Documentary maker Maurice Fitzpatrick apparently feels the need to attempt to restore John Hume to his place in history. In a documentary to be screened at the Galway Film Festival entitled ‘In the name of peace: John Hume in America’ Fitzpatrick claims he wants to correct the view of history which he says has almost written the former SDLP leader out.
Now to begin with I was not aware that John Hume needed restored to his place in history. His role would be hard to ignore but it should not be overstated either. One of the people Fitzpatrick quotes is Eamonn McCann who apparently says Hume does not feature in history talks given to visitors until the Hume Adams dialogue that eventually led to the cease fire. According to the Irish Times Hume was ‘a key force in Derry politics’ but was he? Undoubtedly he was a key force in Irish politics both in Europe and in the US but locally not so much. In Derry politics Hume was a revered figure in many quarters but one who was seen as a bit removed from the daily struggles facing the people of the Bogside and Creggan.
He did not share their suffering nor even understand what they were going through as events such as Bloody Sunday, the Hunger Strikes, the super-grass trials and shoot to kill swept through those areas. Hume was a shrewd operator and never antagonised local people the way Gerry Fitt did in Belfast but he had little or no real influence on the streets of Derry at the height of the war.
This I believe and I must stress this is my personal view for several reasons. Firstly while people may have voted SDLP there was always a disconnect between that party and the reality on the ground. For two decades the SDLP played catch up as they desperately tried to get back in front of events but failed to do so.
Leaders like Hume came to the fore with the advent of the civil rights and were in the forefront but as events spiralled towards violence the role of Hume and others like him became irrelevant. A brief history of Derry shows that as the clash with the Apprentice Boys on August 12 (The Battle of the Bogside) loomed nearer and nearer it was not to Hume people looked for leadership but the much more militant Derry Citizens Defence Committee.
Then as the 1970s dawned and violence became more commonplace the nascent SDLP struggled to find a place. The shooting of two Derry men in 1971 saw them withdraw from Stormont in protest but even this move was thwarted with the introduction of internment resulting in the SDLP being presented with a fait accompli as the nationalist community basically withdrew from the state.
This was never a place the SDLP was comfortable in and so they always sought to get people off the streets and back to talking and the like. Bloody Sunday was another case in point as Hume called for people not to support the march only to be caught out by events again. Then with the fall of Stormont the SDLP almost broke their backs to get into talks with the British despite the ongoing existence of internment without trial.
For the rest of the next two decades the role of the SDLP was confined to almost pleading with the British government to grant them concessions. Of course the subtext was that if the British did not grant them the concessions the SDLP would point over their shoulder at the big bad republicans coming behind them.
People could point to the Anglo Irish Agreement as a major achievement but to be honest what did it really achieve? Not all that much apart from a change in the optics.
Perhaps the biggest failing is actually touched upon in the article about the documentary when Fitzpatrick claims that Hume ‘nailed his colours to the mast and defined the problem as being about reconciliation. Hume hammered this point home for years with what journalists unkindly described as ‘his single transferrable speech.’ But seeing the solution lying in reconciliation is a bit like a doctor treating the symptoms of a disease but refusing to tackle the causes.
The need for reconciliation in the North stems from the unequal positions of the two communities and that inequality in favour of unionism is created and bolstered by the British presence. As long as there is a British presence then unionism, and this has been borne out by events even to this day, see no need to treat their nationalist neighbours as equals. So to get real reconciliation needs more than fine speeches it needs the removal of whatever it is that creates that inequality in other words the British presence.
People bemoan the eclipse of the SDLP as if it is somehow Sinn Fein’s fault people prefer to vote for them. Maybe people just think that party defines the problem and the solution better. Who knows?
How can we have reconciliation when despite all the sectarian bigotry with its accompanying arrogance disrespect and discrimination imposed by the Protestant/Unionist people on the Catholic minority, they still do not believe they have done anything wrong ..??
You mean there’s no John Hume Boulevard nor no John Hume Bridge in Londonderry? The could bring in the ILA and call it the John Hume Act. That would enshrine his name for posterity.
I havent watched the program but the last couple of the lines in Eamonn McDermotts review of the program might be telling as to the whole thrust of the authors take on John Hume and the times. It would appear to me that Hume in his single transferrable speech was preaching the notion of consent and that SF by adopting that same consent position for upwards of 20 years now is, by any logic or reason, confirmation that John Hume was right all along.
Why would anybody feel the need to restore John Hume to his place in history? I would have thought that place is assured, as he is a veritable giant compared to people like Paisley and McGuinness.
I hold no brief for any political party. I have never voted SDLP. Last couple of elections I voted SF. But I take issue with the point that SDLP “broke their backs to get into talks despite the ó going existence of internment without trial”. The Provos also entered into negotiations with the Brits during internment.
An overpraised man who did nothing for community relations-was more interested in getting patted on the head by American Politicians
The fact that most people who once voted for Hume/SDLP,now vote for,or are members of SF tells it’s own story.Believe it or not,but some “dissidents ” are now in the SDLP,watch that one.
Sounds a bit like the Peoples Front of Judea, or was it the Judean People’s Front……what did John Hume ever do for us?
It looks like the Nobel peace Prize judges, the Ghandi Peace award judges and the Martin Luther King peace award judges were all wrong. Oh and don’t forget voters for Ireland’s greatest person.
“Hume was a shrewd operator and never antagonised local people the way Gerry Fitt did in Belfast”
genuine question – what did Gerry Fitt do to antagonise local people in belfast? – Why was his house shot up, why did he become lord fitt ? any specific info from back then?
Interesting piece. Clearly the people on the ground didn’t support the SDLP but surely Hume does deserve some recognition for his role?
It’s sickens me that SF who are a socialist party supporting abortion are getting so much support. There needs to be a party representing people of faith who are appalled by abortion.
At the moment the only Ines holding the line are the DUP.
Abortion is a genocide and the biggest human rights abuse in history so it’s time for a change in politics to be courageous enough to speak the Truth which is that God is the creator and no one can destroy His creation! And SF does not reflect that!
It’s safe to say, I believe, that John Hume’s place in modern Irish history is relatively secure. It would seem, however, that attempts are being made in some areas to minimize and discredit some of his achievements and there is evidence to that effect in a few of the ill informed petty-mindedness of several comments here.
I have known John and his family for most of my life but I have never voted either for him or his party. Indeed , when he first stood for Stormont in 1969, I actively campaigned for his opponents.
Some time back, I watched an RTE programme on Thatcher and Ireland. It featured interviews with most of those who had been politically involved at the time but Hume did not feature at all. At the time, I assumed that it was a production value issue since John’s failing health had by then precluded public interviews. Nevertheless, it meant that a false impression was being presented to viewers. The Anglo-Irish Agreement, which gave Dublin a say in the affairs of the Six Counties, was depicted as the sole work of Gareth FitzGerald. Regardless of one’s views of that particular , political milestone , it was a calumny by the programme makers to exclude Hume’s contribution to the process.
History appears to be repeating itself. To claim that Hume did not empathise with the feelings and sufferings of the people in Bogside and Creggan is quite plainly wrong. He was not there on the streets of Derry every day because he had been elected to Brussels and worked tirelessly to affect real change at home by attracting investment to the City. Given the media images of the time, that was a considerable challenge but Hume did have some lasting success in that area. That he was consistently and democratically elected by unassailable for over thirty years must mean that the electorate had faith in his methods. The week before Bloody Sunday, he led a march across the beach at Magilligan and was confronted by the paras. He warned the organisers of the march on Bloody Sunday that there was a distinct possibility of danger for participants. Some here have stated their judgement on that but , rightly or wrongly, Hume was clinging to his long-held and principled belief in the efficacy of non-violence and the horror in peoples’ lives of its antithesis.
With others, John was a founder of credit union in Derry. Half the population are now members and anecdotally, many will confirm that it was the greatest thing that ever came into their lives. He gave his time selflessly to the development of the movement throughout Ireland.
John is a man of some principle but has well documented character failings ; for a politician to have self interest is scarcely an earth shattering revelation. He has never had any interest in material acquisition but has often been slow to attribute credit or recognition for achievement to colleagues.
The issue is not really whether we agree with John’s form of politics, often intensely personal but usually principled, but whether he deserves any credit for change in the north of the island. Some here, like Martin , seem to believe that he was a fraud and that he lacked courage. That certainly was not my experience of the man that I know extremely well.
History will be kind to him.
Sorry John not me.
I feel that although eccentrically self centred, john Hume has done more for this island in the past 50years than all the rest combined.
You must remember he and the SDLP of the time were up against an intransigent Unionist bloc, a ruthless British war machine and an IRA whose response was often to intimidate and threaten anyone from a nationalist background who disagreed with them.
Respect to this man and we will be forever in his debt.
Sorry , Martin. The irony of your rhetorical question eluded me at first reading. It seems that we are largely in agreement on the history of John’s contribution to political life in the Six Counties.
I asked him to be the keynote speaker at an event that I was organising in Glasgow University about 12 years ago. At the time , there were already some indications that his healthy was in decline. However, he readily agreed to speak, would take no fee and came across with Pat. He delivered a 10 000 word paper on Credit Union and Social Inclusion which has been reprinted in several languages across Europe and is regarded in the Credit Union movement as a seminal piece of work. That’s the measure of the man whom some minnow-trolls would now seek to delegitimise.
John
Two very fair contributions above and a necessary corrective to some of the bile that is routinely trotted out on this blogspot to the S D L P and John Hume.Normally the bloggers of such invective tend to be young(eg Donal Lavery) but one might have expected a slightly more mature contribution from a journalist such as Eamonn.Surely a journalist should champion freedom of expression to documentary makers such as Maurice Fitzpatrick even though he as a Sinn Fein member,he is clearly no admirer of Hume!The denigration of John Hume is ironic when one of the first tweets from the new Westminister M P was about the size of her room in London.Lets see if she can attract as much inward investment to Derry as Hume.
Normally I don’t reply to comments but just one or two points I feel I should answer. I would take issue with the terms ‘bile’ and ‘invective’ I deliberately did not go down that road but presented an argument on John Hume and the SDLP which I believe reflects their place in the North. Secondly I gave John Hume a lot of credit for his work in Europe and US. As regards freedom of expression I have no bother with Maurice Fitzpatrick’s documentary having a particular point of view but surely I am allowed to hold an alternative view. Lastly could you explain the reference to Sinn Fein membership. Thanks.
Eamonn
Apologies if I presumed Sinn Fein membership on your part.As most of the bloggers and posters on Jude’s blogspot seem to revel in their steadfastness to S F,I naturally tend to assume that a blogger making criticisms (albeit nuanced)of John Hume,would naturally be a member .My references to “bile “and “invective ” would perhaps be more appropriately directed at Messrs Lavery and Cairns who during the recent election campaigns made a consistent issue of personal attacks on various S D L P candidates.Would you accept however,that the current Westminister M P has a lot to live up to,in terms of bringing investment to Derry,compared to John Hume?