On this day in 1981 Bobby Sands began his Hunger Strike

bobbysands81 · 01-03-2014 9:17am #1

Like him, loathe him or indifferent to him his actions, and those of his comrades, irrevocably changed the face of Irish politics.

During the course of the Hunger Strike Bobby Sands was elected as a Member of British Parliament.

His election, though not as a Sinn Féin candidate, showed Sinn Féin the massive support that was latent out there that could potentially be tapped into. This was a direct continuation on from Kieran Nugent's initial refusal in 1976 to wear prison clothes "nor meekly serve my time" which, together with Bobby's election, has led to the Peace Process on this island.

Throughout the world Bobby Sands is held up as a figure of resistance and equality and is internationally respected... but not so much by authorities in his own country.

If we really are a 'mature nation' it's time we properly embraced our past and heroes like Bobby Sands and remembered them with the love and pride they deserve, not the disdain, embarrassment and confusion that many exude mainly due to a lack of knowledge.

Bobby Sands and others didn't cause the war, they merely fought back. Fighting back against an invading aggressive army is never wrong.

How this country could do with Bobby Sands today, the time is coming that we will soon hear the laughter of our children.

"I may die, but the Republic of 1916 will never die. Onward to the Republic and liberation of our people"

Black Swan · 01-03-2014 11:14am

MOD MOVING COMMENT:
This thread is of historical nature and may be better featured in the History and Heritage forum. It's being moved locked, so that mods may review it for appropriateness.

jonniebgood1 · 01-03-2014 6:43pm

A very noteworthy figure in Irish history. I think a thread that debates his actions and the effect he had on Irish history is fine. I would note though that the charter will be strictly enforced at moderators will on any poster that is deemed to be trying to derail thread.

Einhard · 01-03-2014 9:00pm

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Like him, loathe him or indifferent to him his actions, and those of his comrades, irrevocably changed the face of Irish politics.

You start off so well...

During the course of the Hunger Strike Bobby Sands was elected as a Member of British Parliament.

His election, though not as a Sinn Féin candidate, showed Sinn Féin the massive support that was latent out there that could potentially be tapped into. This was a direct continuation on from Kieran Nugent's initial refusal in 1976 to wear prison clothes "nor meekly serve my time" which, together with Bobby's election, has led to the Peace Process on this island.

And continue in a nice, objective vein...

Throughout the world Bobby Sands is held up as a figure of resistance and equality and is internationally respected... but not so much by authorities in his own country.

Which then begins to crumble...

Bobby Sands is unknown t the vast majority of people internationally. To some who have heard of him, he is a hero and well-respected. To others, he represents violent terrorism. Others don't have an opinion either way. To claim however, that he is "internationally respected" is ludicrous. I have friends from many countries. It would be daft however, to claim, on that basis, that I am internationally liked. And it's equally as spurious to claim international respect for Bobby Sands on the basis of a street in Tehran, and a partisan and narrow reading of disparate viewpoints.

If we really are a 'mature nation' it's time we properly embraced our past and heroes like Bobby Sands and remembered them with the love and pride they deserve, not the disdain, embarrassment and confusion that many exude mainly due to a lack of knowledge.

Mature nations generally have populations with disparate viewpoints. Mature societies respect differing opinions. And mature people don't seek to paint different opinions as the product of ignorance. Nice try, but it's nonsense.

Fighting back against an invading aggressive army is never wrong.

Ummm, yes it can be. It all depends on the tactics and strategy one employs. It's very naive to think that the act of fighting back automatically enobles all who follow that case, regardless of actions is naive in the extreme.

How this country could do with Bobby Sands today, the time is coming that we will soon hear the laughter of our children.

I hear the laugther of children every day.

johnny_doyle · 02-03-2014 12:57am

and Roger Casement returned home (1st March 1965)

twowheelsgood · 02-03-2014 9:48am

Bobby Sands, as a physical force republican, presents a problem that few others do. He certainly did present himself to the people and was massively endorsed. What exactly the people endorsed in a matter of opinion. I disagree with the OP who thought it was latent support for Sinn Fein and think in truth, it was a vote greatly swelled by the anger of nationalists at the British handling of the hunger strikes.

But the road Bobby Sands originally took was not endorsed by the Irish people. In the late 20th century, as now, and even perhaps before, the Irish did not and do not sanction physical force to bring about a united Ireland.

If we were to upgrade his official status to Irish hero surely we are giving licence to current and future groups who would use force to being about political ends (and they need not even be republicans) who would not need worry about mandates from their peers as their more enlightened descendents will redeem their reputations?

pedroeibar1 · 02-03-2014 2:35pm

OP is a rather trite rosetinted view and quite inaccurate in many of its claims.

bobbysands81 wrote: »

If we really are a 'mature nation' it's time we properly embraced our past and heroes like Bobby Sands and remembered them with the love and pride they deserve, not the disdain, embarrassment and confusion that many exude mainly due to a lack of knowledge.

Sands & co wanted a 32 county Socialist Republic and were prepared to (and did) shoot and bomb people to try to get their way, regardless of the views of the majority. The sentiment throughout Dublin at the time of the hungerstrike largely was anti-British and while many people were against what Britain was doing to Northern Ireland they were not supportive of all the aims of the hungerstrikers nor did they support the IRA’s violence or its aspirations. It is nonsense to state there was 'huge latent support for Sinn Fein' – there is a huge difference between support for a party/individual and a once-off vote against an existing political system. I am neither confused, ill-informed nor embarrassed over my views on Sands and like many I find your remarks unnecessarily condescending and quite inaccurate.

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Bobby Sands and others didn't cause the war, they merely fought back. Fighting back against an invading aggressive army is never wrong.
How this country could do with Bobby Sands today, the time is coming that we will soon hear the laughter of our children.

The British troops were initially welcomed into the North by the people of Derry; the mismanagement of NI by Westminster changed that view. Ignoring the claim of the ‘invading aggressive' bit, fighting an army is one thing, but planting bombs, robbing banks and maiming thousands of innocents is not heroic. Sands’ torchbearers today do not support the peace process and there are strong Real IRA connections, so no, I do not see any need to glorify people like that or indeed how Sands could contribute anything to Irish society today. There are a lot of dead innocents that cannot hear the laughter of their grandchildren due to the IRA, so that last sentence is a load of BX.

jonniebgood1 · 03-03-2014 8:09pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Sands & co wanted a 32 county Socialist Republic and were prepared to (and did) shoot and bomb people to try to get their way, regardless of the views of the majority. The sentiment throughout Dublin at the time of the hungerstrike largely was anti-British and while many people were against what Britain was doing to Northern Ireland they were not supportive of all the aims of the hungerstrikers nor did they support the IRA’s violence or its aspirations. It is nonsense to state there was 'huge latent support for Sinn Fein' – there is a huge difference between support for a party/individual and a once-off vote against an existing political system. I am neither confused, ill-informed nor embarrassed over my views on Sands and like many I find your remarks unnecessarily condescending and quite inaccurate.

Was there not support in Dublin for the hunger strikers. There were attacks on the British embassy the night of Francis Hughes death. Source- CAIN What prompts your suggestion that Dublin sentiment was 'anti British' rather that supporting the hunger strikers?

The 5 demands of the huger strikers were relatively simple- I do not see any evidence that people with an interest in the 'troubles' would have denied these rights. After the hunger strike was ended the 5 demands were granted which begs the question why the deaths were allowed happen. That Sands had been elected MP and was not listened to was and is controversial as it can be considered that after his election he had a mandate for his cause (The use of democracy adding legitimacy to the strikers).
Also I do not understand your suggestion that this was a "once-off vote against an existing political system". The current administration in northern Ireland proves this to be a doubtworthy statement.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The British troops were initially welcomed into the North by the people of Derry; the mismanagement of NI by Westminster changed that view. Ignoring the claim of the ‘invading aggressive' bit, fighting an army is one thing, but planting bombs, robbing banks and maiming thousands of innocents is not heroic. Sands’ torchbearers today do not support the peace process and there are strong Real IRA connections, so no, I do not see any need to glorify people like that or indeed how Sands could contribute anything to Irish society today. There are a lot of dead innocents that cannot hear the laughter of their grandchildren due to the IRA, so that last sentence is a load of BX.

Linking Sands to the Real IRA seems like a desperate stretch with no proper proof even possible. His memory in reality is enhanced as are many who die for a cause, when the death appears to have been imposed. He is remembered by both his own followers and most neutral observers as a martyr. Whether that was manufactured by IRA leadership may be debated but it is the way he is remembered. His legacy as a Martyr is proven in some of the headlines of the time in response to his death:

"On the question of principle, Britain's prime minister Thatcher is right in refusing to yield political status to Bobby Sands, the Irish Republican Army hunger striker. But this dying young man has made it appear that her stubbornness, rather than his own, is the source of a fearful conflict already ravaging Northern Ireland. For that, Mrs. Thatcher is partly to blame. By appearing unfeeling and unresponsive, she and her Government are providing Bobby Sands with a death-bed gift-the crown of martyrdom." "Britain's Gift to Bobby Sands"
New York Times, 29 April 1981

"As they did with Kevin Barry, executed at 18 by the British in 1920, poets will write sad songs of Bobby Sands, filling American saloons with late-night tears and beers...Ireland does not need more sad songs. Ireland does not need more martyrs. The slow suicide attempt of Bobby Sands has cast his land and his cause into another downward spiral of death and despair. There are no heroes in the saga of Bobby Sands."

Boston Globe, 3 May 1981,

Reaction flooded in from around the world. The US Government issued a statement expressing deep regret. The Longshoremen's Union announced a twenty-four-hour boycott of British ships. The New Jersey State legislature voted 34-29 for a resolution honouring his 'courage and commitment'. More than 1,000 gathered in St Patrick's Cathedral to hear New York's Cardinal Cook offer a Mass of reconciliation for northern -Ireland. Irish bars in the city closed for two hours in mourning. The New York Times said: 'Despite proximity and a common language the British have persistently misjudged the depth of Irish nationalism.' In San Francisco's Irish community the mood was reported to be 'subdued, courteous enough, but curiously menacing, as if everyone is waiting for a message as yet undelivered'. In Rome the President of the Italian Senate, Amintore Fanfani, stepped into the breach left by the British Speaker, expressing condolences to the Sands family. About 5,000 students burnt the Union Jack and shouted 'Freedom for Ulster' during a march in Milan. In Ghent students invaded the British consulate. Thousands marched in Paris behind a huge portrait of Sands, to chants of 'The IRA will conquer.' The town of Le Mans announced it was naming a street after him, which the British Embassy said was 'an insult to Britain'.

The Hong Kong Standard said it was 'sad that successive British governments have failed to end the last of Europe's religious wars'. The Hindustan Times said Mrs Thatcher had allowed a fellow Member of Parliament to die of starvation, an incident which had never before occurred 'in a civilized country'. Tehran announced Iran would be sending its ambassador in Sweden to represent the Government at the funeral. In Oslo demonstrators threw a balloon filled with tomato sauce at the Queen, who was on a visit to Norway. In India Opposition members of the Upper House stood for a minute's silence in tribute. Members of Indira Gandhi's ruling Congress Party refused to join in. In Portugal members of the Opposition stood for him.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/hstrike/beresford.htm

rockatansky · 03-03-2014 8:43pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Sands’ torchbearers today do not support the peace process and there are strong Real IRA connections,

The organisation that Bobby Sands was a member of fully supported the Peace Process, it's political representatives are today elected members of the resulting power sharing executive. To try and suggest that he was or is some how linked to the Real IRA is wrong.

I don't believe that anybody who takes such course of action (hunger strike) can be 'hero worshiped'. I do believe he and all the others who participated in the blanket and Hunger strikes showed a strength and determination that can only be admired by those who find themselves in a similar situation.

TheHappyChappy · 03-03-2014 8:47pm

I started reading Bobby Sands Diary from his time starting on the hunger strike till he was too ill to write any further. It is an extraordinary read.

rockatansky · 03-03-2014 8:49pm

bobbysands81 wrote: »

How this country could do with Bobby Sands today

"

Genuinely, If he were alive today, what positive effect would he have on the country?

Santa Cruz · 04-03-2014 10:27am

rockatansky wrote: »

Genuinely, If he were alive today, what positive effect would he have on the country?

He would be a great inspiration to those participating on Operation Transformation

pedroeibar1 · 04-03-2014 11:45am

You have some unusual inferences in your post on what I wrote, JBG.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Was there not support in Dublin for the hunger strikers. There were attacks on the British embassy the night of Francis Hughes death. What prompts your suggestion that Dublin sentiment was 'anti British' rather that supporting the hunger strikers?

Yes, of course there was some support in Dublin for the hungerstrikers but it was not unconditional. That is why I wrote (bold added)

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The sentiment throughout Dublin at the time of the hungerstrike largely was anti-British and while many people were against what Britain was doing to Northern Ireland they were not supportive of all the aims of the hungerstrikers nor did they support the IRA’s violence or its aspirations.

I specifically wrote in those terms because at the outset of the ‘Troubles’ (e.g. after Burntollet, the general behaviour of the B Specials, after the publication of Denis Faul’s booklets (e.g. the one on snatch squads, hooding & sensory deprivation) the support for the Republican movement was far, far greater. A typical example was the burning of the British Embassy after Bloody Sunday. By the time of the hunger strike, that support in ‘ordinary circles’ had diminished considerably as a result of the violence of the IRA’s tactics. The sentiment was anti ‘British Establishment’ (not British people) as a result of the failures by successive UK governments to tackle what was happening and their total mis-management and stupidity in directing affairs in Northern Ireland. There was considerable frustration as to how the Brit. Estab. continuously played into the hands of the IRA, (e.g. Widgery) the bias of the BBC on newscasts (a ‘Protestant crowd protested’ – v - a ‘Republican mob’) and the arrogance of senior Brit. officials, such as the idiot General who said ‘we will win because we have hah fah pah’ (higher fire power). Even ex-British servicement were disgusted - Lord Kilbracken even returned his medals. Concomitantly, the IRA was robbing banks down here, blowing up and shooting unarmed people in NI, punishment beatings and also had an agenda against the State here, such as a concerted effort to undermine the legal / court system. It also just followed the era of Mad Dog McGlinchy, who initially operated with two of the strikers, cousins Hughes (as mentioned earlier by you) and McErlane. Lord Mountbatten's murder/assassination is another example of why people were disgusted. By association Sands & co were linked with all that , so no, there was not huge sympathy/support.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The 5 demands of the huger strikers were relatively simple- I do not see any evidence that people with an interest in the 'troubles' would have denied these rights. After the hunger strike was ended the 5 demands were granted which begs the question why the deaths were allowed happen. That Sands had been elected MP and was not listened to was and is controversial as it can be considered that after his election he had a mandate for his cause (The use of democracy adding legitimacy to the strikers).

Rightly or wrongly (a) people in the ‘South’did not see the hunger strike as an appropriate means to obtain anything. (b)By 1980 most people in the ‘South’ were sick and tired of the trouble in NI, did not want to hear any more; (c) Saw Sands and co as people tainted by the bombings/violence/robberies and did not care sufficiently to bother about them. Denis Faul (whom I met on several occasions, he had nephews in Dublin, one of whom was Barney O’Beirne, the captain of the Viscount that went down off the Tuskar Rock) spoke out very publically against the hungerstrike and was deeply against Sinn Fein / IRA’s manipulation of it and the strikers. In the ‘South’ he was seen as being more Republican than most but still was excoriated by the IRA/Sinn Fein over his stance on their behaviour.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Also I do not understand your suggestion that this was a "once-off vote against an existing political system". The current administration in northern Ireland proves this to be a doubtworthy statement.

The "once-off vote against an existing political system" is a common practice – for example the preliminary elections in the French presidential campaign inevitably contain such a vote as a ‘warning’ to the main power/contender (e.g. big vote for le Pen in the ‘primary’ but don’t vote for him/her in the main). Similarly, our last election should be seen as a vote against the Greens and FF rather than as a vote for FG, L & SF. (The next election will prove this). The vote for Sands was more similar to the old ‘Put him in to get him out’ and a raising of the two fingers to Brits.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Linking Sands to the Real IRA seems like a desperate stretch with no proper proof even possible. His memory in reality is enhanced as are many who die for a cause, when the death appears to have been imposed. He is remembered by both his own followers and most neutral observers as a martyr. Whether that was manufactured by IRA leadership may be debated but it is the way he is remembered. His legacy as a Martyr is proven in some of the headlines of the time in response to his death:

That is not what I said or attempted to do. I wrote

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Sands’ torchbearers today do not support the peace process and there are strong Real IRA connections, so no, I do not see any need to glorify people like....

The main ‘torchbearer’ is his sister, married to McKevitt (the convicted Omagh bomber) has always been against the Belfast Agreement and its tenets, stating that "Bobby did not die for cross-border bodies with executive powers.’ (English, Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, p 316–317) She and her husband were founder members of the The 32 County Sovereignty Movement, generally accepted as the political wing of the RIRA.

I’d maintain that most people who were students in the late 60’s /early 70’s supported the Burntollet marchers and initial protest movements (including initially the IRA) in NI but by the time of the hunger strike were totally disillusioned with Sinn Fein, the IRA and that brand of republicanism.

Nowadays most people under 40 probably neither know nor care about Sands and the other strikers and the event is probably a margin-note in their memory.

TheHappyChappy · 04-03-2014 11:53am

While working in local youth club the teenagers were quite animated about the hunger strike & Bobby Sands

Santa Cruz · 07-03-2014 8:45am

TheHappyChappy wrote: »

I started reading Bobby Sands Diary from his time starting on the hunger strike till he was too ill to write any further. It is an extraordinary read.

A lot of people are of the opinion that these "diaries" were written by another person as propaganda fodder. Sands didn't have a history of writing and due to his protest was unable to avail of any educational courses in Long Kesh

TheHappyChappy · 07-03-2014 2:58pm

Santa Cruz wrote: »

A lot of people are of the opinion that these "diaries" were written by another person as propaganda fodder. Sands didn't have a history of writing and due to his protest was unable to avail of any educational courses in Long Kesh

I'm studying history at NUIM at moment could you tell me where you seen this written as I've never come across that suggestion previously

ChicagoJoe · 07-03-2014 4:54pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

There are a lot of dead innocents that cannot hear the laughter of their grandchildren due to the IRA, so that last sentence is a load of BX.

All ultimately victims of British violence and the reactions it inevitably produces.

jonniebgood1 · 07-03-2014 5:47pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

All ultimately victims of British violence and the reactions it inevitably produces.

Such a narrow minded view does not warrant any response.

Santa Cruz · 08-03-2014 3:53pm

TheHappyChappy wrote: »

I'm studying history at NUIM at moment could you tell me where you seen this written as I've never come across that suggestion previously

You will cover it in year 4

TheHappyChappy · 08-03-2014 4:22pm

Is santa cruz a spoofer?

TheHappyChappy · 08-03-2014 4:22pm

Santa Cruz wrote: »

You will cover it in year 4

Second year History Post Grad,

Obviously you made up your comment & your embarrassed to be found out as a spoofer

Your a spoofer Santa Cruz....yes?

Santa Cruz · 08-03-2014 7:13pm

TheHappyChappy wrote: »

Second year History Post Grad,

Obviously you made up your comment & your embarrassed to be found out as a spoofer

Your a spoofer Santa Cruz....yes?

No I'm not. You shouldn't believe everything that is pushed by the Provo side
Sands alleged diaries should be filed under fiction or credited to the proper author. At the time the SF/PIRA propaganda department was under pressure to paint Sands as a latter day poet/writer/Patrick Pearse. Such stereotype drivel came out then as his writings.

jonniebgood1 · 08-03-2014 7:44pm

TheHappyChappy wrote: »

Is santa cruz a spoofer?

Watch your conduct or I will ban you.

You have the opportunity to back up your opinion on Sands diary if you wish. Calling people names will end in only 1 way. If it happens again you will be banned.

moderator

riffmongous · 09-03-2014 3:37am

Santa Cruz wrote: »

No I'm not. You shouldn't believe everything that is pushed by the Provo side
Sands alleged diaries should be filed under fiction or credited to the proper author. At the time the SF/PIRA propaganda department was under pressure to paint Sands as a latter day poet/writer/Patrick Pearse. Such stereotype drivel came out then as his writings.

What evidence have you to back that up?

FISMA · 09-03-2014 4:05am

bobbysands81 wrote: »

it's time we properly embraced our past and heroes like Bobby Sands and remembered them with the love and pride they deserve

Considering the anemic amount of Michael Collins statues in Ireland, I do not hold out much hope for signs of remembrance for the hunger strikers.

bobbysands81 · 09-03-2014 11:47pm

Santa Cruz wrote: »

A lot of people are of the opinion that these "diaries" were written by another person as propaganda fodder. Sands didn't have a history of writing and due to his protest was unable to avail of any educational courses in Long Kesh

Utter tripe. Any links at all to back that up???

Sands was always a prolific writer.

"I wish I was back home in Derry" and "McIlhatton" were both written by Sands and recorded by Christy Moore.

Bobby Sands would have been 60 today.

At least some major figures in Ireland recognise the sacrifice of Bobby Sands - http://www.christymoore.com/news/remembering-bobby-sands/

pedroeibar1 · 10-03-2014 11:00am

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Utter tripe. Any links at all to back that up???

Sands was always a prolific writer.

"I wish I was back home in Derry" and "McIlhatton" were both written by Sands and recorded by Christy Moore.

Actually Christy B said that he was given the song by another who told him it was written by Sands. So do you have any source to back up your claim?

ChicagoJoe · 10-03-2014 3:02pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Actually Christy B said that he was given the song by another who told him it was written by Sands. So do you have any source to back up your claim?

Like post #24, what evidence have you to back that up? ( and Wiki's do not count

)

TheHappyChappy · 10-03-2014 4:53pm

No evidence yet....

It appears that on Boards.ie the problem is not with posting fiction with a personal bias & presenting it as historical fact, but in challenging it as aggressively as it is presented

sad day for Boards.ie

Thank you to all that have supported me, much appreciated

Fratton Fred · 10-03-2014 5:09pm

TheHappyChappy wrote: »

No evidence yet....

It appears that on Boards.ie the problem is not with posting fiction with a personal bias & presenting it as historical fact, but in challenging it as aggressively as it is presented sad day for Boards.ie

Thank you to all that have supported me, much appreciated

This is a discussion forum, not a blog. Topics get discussed and debated here.

I've never heard of the Bobby Sands diaries being fake, but I have heard the songs he supposedly wrote were written by his brother, Sean who is a well known singer songwriter.

Whilst we ate waiting for Santa Cruz to back up his claim, you could disprove him.

If you're a history student then you will appreciate here say isn't a form of proof either way.

ChicagoJoe · 10-03-2014 5:36pm

The fact Thatcher quietly gave them all their demands after the hunger strike within a year of it says how easily the whole dreadful situation could have been avoided. The main legacy of the hunger strikes undoubtedly is that it gave SF the political platform in the north to begin their eventual take over from the SDLP and brought about the Anglo Irish Agreement which unionism hated, knocking them off their perch and have never recovered from.

TheHappyChappy · 10-03-2014 5:54pm

Sorry, reading post from op to date again - whats your point?

Fratton Fred · 10-03-2014 5:55pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

The fact Thatcher quietly gave them all their demands after the hunger strike within a year of it says how easily the whole dreadful situation could have been avoided. The main legacy of the hunger strikes undoubtedly is that it gave SF the political platform in the north to begin their eventual take over from the SDLP and brought about the Anglo Irish Agreement which unionism hated, knocking them off their perch and have never recovered from.

She gave four of their five demands pretty quickly, but SF wanted to milk the political capital, a move that cost six men their lives.

TheHappyChappy · 10-03-2014 5:57pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This is a discussion forum, not a blog. Topics get discussed and debated here.

I've never heard of the Bobby Sands diaries being fake, but I have heard the songs he supposedly wrote were written by his brother, Sean who is a well known singer songwriter.

Whilst we ate waiting for Santa Cruz to back up his claim, you could disprove him.

If you're a history student then you will appreciate here say isn't a form of proof either way.

Sorry I've lost you, whats your point?

pedroeibar1 · 10-03-2014 6:07pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Like post #24, what evidence have you to back that up? ( and Wiki's do not count

TheHappyChappy wrote: »

No evidence yet....

It appears that on Boards.ie the problem is not with posting fiction with a personal bias & presenting it as historical fact, but in challenging it as aggressively as it is presented sad day for Boards.ie

Thank you to all that have supported me, much appreciated

Not that I’d expect much in the way of history or research from either of you, there is absolutely no proof that Sands wrote it, if you read Christy’s site here you will see your claim is hearsay. FWIW, CM's view is that it is a great song and does not care who wrote it, nor did he care about the controversy over 'The Cliffs of Dooneen' , viewing that affair the same way.

What CM wrote - After my gig .......... having a banter and drinking tea when a bit of singing broke out. A lad, just home from The Blocks, sang these verses and subsequently wrote out the words for me. At the time the name Bobby Sands was not known to the world as it is today. The following night I played in Bellaghy where the same process took place when I stayed with Scullion. Later on he“sang” McIlhatton for me and told me it had been written by Bobby Sands.

If either of you want to be taken seriously here you'd better come up with something better than the content of your posts to date.

bobbysands81 · 10-03-2014 11:54pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Not that I’d expect much in the way of history or research from either of you, there is absolutely no proof that Sands wrote it, if you read Christy’s site here you will see your claim is hearsay. FWIW, CM's view is that it is a great song and does not care who wrote it, nor did he care about the controversy over 'The Cliffs of Dooneen' , viewing that affair the same way.

What CM wrote - After my gig .......... having a banter and drinking tea when a bit of singing broke out. A lad, just home from The Blocks, sang these verses and subsequently wrote out the words for me. At the time the name Bobby Sands was not known to the world as it is today. The following night I played in Bellaghy where the same process took place when I stayed with Scullion. Later on he“sang” McIlhatton for me and told me it had been written by Bobby Sands.

If either of you want to be taken seriously here you'd better come up with something better than the content of your posts to date.

Any idea what year this was?

bobbysands81 · 11-03-2014 12:04am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

[/I]If either of you want to be taken seriously here you'd better come up with something better than the content of your posts to date.

You've made a spurious claim, backing it up with nothing of note, and passing it off as the truth. Not one shred of evidence or credibility offered. Your question is akin to asking "how long have you been beating your wife?"

I did my MA thesis on Bobby Sands and have never heard even a whisper before that he hadn't written these poems before.

If you're going to be taken seriously here you'd better come up with something better than the contents of your posts to date...

pedroeibar1 · 11-03-2014 9:35am

bobbysands81 wrote: »

You've made a spurious claim, backing it up with nothing of note, and passing it off as the truth. Not one shred of evidence or credibility offered. Your question is akin to asking "how long have you been beating your wife?"

I did my MA thesis on Bobby Sands and have never heard even a whisper before that he hadn't written these poems before.

If you're going to be taken seriously here you'd better come up with something better than the contents of your posts to date...

What an inaccurate and nonsensical post. You were the one to claim that Bobby Sands wrote a couple of songs and cited Christy Moore as a confirmatory source –I responded that Moore on his own site said he got them from a lad who got them from Sands. That is not proof. If you can provide proof I’m quite open to accept your view.

As to your question on when 'Derry' was written, it is a very old folk tune, and as far as I recall CM started singing it in sessions during the late 70’s, certainly not in Dowlings in the early 70’s and it was not recorded until much later c mid ‘80’s. (I’m also a possessor of an original ‘Prosperous’ LP that was recorded in Andrew Rynnes basement, the cover photo for which was taken on the steps of that house.)

To revert with a claim that you did an MA on Sands is puerile, irrrelevant and probably untrue, as anyone who has posted the several sad comments [e.g. your misspelled ‘tres droll’ (sic)] since removed by Mods could not be educated to that standard.

I see no justification to extol Sands; he was a misguided young man who was callously manipulated by others. The fact that he is celebrated outside Ireland is irrelevant, and probably as a result of a political agenda (as, for e.g. in Iran).

twowheelsgood · 11-03-2014 10:46am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I see no justification to extol Sands

I would agree with that. Whatever about someone who agitates against the political or social zeitgeist of his era and is subsequently deemed to have been “right” (e.g. anti-racist / homophobic campaigners) there is no logic in redeeming someone who embarked on a path (physical force to being about a united Ireland) that is still not endorsed by the Irish people.

Having said that I think it is quite possible that redemption will eventually come to Sands. It cannot be doubted that he was very committed to what he believed, not to mention personally very courageous. And of course when it comes to revising our view of such people we have a bit of form!

bobbysands81 · 11-03-2014 2:52pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

What an inaccurate and nonsensical post. You were the one to claim that Bobby Sands wrote a couple of songs and cited Christy Moore as a confirmatory source –I responded that Moore on his own site said he got them from a lad who got them from Sands. That is not proof. If you can provide proof I’m quite open to accept your view.

As to your question on when 'Derry' was written, it is a very old folk tune, and as far as I recall CM started singing it in sessions during the late 70’s, certainly not in Dowlings in the early 70’s and it was not recorded until much later c mid ‘80’s. (I’m also a possessor of an original ‘Prosperous’ LP that was recorded in Andrew Rynnes basement, the cover photo for which was taken on the steps of that house.)

To revert with a claim that you did an MA on Sands is puerile, irrrelevant and probably untrue, as anyone who has posted the several sad comments [e.g. your misspelled ‘tres droll’ (sic)] since removed by Mods could not be educated to that standard.

I see no justification to extol Sands; he was a misguided young man who was callously manipulated by others. The fact that he is celebrated outside Ireland is irrelevant, and probably as a result of a political agenda (as, for e.g. in Iran).

I never cited Moore as a source of proof that Sands wrote those poems.

You've claimed he didn't write them so please leave your childish bickering and get back on topic with some sources please.

ChicagoJoe · 11-03-2014 3:20pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

She gave four of their five demands pretty quickly, but SF wanted to milk the political capital, a move that cost six men their lives.

No at all true just the claims of anti Good Friday Agreement/anti SF republicans. Isn't it interesting how unionists totally disagree with almost everything the Dissident republicans have to say - except of course when it's taking a swipe at Sinn Fein !!!! Former IRA prisoners such as the leader of the IRA in the H Blocks Brendan McFarlane totally deny that a break through was forthcoming, the Brits playing for time just like they did with the first hunger strike a year before.

http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/irish_news/arts2005/mar11_hunger_strike_war_of_words.php

ChicagoJoe · 11-03-2014 3:36pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

What an inaccurate and nonsensical post. You were the one to claim that Bobby Sands wrote a couple of songs and cited Christy Moore as a confirmatory source –I responded that Moore on his own site said he got them from a lad who got them from Sands. That is not proof. If you can provide proof I’m quite open to accept your view.

I had a quick Google and on CM's website - " Back Home In Derry Author: Bobby Sands ". http://www.christymoore.com/lyrics/back-home-in-derry/

Your telling fat ones buddy

I see no justification to extol Sands; he was a misguided young man who was callously manipulated by others. The fact that he is celebrated outside Ireland is irrelevant, and probably as a result of a political agenda (as, for e.g. in Iran).

Well that's your opinion, but in fairness to Sands, he's much better thought of by most Irish people as an unfortunate young man like thousands of other nationalists caught up in the troubles in response to the violence of the unionist state and British army than some of the other names involved at the time like Sir Garret Fitzgerald, Haughey, Thatcher etc

jonniebgood1 · 11-03-2014 4:20pm

Note- A selection of posts are removed. No infractions issued at the moment but they will follow if people deviate from forum charter in any way. Anyone posting on this thread will take note of charter and section on threads of this nature.

Moderator

jonniebgood1 · 11-03-2014 4:23pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I see no justification to extol Sands; he was a misguided young man who was callously manipulated by others. The fact that he is celebrated outside Ireland is irrelevant, and probably as a result of a political agenda (as, for e.g. in Iran).

This is far to easy a dismissal. He was remembered in official terms in many western democracies as well as countries where an 'agenda' could be blamed for this. Earlier in the thread links were provided to opinion in European countries and a series of respected American newspapers editorials.

pedroeibar1 · 11-03-2014 11:41pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This is far to easy a dismissal. He was remembered in official terms in many western democracies as well as countries where an 'agenda' could be blamed for this. Earlier in the thread links were provided to opinion in European countries and a series of respected American newspapers editorials.

I did not mean it as a 'dismissal' - it is representative of fact, which available if you look behind what is written/quoted in CAIN.

Sands as I said earlier was manipulated. He and the other strikers were pawns and too politically immature to realise that. Thatcher was using them to send a ‘hard’ message to the IRA/Sinn Fein and was prepared to let the them die to achieve that end. On the opposite side, the IRA/Sinn Fein believed that the adverse PR against Thatcher & Co was a godsend, the deaths (of marked men) would be an opportunity to be seized and milked for what it was worth. No country will give in to blackmail, which effectively is what the strike amounted to. The outcome was a forgone conclusion under any leader, and that does not even take into account the 'Iron Lady' rule of Thatcher.

Apart from the antics of students (which one would expect to be anti-establishment anyway) the general tone of international official comment was slightly tut tut, condemnatory of the events but not supportive of Sands or the IRA. Diplomatically that is a very strong signal.

Belgium – students protested, attacked a British consulate. Big Deal.

France – The history of violent protest in France is worth a study in itself but by French standards Sands’ death was a non-event. No town halls burned, riots, nothing of consequence. A few small streets in minor towns (e.g. Le Mans, Vierzon, Nantes) were named after him. Most French towns have streets named after foreigners – for e.g. there are DOZENS of streets named after JFK. (TOT but there is only one street in Paris , a tiny lane, named after Napoleon.)

Germany - the Government said nothing and the main paper (Die Welt) said that the British Government was right because Sands was trying to blackmail the state with his life. Moreover, Germany was hardly a big ally of GB at that date, so more can be read into the comment/lack thereof.

Hong Kong - The main English paper, the Standard said it was 'sad that successive British governments have failed to end the last of Europe's religious wars'. While that is a BS comment, any inference must be taken in the context of that era, at a time when there were diplomatic games being played between China and GB, coupled with electoral reform in HK as a foundation to the strategies for the eventual handover/departure of Britain.

India - As a former colony one would expect strong words of reproof against the old masters, but that did not really happen. The Hindustan Times said Thatcher had allowed a fellow MP to starve to death, which is rather specious. A small number of Opposition members in the Rajya/Upper House stood for a minute’s silence. Indira Gandhi, main party leader refused to partake in that little side-show. That was an important message – her father, Nehru, was the Mahatma’s political heir, and she was allied with nationalist sentiment. She did nothing. And while we are on the Gandhi name, significantly, the Chicago Tribune (which in those days was a great paper) wrote that Gandhi used his hunger strike to get his countrymen to abstain from civil war and that Sands' deliberate slow suicide was intended to precipitate civil war.

Italy In Rome the President of the Italian Senate, Fanfani, expressed condolences to the Sands family. He was an interesting character, a fascist who turned lefty, so his socialist ideals were at one with the IRA. And as usual a bunch of students burned a union Jack. Well, that's Italy and Fanfani is the guy who once held a government together for 23 days!

Portugal - members of the Opposition stood for a minute's silence. Bet that impressed everybody.

Spain - the Ya newspaper described Sands's hunger strike as 'subjectively an act of heroism' . Whatever that means, but then what would one expect from an ultra right-wing paper that effectively was an organ of the Catholic Church.... Competitor, ABC which was more monarchist, said Sands was 'a political kamikaze who had got his strategy wrong.'

USA The US Government issued a statement expressing deep regret. I mean, with the importance of the Irish vote in the US, with Tip O’Neill as Speaker of the House, and the general ignorance of the Irish community on Irish affairs, what would you expect them to do/say?
The Longshoremen's Union announced a twenty-four-hour boycott of British ships. Those guys are dockers, would not know where Ireland is on a map and are 6,000 miles away - or more if you go by ship.
The New Jersey State legislature voted 34-29 for a resolution honouring Sands' 'courage and commitment'. Nice kick to touch that!
In NYC at St Patrick's Cathedral there was a Mass of reconciliation for Northern Ireland. That really worked!
Irish bars in NYC city closed for two hours in mourning. Two hours? Big deal, a blend of assuaging customer sentiment with a keen eye on the bottom line!
The New York Times said: 'Despite proximity and a common language the British have persistently misjudged the depth of Irish nationalism.'
Rather Wildean, no?

So, worldwide, among the little people, nothing much happened. Worldwide, among the people who do count, or care, or have real influence, Sands’ death was a non event. And still is; water under the bridge.
I'll stop there.

marienbad · 12-03-2014 12:12am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I did not mean it as a 'dismissal' - it is representative of fact, which available if you look behind what is written/quoted in CAIN.

Sands as I said earlier was manipulated. He and the other strikers were pawns and too politically immature to realise that. Thatcher was using them to send a ‘hard’ message to the IRA/Sinn Fein and was prepared to let the them die to achieve that end. On the opposite side, the IRA/Sinn Fein believed that the adverse PR against Thatcher & Co was a godsend, the deaths (of marked men) would be an opportunity to be seized and milked for what it was worth. No country will give in to blackmail, which effectively is what the strike amounted to. The outcome was a forgone conclusion under any leader, and that does not even take into account the 'Iron Lady' rule of Thatcher.

Apart from the antics of students (which one would expect to be anti-establishment anyway) the general tone of international official comment was slightly tut tut, condemnatory of the events but not supportive of Sands or the IRA. Diplomatically that is a very strong signal.

Belgium – students protested, attacked a British consulate. Big Deal.

France – The history of violent protest in France is worth a study in itself but by French standards Sands’ death was a non-event. No town halls burned, riots, nothing of consequence. A few small streets in minor towns (e.g. Le Mans, Vierzon, Nantes) were named after him. Most French towns have streets named after foreigners – for e.g. there are DOZENS of streets named after JFK. (TOT but there is only one street in Paris , a tiny lane, named after Napoleon.)

Germany - the Government said nothing and the main paper (Die Welt) said that the British Government was right because Sands was trying to blackmail the state with his life. Moreover, Germany was hardly a big ally of GB at that date, so more can be read into the comment/lack thereof.

Hong Kong - The main English paper, the Standard said it was 'sad that successive British governments have failed to end the last of Europe's religious wars'. While that is a BS comment, any inference must be taken in the context of that era, at a time when there were diplomatic games being played between China and GB, coupled with electoral reform in HK as a foundation to the strategies for the eventual handover/departure of Britain.

India - As a former colony one would expect strong words of reproof against the old masters, but that did not really happen. The Hindustan Times said Thatcher had allowed a fellow MP to starve to death, which is rather specious. A small number of Opposition members in the Rajya/Upper House stood for a minute’s silence. Indira Gandhi, main party leader refused to partake in that little side-show. That was an important message – her father, Nehru, was the Mahatma’s political heir, and she was allied with nationalist sentiment. She did nothing. And while we are on the Gandhi name, significantly, the Chicago Tribune (which in those days was a great paper) wrote that Gandhi used his hunger strike to get his countrymen to abstain from civil war and that Sands' deliberate slow suicide was intended to precipitate civil war.

Italy In Rome the President of the Italian Senate, Fanfani, expressed condolences to the Sands family. He was an interesting character, a fascist who turned lefty, so his socialist ideals were at one with the IRA. And as usual a bunch of students burned a union Jack. Well, that's Italy and Fanfani is the guy who once held a government together for 23 days!

Portugal - members of the Opposition stood for a minute's silence. Bet that impressed everybody.

Spain - the Ya newspaper described Sands's hunger strike as 'subjectively an act of heroism' . Whatever that means, but then what would one expect from an ultra right-wing paper that effectively was an organ of the Catholic Church.... Competitor, ABC which was more monarchist, said Sands was 'a political kamikaze who had got his strategy wrong.'

USA The US Government issued a statement expressing deep regret. I mean, with the importance of the Irish vote in the US, with Tip O’Neill as Speaker of the House, and the general ignorance of the Irish community on Irish affairs, what would you expect them to do/say?
The Longshoremen's Union announced a twenty-four-hour boycott of British ships. Those guys are dockers, would not know where Ireland is on a map and are 6,000 miles away - or more if you go by ship.
The New Jersey State legislature voted 34-29 for a resolution honouring Sands' 'courage and commitment'. Nice kick to touch that!
In NYC at St Patrick's Cathedral there was a Mass of reconciliation for Northern Ireland. That really worked!
Irish bars in NYC city closed for two hours in mourning. Two hours? Big deal, a blend of assuaging customer sentiment with a keen eye on the bottom line!
The New York Times said: 'Despite proximity and a common language the British have persistently misjudged the depth of Irish nationalism.'
Rather Wildean, no?

So, worldwide, among the little people, nothing much happened. Worldwide, among the people who do count, or care, or have real influence, Sands’ death was a non event. And still is; water under the bridge.
I'll stop there.

I wouldn't be a great fan of Bobby Sands politically but my recollection of the time is that it was a much bigger deal that you are allowing.

Apparently the Foreign Office was constantly beleaguered in any negotiation on anything anywhere over the whole series of events . Admittedly most countries were using it for their own ends but that is always the case.

Seen as you have done some brilliant research above how about contrasting the coverage of the recent death of Seamus Heaney with Bobby Sands ?
I would say you might get more in depth coverage of Heaney in the English speaking world but not in the wider arena.

It was a big deal all right at least in my memory.

Jawgap · 12-03-2014 7:31am

marienbad wrote: »

I wouldn't be a great fan of Bobby Sands politically but my recollection of the time is that it was a much bigger deal that you are allowing.

Apparently the Foreign Office was constantly beleaguered in any negotiation on anything anywhere over the whole series of events . Admittedly most countries were using it for their own ends but that is always the case.

Seen as you have done some brilliant research above how about contrasting the coverage of the recent death of Seamus Heaney with Bobby Sands ?
I would say you might get more in depth coverage of Heaney in the English speaking world but not in the wider arena.

It was a big deal all right at least in my memory.

It was a big deal in my memory too, because it occurred at a time I was becoming politically aware. It was also everywhere in the news.

So yes, like a lot of events they are 'of the moment' and are a big deal at the time.

However, the OP said

Throughout the world Bobby Sands is held up as a figure of resistance and equality and is internationally respected... but not so much by authorities in his own country.

The "...not so much by authorities in his own country" bit I agree with - maybe that's because in the overall context of events then and since he's not that significant, except to a niche, animated minority?

The first part about him being well respected throughout the world is, if we're being kind, somewhat exaggerated. There may be isolated pockets around the world who hold that view, but its nowhere near universal.

A quick search on Google Maps throws up three examples in France of streets named after him (Saint-Herblain, Saint-Denis and Morlaix) and one in Tehran - which I assume has more to do with the proximity of the British embassy than any idea to commemorate him.

Contrast that with something like Bernardo O'Higgins - streets, naval bases, ships etc - now that's being held up as a figure of resistance and equality and being internationally respected!

bobbysands81 · 12-03-2014 11:55am

Jawgap wrote: »

It was a big deal in my memory too, because it occurred at a time I was becoming politically aware. It was also everywhere in the news.

So yes, like a lot of events they are 'of the moment' and are a big deal at the time.

However, the OP said

The "...not so much by authorities in his own country" bit I agree with - maybe that's because in the overall context of events then and since he's not that significant, except to a niche, animated minority?

The first part about him being well respected throughout the world is, if we're being kind, somewhat exaggerated. There may be isolated pockets around the world who hold that view, but its nowhere near universal.

A quick search on Google Maps throws up three examples in France of streets named after him (Saint-Herblain, Saint-Denis and Morlaix) and one in Tehran - which I assume has more to do with the proximity of the British embassy than any idea to commemorate him.

Contrast that with something like Bernardo O'Higgins - streets, naval bases, ships etc - now that's being held up as a figure of resistance and equality and being internationally respected!

I think you're getting mixed up between 'internationally respected' and a 'household name'.

You don't have to be universally known to be internationally respected. Many Physicians, Anthropologists, Academics etc... would be internationally respected but not known whatsoever by your average man on the street, never mind having a street named after them.

Bobby Sands is without doubt internationally respected, a fact that is denied by his detractors on here.

How many other Irish politicians have been recognised in the same way and had streets named after them for their actions within Ireland?

bobbysands81 · 12-03-2014 12:03pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Sands’ death was a non event.

Such a non-event that it's been reported that his death was the largest funeral ever on this island...

It must kill you that 33 years on from his death you're still talking about this non-event.

Jawgap · 12-03-2014 12:25pm

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I think you're getting mixed up between 'internationally respected' and a 'household name'.

You don't have to be universally known to be internationally respected. Many Physicians, Anthropologists, Academics etc... would be internationally respected but not known whatsoever by your average man on the street, never mind having a street named after them.

Bobby Sands is without doubt internationally respected, a fact that is denied by his detractors on here.

How many other Irish politicians have been recognised in the same way and had streets named after them for their actions within Ireland?

You're right, many Physicians, Anthropologists, Academics etc are internationally respected, but in their own field of expertise and perhaps n their own country, but that does not mean they can be described as internationally respected in the way you are suggesting Bobby Sands is internationally respected

what is your metric for establishing that

Bobby Sands is without doubt internationally respected

As for your question

How many other Irish politicians have been recognised in the same way and had streets named after them for their actions within Ireland?

I'll start the ball rolling by pointing to O'Connell (lots of streets etc named after him in Spain, Australia etc).....

William Molesworth Street (Adelaide)

Mary Fitzgerald Square (Johannesburg)

Eamon Devalera Street (New Delhi)

....and there's loads of things called Cromwell and Churchill- they're certainly well recognised for their actions within Ireland and elsewhere!

Jawgap · 12-03-2014 12:29pm

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Such a non-event that it's been reported that his death was the largest funeral ever on this island...

It must kill you that 33 years on from his death you're still talking about this non-event.

So what.....no doubt Princess Diana's dwarfed his so if that is your metric then herself was more significant in history than he was??????

.....and we're only talking about him because you started the thread

On this day in 1981 Bobby Sands began his Hunger Strike

Comments