA but nor does he want to say he supported them, although he is coming close to trying to legitimise the IRA by apparently saying they are no different to national armies because their aims were political.
So is all political violence good or all bad?
It’s a pretty stupid argument to be honest.
Appearances then are deceptive, Tam. Because I admire people who reject all forms of violence does not mean I abhor anyone who doesn’t reject violence in all forms. For example, if you came at me with a machete, Tam, I might feel justified in hitting you with a wet dishcloth, thus temporarily (?) confusing you….
So you *do* distinguish between right violence and wrong violence.
That contradicts what you’ve said in your blog.
Let you into a little secret Jude-no one in Donegal, Louth or Leitrim gives a damm either
Gaz,
I know several people in Donegal who care deeply.
Cor. The things you learn on this site…
Are Tam and gaz the same people?
Gaz Padraig MacLochlann and Pearse Doherty would care in Donegal. Leitrim gave us John Joe.McGirl. Dundalk is hugely republican; Adams topped the pole there. Just sayin’.