Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why didn't Loyalist Prisoners Protest?
Options
-
21-01-2012 6:15pm#1The Republican Blanket Protest that began in 1976 which then escalated to the Dirty Protest in 1978 and finally the Hunger Strikes of 1980 and 1981 have been fairly well documented over the years but there seems to be very little coverage given to what Loyalist prisoners were doing during the same period.
While a few Loyalist prisoners did join the blanket protest they were minuscule in number and didn't last very long on it. During the 1980 hunger strike a few Loyalists joined just as the hunger strike was about to be ended which to many may have seemed like a cynical and opportunistic move.
I heard a radio interview a few months ago in which a former Loyalist prisoner said he respected what the Republican prisoners were doing but he didn't say why the Loyalist prisoners did not protest. Similarly I remember reading that PUP leader Billy Hutchinson said he had a grudging respect for the Republican prisoners and that Loyalist prisoners should have being doing the same thing.
Like Republicans, Loyalists saw themselves as political prisoners, so why do people think they didn't protest to win political prisoner status?
Was it their mental resolve that prevented them from enduring the hardships of protesting or disillusionment with the state they believed they were defending?
I'm sure the answer is complex but it would be interesting to hear peoples opinions as it is not a widely talked about topic.0
Comments
-
Republicans considered themselves to be at war with the British state. Loyalists considered themselves to be defending the British state. Republicans were therefore more willing to engage in extreme behaviour/action.0
-
Republicans considered themselves to be at war with the British state.
Off topic slightly apologies
Interestingly, the Republicans view on their 'war' status changed regularly depending on the situation. The Loughall Ambush is the most notable-if the situation had been reversed the PIRA would have claimed it was a legitimate act of war.0 -
when republicans went to prison it was part of their war, their war wasn't over. many of them got degrees and would use the skills learned to further the war. but from what i have read over the years it was opposite for loyalists who spent their time in the gym, a bit of a sweeping comment and there is ofcourse exceptions to this view. many loyalists considered their war was over and they had done their bit.
loyalist didnt need to protest as what ever the republican prisoners achieved by protesting they would also benefit from.0 -
Anyone else find it ironic that McFeely applied for bankruptcy in the UK? Didn't realise he was a loyalist.0
-
Interesting video here of Loyalist recollections of 1981.
Some good insights from the late David Ervine and two ex Loyalist prisoners that did go on the blanket when the special category status was removed.
Naturally they were opposed to the removal of the special category status as they seen themselves as political prisoners. One view they are putting across in the video was that unlike Republican prisoners, Loyalist prisoners did not have support in their own communities.
Some Loyalist prisoners felt they should be protesting while some said they shouldn't do anything as it would look like they were supporting Republicans.
The Loyalist prisoners had empathy with the Republican Hunger Strikers but the view of Loyalists outside prison was the opposite.
One of the ex prisoners in the video Billy McQuiston says he didn't belief for a minute that the hunger strike had anything to do with the Republican leadership outside the prison and that it was completely prisoner led, which is completely at odds with the British line at the time.
Worth a view.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is an important point but I'd have a slightly different take on it. Just to expand on it:R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »when republicans went to prison it was part of their war, their war wasn't over. many of them got degrees and would use the skills learned to further the war. but from what i have read over the years it was opposite for loyalists who spent their time in the gym, a bit of a sweeping comment and there is ofcourse exceptions to this view. many loyalists considered their war was over and they had done their bit.
I can't remember who it was but some media commentator once made a very insightful observation: Republican prisoners came out of jail with Open University degrees in philosophy and economics; Loyalist prisoners came out with bigger muscles. The point is that the political mentality of the Republicans was always far more developed it's their Loyalist counterparts. By the late 1960s the IRA, in its various incarnations, perceived itself as being very much as part of the broader global anti-imperialist struggle (ie, alongside the PLO, Red Army Faction, Brigate Rosse, etc). It's leaders were able to talk in terms of socio-economic struggles, state and society, etc, and were increasingly educating themselves in various political schools. The PIRA's internal reorganisation in the 1970s was directly inspired by Maoism philosophy/history, for example
In contrast the key Loyalists were little more than thugs. Think of the likes of Billy 'King Rat' Wright or Johnny 'Mad Dog' Adair. They just didn't understand their fight in the same way as Republicans. This was for both historical reasons and the fact that their 'struggle' was clearly different by nature - buttressing an old order rather than establishing the new. This didn't make Loyalists any less "extreme", no one is questioning their brutality, in their actions but it did limit their horizons of thought. Those Loyalists who rose above this street level thinking - Ervine is sadly the only real notable example - were few and far between. Most Loyalists simply didn't think of themselves as 'politicals'
And this has ramifications today. Those years of enforced education spawned a cadre of highly politically literate Republican politicians. Whatever one thinks of Sinn Fein today, there is no doubting that it's a very slick political machine that has pretty much superseded the SDLP as the foremost representation of Nationalism. Conversely, the Loyalist movement, with the sadly brief exception of Ervine, never produced a coherent political movement of its own. As a result it's always been subservient to the equally flawed traditional Unionist political order. Which is not a particularly happy situation for anyone0 -
Loyalists don't have a moral cause and so find it hard to get this kind of thng together.0
-
This, in part, is down to the fact that academically capable, but physical force-minded unionists could join the RUC, UDR or other part of the security forces, whereas there nationalist counterparts largely only had the IRA.I can't remember who it was but some media commentator once made a very insightful observation: Republican prisoners came out of jail with Open University degrees in philosophy and economics; Loyalist prisoners came out with bigger muscles.0 -
Victor, I don't know if I would put it all down to that - if only because it rather over-estimates the intellectual capabilities of the RUC et al - but I do think there is something in the idea that traditional Unionist structures hindered/prevented the emergence of a distinctly Loyalist political programme. The absence of these in the Nationalist community, where even the SDLP was a recent creation, was definitely of benefit to Sinn Fein
And of course any movement that arose in the 1960s couldn't really help but be highly political. Unionism hadn't really moved on from Carson's day, and arguably still hasn't, whereas the emerging Nationalist groups were able to tap into a far more sophisticated political model; one that emphasised education and had at its heart social critiques0 -
There's also the factor that because unionism / loyalism was essentially conservative, in that it was explicitly aimed at preserving the pre-1968 status quo, their political objective was already defined and alternatives (outside of moderate reforms) would almost automatically be rejected. There was no real motivation for them to modernise their outlook as modernisation wasn't on their agenda.
On the other hand, nationalism (including radical republicanism), by virtue of seeking to put in place a completely new political order, was always going to cast the net wider in terms of looking at alternative objectives and strategies for achieving those objectives, based on what had been tried and worked elsewhere. With the various upheavals of the 60s (civil rights in the USA, anti-colonial struggles in Africa / southeast Asia, national liberation movements in south America, etc) they had a lot to work with.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why would Loyalists go on the hunger strike when they knew that the Republican side would do it and had people killing themselves? At the end of the day, if you look at what Bobby Sands and co died over, it was over clothes and not much else.
I don't think it would be worth losing Ulster Loyalists over such reasons. I think they did the right thing and when you consider the political tension at the time, it was very important they were seen not to be following the lead of Republicans and over such petty reasons, they didn't need to.
The Loyalists (I call them patriots) had a moral cause (in my opinion of course) in trying to retain the Union with Britain and to not lose the country. Why would starving themselves be of any good to the Loyalist cause?Loyalists don't have a moral cause and so find it hard to get this kind of thng together.0 -
Why would Loyalists go on the hunger strike when they knew that the Republican side would do it and had people killing themselves? At the end of the day, if you look at what Bobby Sands and co died over, it was over clothes and not much else.
I don't think it would be worth losing Ulster Loyalists over such reasons. I think they did the right thing and when you consider the political tension at the time, it was very important they were seen not to be following the lead of Republicans and over such petty reasons, they didn't need to.
The Loyalists (I call them patriots) had a moral cause (in my opinion of course) in trying to retain the Union with Britain and to not lose the country. Why would starving themselves be of any good to the Loyalist cause?
You are either trying to start a row or really have no understanding of the Republican prisoners cause if you believe the above (the clothes comment). Both sides had causes they believed were moral but you seem to only see 1 side of this, you should understand the reasons behind the blanket protests before you comment on them (for starters they were not about clothes as you state).0 -
-
The Loyalists (I call them patriots) had a moral cause (in my opinion of course) in trying to retain the Union with Britain and to not lose the country. Why would starving themselves be of any good to the Loyalist cause?
The Loyalists were patriots? To where exactly?
As I recall the UDA on more than one occasion proposed all sorts of political settlements from autonomy within a unified Ireland to independence for NI, to repartition.
Whatever they were patriots of, it seemed to change with the wind. A half-generation later, and all they were loyal to was drugs and money.0 -
Ok. I know they had a number of demands but none of them was about a United Ireland. They just wanted political status and not have to do prison work and wear their own clothes.jonniebgood1 wrote: »You are either trying to start a row or really have no understanding of the Republican prisoners cause if you believe the above (the clothes comment). Both sides had causes they believed were moral but you seem to only see 1 side of this, you should understand the reasons behind the blanket protests before you comment on them (for starters they were not about clothes as you state).
Is that worth going on hunger strike? That was what my comment was about. Perhaps I should have put more detail into it but now you surely see what I mean? I think they went the wrong way about it.
I consider people like the 1916 rebels patriots. It wasn't a slur. I think the Loyalists believed in the cause and they believed in defending the Union.The Loyalists were patriots? To where exactly?
As I recall the UDA on more than one occasion proposed all sorts of political settlements from autonomy within a unified Ireland to independence for NI, to repartition.
Whatever they were patriots of, it seemed to change with the wind. A half-generation later, and all they were loyal to was drugs and money.0 -
I consider people like the 1916 rebels patriots. It wasn't a slur. I think the Loyalists believed in the cause and they believed in defending the Union.
That still doesn't answer what they were patriots about. Was it the union? Then why did they repeatedly offer alternatives to the union? Was it the land itself? (If so, how?) Was it always, as it ultimately turned out, a patriotism only to self-aggrandisement and riches at the expense of their own communities?0 -
guinnessdrinker wrote: »The Republican Blanket Protest that began in 1976 which then escalated to the Dirty Protest in 1978 and finally the Hunger Strikes of 1980 and 1981 have been fairly well documented over the years but there seems to be very little coverage given to what Loyalist prisoners were doing during the same period.
While a few Loyalist prisoners did join the blanket protest they were minuscule in number and didn't last very long on it. During the 1980 hunger strike a few Loyalists joined just as the hunger strike was about to be ended which to many may have seemed like a cynical and opportunistic move.
I heard a radio interview a few months ago in which a former Loyalist prisoner said he respected what the Republican prisoners were doing but he didn't say why the Loyalist prisoners did not protest. Similarly I remember reading that PUP leader Billy Hutchinson said he had a grudging respect for the Republican prisoners and that Loyalist prisoners should have being doing the same thing.
Like Republicans, Loyalists saw themselves as political prisoners, so why do people think they didn't protest to win political prisoner status?
Was it their mental resolve that prevented them from enduring the hardships of protesting or disillusionment with the state they believed they were defending?
I'm sure the answer is complex but it would be interesting to hear peoples opinions as it is not a widely talked about topic.
The answer's actually quite simple. Whilst Republicans had little to lose by confronting The UK State in any manner, Loyalists wished to avoid or minimise such confrontations for obvious POLITICAL reasons. The wider Unionist community shared this thinking.
As one Republican militant has since said - "Loyalists regarded The UK prison system, as we did The Free State prison system".0 -
R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »when republicans went to prison it was part of their war, their war wasn't over. many of them got degrees and would use the skills learned to further the war. but from what i have read over the years it was opposite for loyalists who spent their time in the gym, a bit of a sweeping comment and there is ofcourse exceptions to this view. many loyalists considered their war was over and they had done their bit.
loyalist didnt need to protest as what ever the republican prisoners achieved by protesting they would also benefit from.
It's a little bit of a myth about Loyalists spending all their time in the gym whilst in prison! In fact, the first graduates were Loyalists:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/prison-sentence-proved-no-bar-to-degrees-for-loyalists-15057195.html
Of course, the activities of certain Loyalist prisoners right at the end of the 'troubles' tended to shape public perception.0 -
Reekwind said:This is an important point but I'd have a slightly different take on it. Just to expand on it:
I can't remember who it was but some media commentator once made a very insightful observation: Republican prisoners came out of jail with Open University degrees in philosophy and economics; Loyalist prisoners came out with bigger muscles.
That's a little bit of a myth. Do you have any comparative numbers?The point is that the political mentality of the Republicans was always far more developed it's their Loyalist counterparts. By the late 1960s the IRA, in its various incarnations, perceived itself as being very much as part of the broader global anti-imperialist struggle (ie, alongside the PLO, Red Army Faction, Brigate Rosse, etc). It's leaders were able to talk in terms of socio-economic struggles, state and society, etc, and were increasingly educating themselves in various political schools. The PIRA's internal reorganisation in the 1970s was directly inspired by Maoism philosophy/history, for example
So they believed a load of discredited socialist mumbo jumbo?In contrast the key Loyalists were little more than thugs.
I think you'll find that most of the western world regarded all terrorists in NI as 'thugs' - not just Loyalist ones.Think of the likes of Billy 'King Rat' Wright or Johnny 'Mad Dog' Adair. They just didn't understand their fight in the same way as Republicans.
Actually, they did understand 'their fight' quite well.And this has ramifications today. Those years of enforced education spawned a cadre of highly politically literate Republican politicians. Whatever one thinks of Sinn Fein today, there is no doubting that it's a very slick political machine that has pretty much superseded the SDLP as the foremost representation of Nationalism. Conversely, the Loyalist movement, with the sadly brief exception of Ervine, never produced a coherent political movement of its own. As a result it's always been subservient to the equally flawed traditional Unionist political order. Which is not a particularly happy situation for anyone
No Loyalist equivalent to SF? Oh dear...0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »The Loyalists were patriots? To where exactly?
As I recall the UDA on more than one occasion proposed all sorts of political settlements from autonomy within a unified Ireland to independence for NI, to repartition.
Whatever they were patriots of, it seemed to change with the wind. A half-generation later, and all they were loyal to was drugs and money.
The UDA, in common with other PUL organisations recognised that The UK State might not last for ever, hence fall back positions like Ulster independence and re-partition.
The UDA's role effectively ended in 1994 and certainly in 1998. What happened to it's remnants as regards criminal activity is not really worthy of comment. All organisations contain criminal elements.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, I stated that it was an anecdote. Do you have any numbers? Other than the relative lack of Loyalist ex-prisoners at the head of the Unionist movementsecondopinion wrote: »That's a little bit of a myth. Do you have any comparative numbers?
It should be fairly straightforward to demonstrate that Republican prisoners are more prominent in Nationalist politics than Loyalist prisoners are in Unionist politics... but I really don't care enough for a simple but time consuming count of Assembly members. Feel free
Yes. They had a coherent ideological framework into which they could fit their ideas. Whether you agree with the content of this or not, there is little denying that it is many, many times more sophisticated than any comparable Loyalist politics. Which the important exception of the PUP of course*So they believed a load of discredited socialist mumbo jumbo?
And calling this "discredited" in the 1970s is bizarrely anachronistic. At the time you could hardly get more (self-consciously) modern. Today SF has largely jettisoned this... but then so has their contemporary British politicians. Jack Straw, to take a random example, was once a Stalinist
*Of course it was the PUP's adoption of this "discredited socialist mumbo jumbo" that gave them that tools needed to actually add some political content to Loyalism
They understood it in street terms but could hardly look beyond killing the next Catholic. Is that better or worse than justifying their actions with a more sophisticated political framework? That's an entirely different discussion. What is relevant is that most Loyalist terrorists were unable to place their 'struggle' into a wider ideology. Again, the PUP is the only notable example of Loyalist 'struggles' giving rise to Loyalist politics and Loyalist politiciansActually, they did understand 'their fight' quite well.
Again there's no actual content here for me to address. Are you suggesting that there is a Loyalist political party currently active that compares to SF either in its size or its role within its respective community?No Loyalist equivalent to SF? Oh dear...
Rhetorical question. The only notable political party that can truly be called 'Loyalist' - as opposed to traditional Unionism - is the PUP. And this is a party that is clearly in a state of terminal decline*. Not only is it the only real, if dying, manifestation of a distinctly Loyalist ideology active today, there's also no other Loyalist party that even comes close to matching its historical impact
Instead the leadership of the Unionist movement resides where it always has - traditional figures who have, typically, arrived at their positions without engaging in armed struggle. Contrast to Nationalism where ex-IRA members, or at least an organisation led by such, has supplanted the SDLP as the largest voice in that community. There is no Loyalist organisation or politician that has adjusted anywhere near as well to the post-Good Friday environment as SF
*Something that I regret. Whatever my disagreements with Loyalism or much of the late Ervine's politics, I do perceive the PUP as a genuine attempt to cater for the 'Loyalist community' (lack of better term) in a way that traditional Unionist authorities fail to do0 -
secondopinion wrote: »The UDA, in common with other PUL organisations recognised that The UK State might not last for ever, hence fall back positions like Ulster independence and re-partition.
The UDA's role effectively ended in 1994 and certainly in 1998. What happened to it's remnants as regards criminal activity is not really worthy of comment. All organisations contain criminal elements.
You might contend that the fact that the UDA transformed into a totally criminal organisation to be unworthy of comment. I would contend that they merely, in the lack of McMichael and Tyrie, reverted to their core motive, which was criminality and personal enrichment.
That the UDA proposed, independent of other stimuli, non-union solutions, including at least one that encompassed a united ireland, indicates to me the sheer lack of solidity in terms of Loyalist belief systems. Fundamentally, their answer is anything that the Republicans don't want, which is a reactive rather than a proactive system.
Inevitably political Loyalists come to this point - as representatives of the Ulster protestant working class, they come to understand that the only thing they need fear from a united Ireland is the loss of their own community identity, which is in any case secured by the simple fact that they exist and are prepared to speak out.
The tragedy of Ireland for the past century or more is that Ulster loyalists feel this but are incapable of expressing it, a la Irvine, because it would place them in a less extreme position to unionism, which is a dead end. and as we all know, extremism wins the day in NI.0 -
Reekwind said:No, I stated that it was an anecdote. Do you have any numbers? Other than the relative lack of Loyalist ex-prisoners at the head of the Unionist movement
The numbers I was asking for were ex-prisoners who had degrees - not figures on ex-prisoners in Stormont.Yes. They had a coherent ideological framework into which they could fit their ideas. Whether you agree with the content of this or not, there is little denying that it is many, many times more sophisticated than any comparable Loyalist politics. Which the important exception of the PUP of course*
Loyalist paramilitaries existed to kill Irish Nationalists as part of a political pressure strategy. What makes you think they required any further analysis than that?*Of course it was the PUP's adoption of this "discredited socialist mumbo jumbo" that gave them that tools needed to actually add some political content to Loyalism
Really. What exactly have The PUP achieved? What makes you think Loyalist paramilitaries required any political analysis at all, apart from the obvious?They understood it in street terms but could hardly look beyond killing the next Catholic.
That was their role.Is that better or worse than justifying their actions with a more sophisticated political framework?
They didn't require one. Defence of Ulster's constitutional position was their motivation. Compare and contrast The UK armed forces in WWII with the SS. Both were militarists, but whilst The SS had a sophisticated political ideology, British soldiers had the normal spread of views found within The UK at that time. Many cared nothing about politics at all - only winning the war as soldiers.That's an entirely different discussion. What is relevant is that most Loyalist terrorists were unable to place their 'struggle' into a wider ideology. Again, the PUP is the only notable example of Loyalist 'struggles' giving rise to Loyalist politics and Loyalist politicians
Again, Loyalist paramilitaries had no interest in 'a wider ideology' - their personal political views were diverse. Only a minority had any interest in politics in the narrow sense of the word. The PUP never obtained a majority of the individual UVF members votes.Again there's no actual content here for me to address. Are you suggesting that there is a Loyalist political party currently active that compares to SF either in its size or its role within its respective community?
I don't know what you mean by 'Loyalist' - perhaps you could explain?Rhetorical question. The only notable political party that can truly be called 'Loyalist' - as opposed to traditional Unionism - is the PUP. And this is a party that is clearly in a state of terminal decline*. Not only is it the only real, if dying, manifestation of a distinctly Loyalist ideology active today, there's also no other Loyalist party that even comes close to matching its historical impact
Again - define 'Loyalist'.Instead the leadership of the Unionist movement resides where it always has - traditional figures who have, typically, arrived at their positions without engaging in armed struggle.
And?Contrast to Nationalism where ex-IRA members, or at least an organisation led by such, has supplanted the SDLP as the largest voice in that community.
And your point is?There is no Loyalist organisation or politician that has adjusted anywhere near as well to the post-Good Friday environment as SF
You assume Loyalist paramilitaries in general were hoping to create some political party, as opposed to a selection of individuals such as Ervine.*Something that I regret. Whatever my disagreements with Loyalism or much of the late Ervine's politics, I do perceive the PUP as a genuine attempt to cater for the 'Loyalist community' (lack of better term) in a way that traditional Unionist authorities fail to do
Who are The 'Loyalist' community?0 -
Cavehill Red said:You might contend that the fact that the UDA transformed into a totally criminal organisation to be unworthy of comment.
I didn't contend that.I would contend that they merely, in the lack of McMichael and Tyrie, reverted to their core motive, which was criminality and personal enrichment.
I wouldn't have thought that - at least no more than any of bunch of terrorists such as PIRA/IPLO/INLA etc.That the UDA proposed, independent of other stimuli, non-union solutions, including at least one that encompassed a united ireland, indicates to me the sheer lack of solidity in terms of Loyalist belief systems.
I'm not sure The UDA did propose any sort of united Ireland - I think you might be thinking of The UVF, who looked at a federal Ireland within a federal UK in the very early seventies. The aim of Loyalist paramilitaries was to keep Ulster out of a United Ireland. Mostly this meant supporting The Union, but some elements looked at an independent state at times.Fundamentally, their answer is anything that the Republicans don't want, which is a reactive rather than a proactive system.
See above.Inevitably political Loyalists come to this point - as representatives of the Ulster protestant working class, they come to understand that the only thing they need fear from a united Ireland is the loss of their own community identity, which is in any case secured by the simple fact that they exist and are prepared to speak out.
No, not really. You see, most people in England see themselves as English then British. Loyalist paramilitaries would historically have seen themselves as Ullish then British. There's no conflict in this and requires no interaction with The Irish in The ROI.The tragedy of Ireland for the past century or more is that Ulster loyalists feel this but are incapable of expressing it, a la Irvine, because it would place them in a less extreme position to unionism, which is a dead end. and as we all know, extremism wins the day in NI.
I think some of The Irish get carried away with the importance of David Ervine!
Perhaps you could explain the difference between a Loyalist and a Unionist?0 -
secondopinion wrote: »Cavehill Red said:
I didn't contend that.
It was a reasonable conclusion from your statement.secondopinion wrote: »I wouldn't have thought that - at least no more than any of bunch of terrorists such as PIRA/IPLO/INLA etc.
I think, at least in relation to PIRA, it's demonstrable that no Loyalist terror organisation possessed a theoretical or political framework to their activities that compares. With McMichael and Tyrie the UDA possessed a brief period of political thinking which went under beneath the tidal wave of base criminality and self-enrichment.secondopinion wrote: »I'm not sure The UDA did propose any sort of united Ireland - I think you might be thinking of The UVF, who looked at a federal Ireland within a federal UK in the very early seventies. The aim of Loyalist paramilitaries was to keep Ulster out of a United Ireland. Mostly this meant supporting The Union, but some elements looked at an independent state at times.
Pretty sure McMichael proposed autonomy within a unified framework in the 80s. You seem to endorse the point I'm making, which is that the point of Loyalism was reactive rather than proactive because they had nothing to be proactive towards.secondopinion wrote: »No, not really. You see, most people in England see themselves as English then British. Loyalist paramilitaries would historically have seen themselves as Ullish then British. There's no conflict in this and requires no interaction with The Irish in The ROI.
There's no such word as 'Ullish'.
Hence, Loyalist terrorists could not have seen themselves as such. They saw themselves as British, in a war with the IRA. Pretty much every Loyalist terrorist on record has iterated that same position.secondopinion wrote: »I think some of The Irish get carried away with the importance of David Ervine!
I think too many Unionists underestimate his relevance.secondopinion wrote: »Perhaps you could explain the difference between a Loyalist and a Unionist?
In theory, one is loyal to the Queen and the other supports the union of occupied Ireland with Britain politically. In practice, one is working class and the other middle class British citizens in occupied Ireland.0 -
And what part of my response to your request did you not understand?secondopinion wrote: »The numbers I was asking for were ex-prisoners who had degrees - not figures on ex-prisoners in Stormont
But then maybe all those Loyalist ex-prisoners with degrees all went into dentistry or engineering instead of politics?
They didn't. Not so long as they were content to be murderous lapdogs for the traditional Unionist political leadership. Actually formulating a position of their own, see below, and conceptualising their 'struggle' in explicitly political terms - including political protest - required a more sophisticated political frameworkLoyalist paramilitaries existed to kill Irish Nationalists as part of a political pressure strategy. What makes you think they required any further analysis than that?
The Republican leadership made that leap but only a few Loyalists were able to do likewise
You mean aside from being the most obvious example of a distinctly Loyalist political party? That is, the development of an ideological programme, by Loyalist ex-terrorists, that could stand without the leadership/support of the traditional Unionist elite. This was, as Cavehill Red notes, a far more proactive (and I would argue, constructive) platform than that typically offered by the UUP or DUP. It remains the only real case of Loyalist killers being able to get off their knees and actually produce a coherent political analysis of the TroublesReally. What exactly have The PUP achieved?
And it's unfortunate that this proved to be a dead end. Republicans were able to go from prison to politics but there were too few like-minded Loyalists to do the same. Leadership of the Unionist movement remains pretty much the same as it was a century ago - businessmen and clergymen directing mindless thugs
So you keep repeating. As if these are historical roles doled out by some cosmic directorThat was their role.
1) That's a very, very poor analogy. Leaving aside the sweeping generalisations, you are comparing apples with oranges. Why not compare the British Army with the Wehrmacht? Why compare a national army to a party/political paramilitary force?They didn't require one. Defence of Ulster's constitutional position was their motivation. Compare and contrast The UK armed forces in WWII with the SS. Both were militarists, but whilst The SS had a sophisticated political ideology, British soldiers had the normal spread of views found within The UK at that time. Many cared nothing about politics at all - only winning the war as soldiers.
2) It's silly and is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand
3) Suddenly the Loyalist killers are well-versed in and have acute concerns about the constitutional arrangements of the UK? Are these the same terrorists who, you contend, didn't need or have an interest in politics, ideology or analysis?
Yes, that's exactly my point. Hence the difference with Republican prisoners. Honestly, I'm not sure that you're actually reading my postsAgain, Loyalist paramilitaries had no interest in 'a wider ideology' - their personal political views were diverse. Only a minority had any interest in politics in the narrow sense of the word
I'm not sure if you're being obtuse but there is a good question here. This (PDF) is probably as good a place to start as anyI don't know what you mean by 'Loyalist' - perhaps you could explain?
In short, Loyalism means more than 'physical force Unionism'. Explaining exactly how it is to be defined is difficult - as noted few Loyalists have been politically educated/aware enough to give it expression - but, for the purposes of this thread, there are a few key points. Despite sitting within the broader Unionist milieu (much as Republicanism is a subset of Nationalism), Loyalism as a political movement can be said to be:
1) Distinct from the Unionist establishment
2) Provides analyses rooted in more than constitutional arguments or blind loyalty to the Crown.
3) Is formulated by paramilitaries or those from that background
4) As a result of the above, it is more proactive and positive. Politically active Loyalists tend to be (ironically) more in favour of negotiated settlements and community based initiatives
Of course most 'Loyalist' paramilitaries have traditionally been completely unable to express themselves politically. What that leaves is an empty terrorism that is carried out by Loyalists in the interests of a detached and almost alien political elite (the UUP and DUP). The latter provide the political leadership while the former do the killing
Contrast with the Nationalist community where the killers have successfully made the transition and are setting the political agenda
The same one I've been making all along: Republicanism as a political framework is infinitely more coherent and developed than Loyalism. Hence the different attitudes to protest by the prisonersAnd your point is?
No, I assume that "Loyalist paramilitaries in general" have been incapable of creating such a party. Not for want of trying of course but because they simply didn't/don't have the political eduction or conciousnessYou assume Loyalist paramilitaries in general were hoping to create some political party, as opposed to a selection of individuals such as Ervine.
A Loyalist paramilitary capable of expressing a coherent and genuinely interesting political position... well that's always novel. And worth taking seriouslyI think some of The Irish get carried away with the importance of David Ervine!0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »There's no such word as 'Ullish'.
http://www.google.ie/search?q=Ullish&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
Perhaps, but sometimes such analogies are telling.1) That's a very, very poor analogy.
[/QUOTE]Leaving aside the sweeping generalisations, you are comparing apples with oranges. [/QUOTE]What colour are the apples.
It is somewhat accurate.Why not compare the British Army with the Wehrmacht? Why compare a national army to a party/political paramilitary force?
Comparing one army to another, their opponent, won't necessarily show many conceptual differences (both were industrialised militaries, led by an upper class officer corps, greatly expanded by the necessities of the war - different uniforms, weapons and tactics are separate).
The SS was more than a paramilitary organisation, it had whole divisions of conventional military forces, the difference being that they were politically motivated in a certain direction.
If you want to be accurate,t he proper comparison would be Wehrmacht v SS, but, eh, they were on the same side.0 -
I've got the OED, Collins and Webster's here. That word isn't in any of them. Therefore I contend, it's not a word.
I note in your kindly proffered google search (not quite the same as actual research, but never mind), there isn't a single reference to the term that dates beyond 2009. Is Ullish the new Ullans, perhaps? Or the new Cruithin?
Bless the little beavers in UUP HQ, having to come up with new adjectives on a biennial basis to describe their own inherent sense of statelessness.0 -
Cavehill Red said:It was a reasonable conclusion from your statement.
No it wasn't.I think, at least in relation to PIRA, it's demonstrable that no Loyalist terror organisation possessed a theoretical or political framework to their activities that compares. With McMichael and Tyrie the UDA possessed a brief period of political thinking which went under beneath the tidal wave of base criminality and self-enrichment.
You don't appear to have a very high opinion of Loyalist paramilitaries. You're not an Irish Nationalist are you? Do you regard Irish Republicans as being motivated by 'base criminality and self-enrichment'?Pretty sure McMichael proposed autonomy within a unified framework in the 80s.
I'm afraid not. Power sharing within NI was his thing at that time.You seem to endorse the point I'm making, which is that the point of Loyalism was reactive rather than proactive because they had nothing to be proactive towards.
Who says they needed to be pro-active?There's no such word as 'Ullish'.
There is. It's a bit like Scottish.Hence, Loyalist terrorists could not have seen themselves as such. They saw themselves as British, in a war with the IRA. Pretty much every Loyalist terrorist on record has iterated that same position.
Many Loyalists would have described themselves as being loyal first and foremost to Ulster.I think too many Unionists underestimate his relevance.
I don't think so. I agree that many Republicans got very excited by him for obvious reasons.In theory, one is loyal to the Queen and the other supports the union of occupied Ireland with Britain politically. In practice, one is working class and the other middle class British citizens in occupied Ireland.
Interesting. There's many different ideas on what a 'Loyalist' is. The 'working class' bit is quite contemporary and is obviously media driven. During the 'troubles' most people would have seen a 'Loyalist' as a militant Unionist. I think that definition was most accurate. Class had nothing to do with it (at least not directly).0 -
Advertisement
-
Reekwind said:But then maybe all those Loyalist ex-prisoners with degrees all went into dentistry or engineering instead of politics?
Yes, they got on with their lives outside politics.They didn't. Not so long as they were content to be murderous lapdogs for the traditional Unionist political leadership. Actually formulating a position of their own, see below, and conceptualising their 'struggle' in explicitly political terms - including political protest - required a more sophisticated political framework
But most were only interested in winning their 'war'. They didn't join paramilitary organisations to become involved in politics. That wasn't their motivation.The Republican leadership made that leap but only a few Loyalists were able to do likewise
Or interested in doing likewise.And it's unfortunate that this proved to be a dead end. Republicans were able to go from prison to politics but there were too few like-minded Loyalists to do the same. Leadership of the Unionist movement remains pretty much the same as it was a century ago - businessmen and clergymen directing mindless thugs
I take it you're not a Unionist?:DSo you keep repeating. As if these are historical roles doled out by some cosmic director
They chose that role.3) Suddenly the Loyalist killers are well-versed in and have acute concerns about the constitutional arrangements of the UK? Are these the same terrorists who, you contend, didn't need or have an interest in politics, ideology or analysis?
Their prime interest was in maintaining Ulster's constitutional position within The UK - this was their 'analysis'. You seem to think they should have been beavering away writing books or something. Their opinions were diverse outside of the constitutional question.In short, Loyalism means more than 'physical force Unionism'.
I don't think it does. Or at least it didn't.Explaining exactly how it is to be defined is difficult - as noted few Loyalists have been politically educated/aware enough to give it expression - but, for the purposes of this thread, there are a few key points. Despite sitting within the broader Unionist milieu (much as Republicanism is a subset of Nationalism), Loyalism as a political movement can be said to be:
1) Distinct from the Unionist establishment
2) Provides analyses rooted in more than constitutional arguments or blind loyalty to the Crown.
3) Is formulated by paramilitaries or those from that background
4) As a result of the above, it is more proactive and positive. Politically active Loyalists tend to be (ironically) more in favour of negotiated settlements and community based initiatives
That might be how some describe Loyalism. I don't.Of course most 'Loyalist' paramilitaries have traditionally been completely unable to express themselves politically.
They were a single issue pressure group. They used guns to 'express themselves politically'.No, I assume that "Loyalist paramilitaries in general" have been incapable of creating such a party. Not for want of trying of course but because they simply didn't/don't have the political eduction or conciousness
Most weren't interested.0
Advertisement