The War of Independence in the North?

SurlyBoy

Hi all,

The study of Irish revolution in the early 20th century generally, in my experience, doesn't focus on the experience of northern nationalists beyond the period where say, the UVF and Volunteers were developing, up to the outbreak of the 1916 Rising..

I was watching a program that was on rte years ago called "Rebel Heart" which is pretty great, detailing an Irishman's involvement in republican affairs from 1916 to the civil war, it was great to see a gritty dramatisation of the Rising in 1916 (I've always felt it would make a brilliant film)

But anyway, in the second episode of the series (Spoiler alert if you haven't seen it) the protagonist travels to Belfast on duty and when staying in the house of a family of nationalists overnight, a squad of RIC obviously alerted to the family's involvement (girls in Cumann na mBan) comes in and executes all the male members of the house including a boy.

Having heard virtually nothing about the history of Belfast nationalists between 1916 and the late 60's I was wondering how accurate this fairly sensationalist scene was to history? If it is accurate, then the northern war of independence has been really underlooked in history (as I say, in my experience, feel free to contradict me)

Can anyone summarise what happened in the North during this period? Was there much activity by the Belfast volunteers and elsewhere in the north against RIC/British Army? Was there much reprisals/cold blooded attacks by RIC or tans/auxiliaries? How did it compare to what was happening elsewhere, other atrocities? Also, did Michael Collins pay much attention to the Northern rebels? This series portrays his neglect of them.

Any information would be appreciated!

Thanks

Tim

Dr.Nightdub

I could be typing for days and still not finish answering the question, it's way too broad.

Try getting your hands on either of these:

thecommietommy

SurlyBoy wrote: »

But anyway, in the second episode of the series (Spoiler alert if you haven't seen it) the protagonist travels to Belfast on duty and when staying in the house of a family of nationalists overnight, a squad of RIC obviously alerted to the family's involvement (girls in Cumann na mBan) comes in and executes all the male members of the house including a boy.

Having heard virtually nothing about the history of Belfast nationalists between 1916 and the late 60's I was wondering how accurate this fairly sensationalist scene was to history? If it is accurate, then the northern war of independence has been really underlooked in history (as I say, in my experience, feel free to contradict me)

The scene wasn't actually sensationalist, it's based on the murder of 6 members of the McMahon family by the RUC on March 4, 1922. No one was ever prosecuted for the murders.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1376480/Murders-that-shocked-the-world.html

SurlyBoy

Thanks for the replies.
Good god, that's awful.

Fenian Army

Michael Farrells "Northern Ireland - The Orange State" deals with IRA activities in the six counties during the tan war.

whitelines

SurlyBoy wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.
Good god, that's awful.

Far worse happened when India was partitioned. Civilisation's a veneer.

golden lane

whitelines wrote: »

Far worse happened when India was partitioned. Civilisation's a veneer.

at what stage does ethnic integration.....ever work......

it always end up as a snowball going downhill...............

thecommietommy

whitelines wrote: »

Far worse happened when India was partitioned. Civilisation's a veneer.

Yes and then again what the Romans did in Cathage in 146 BC was far worse again - is that an excuse for murdering six members of a family ? I suppose it is with our unionist friends when the family murdered were Catholics in Belfast.

dubhthach

thecommietommy wrote: »

Yes and then again what the Romans did in Cathage in 146 BC was far worse again - is that an excuse for murdering six members of a family ? I suppose it is with our unionist friends when the family murdered were Catholics in Belfast.

I don't see what Carthage has to do with the topic. Refrain from making broad generalisations. The Unionist population isn't some sort of Monolith. The thread shouldn't be derailed.
Mod

thecommietommy

whitelines wrote: »

Far worse happened when India was partitioned. Civilisation's a veneer.

dubhthach wrote: »

I don't see what Carthage has to do with the topic. Refrain from making broad generalisations. The Unionist population isn't some sort of Monolith. The thread shouldn't be derailed.
Mod

Well can you tell me what India has to do with the subject either though quite clearly you have ignored/missed it. Clearly the point of my reply was to show we could all go grasping at straws making excuses with comparisions with events throughout history saying " Far worse happened when .... blah, blah ".

However I would agree with you that the Unionist population isn't some sort of monolith - though back in the ' good old days ' that's what they used to describe their hold on the northern state. See Micheal Farrell's The Orange Sate.

jonniebgood1

thecommietommy wrote: »

Well can you tell me what India has to do with the subject either though quite clearly you have ignored/missed it. Clearly the point of my reply was to show we could all go grasping at straws making excuses with comparisions with events throughout history saying " Far worse happened when .... blah, blah ".

However I would agree with you that the Unionist population isn't some sort of monolith - though back in the ' good old days ' that's what they used to describe their hold on the northern state. See Micheal Farrell's The Orange Sate.

You were told not to derail this thread by a moderator. Rather than take this advice on board you posted as quoted above. Because of this you receive a warning infraction. If you continue to post off- topic the infraction may well be increased to a ban. If you dont agree with a moderator decision you can PM them to discuss it. You should understand this as you have done so previously. Please heed this warning as we prefer not to interfere in this way. If you have a problem with this then PM the relevant moderator.

Moderator.

MarchDub

thecommietommy wrote: »

The scene wasn't actually sensationalist, it's based on the murder of 6 members of the McMahon family by the RUC on March 4, 1922. No one was ever prosecuted for the murders.

I agree with you that it's fairly pointless to 'compare' atrocities - no matter where in the world they are committed - as being somehow in gradients i.e this is bad, no, this was worse etc. Atrocities are atrocities - end of.

The historian and journalist Andrew Boyd - who died recently at age 90 - in his writings highlighted some of the barbarous acts in NI of that period that he accused historians of downplaying. In his Northern Ireland Who is to Blame he makes reference to the McMahon murders and the pogroms of that period:

The pogrom of 1920-22 was the worst the Catholics of the north had ever before experienced...

Amongst the dead were the McMahon family. The father, five sons and one employee were massacred by uniformed, armed loyalists in the middle of the night [24 March 1922].

Also among the dead were six little Catholic children of Weaver Street who were killed [30 January 1922] when a hand grenade was thrown among them, and the six people of Arnon St who were battered to death by the Ulster police one week after the McMahons were murdered.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

I agree with you that it's fairly pointless to 'compare' atrocities - no matter where in the world they are committed - as being somehow in gradients i.e this is bad, no, this was worse etc. Atrocities are atrocities - end of.

The historian and journalist Andrew Boyd - who died recently at age 90 - in his writings highlighted some of the barbarous acts in NI of that period that he accused historians of downplaying. In his Northern Ireland Who is to Blame he makes reference to the McMahon murders and the pogroms of that period:

The pogrom of 1920-22 was the worst the Catholics of the north had ever before experienced...

Amongst the dead were the McMahon family. The father, five sons and one employee were massacred by uniformed, armed loyalists in the middle of the night [24 March 1922].

Also among the dead were six little Catholic children of Weaver Street who were killed [30 January 1922] when a hand grenade was thrown among them, and the six people of Arnon St who were battered to death by the Ulster police one week after the McMahons were murdered.

Perhaps I am being overly pedantic but surely the fact that Andrew Boyd labels the pogrom as "the worst" that Catholics in the North had experienced, is a contradiction of your initial point. To label them as 'worst' necessitates a comparison.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Perhaps I am being overly pedantic but surely the fact that Andrew Boyd labels the pogrom as "the worst" that Catholics in the North had experienced, is a contradiction of your initial point. To label them as 'worst' necessitates a comparison.

He was saying they were the worst in NI - he wasn't saying as one poster here was that hey this is nothing, look what happened in India ie. as a way of downgrading or denying the NI Catholic experience. Not at all.

So no, I don't agree that his motivation was at all the same.

whitelines

MarchDub wrote: »

He was saying they were the worst in NI - he wasn't saying as one poster here was that hey this is nothing, look what happened in India ie. as a way of downgrading or denying the NI Catholic experience. Not at all.

So no, I don't agree that his motivation was at all the same.

Pogrom - what pogrom?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0511/1224315908195.html

MarchDub

whitelines wrote: »

Pogrom - what pogrom?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0511/1224315908195.html

I was quoting Andrew Boyd on the issue. The fact that Parkinson does not like the word, is well, his opinion.

Personally I'm not bothered either way with what language or word is used - many innocent people were killed in the period, including children.

Historian Dr Alan Parkinson said it was the case that there was a “disproportionately high” number of Catholic victims of violence at that time.[

"Disproportionately high" will do for me also.

whitelines

MarchDub wrote: »

I was quoting Andrew Boyd on the issue. The fact that Parkinson does not like the word, is well, his opinion.

Personally I'm not bothered either way with what language or word is used - many innocent people were killed in the period, including children.



"Disproportionately high" will do for me also.

'Pogrom' is one of those loaded words that seem to get Irish Nationalists all hot and bothered - like 'death squad', 'collusion', 'shoot to kill', 'gerrymander', 'sectarian', 'discrimination', etc. They usually use such words in a grossly narrow manner and seem to lack the ability to contextualise their absurd rhetoric. Just my opinion.

As for 'pogrom', a more accurate phrase in this particular context would be 'inter-communal violence' - reflecting as it does the idea that both Catholics and Protestants suffered - as was the case.

Dr.Nightdub

It should be noted that the comments of Alan Parkinson quoted in the Irish Times were part of his contribution to a series of seminars recently held at Stranmillis College in Belfast on the theme of "Remembering the Future" - the structure of these was that after one speaker introducing a subject in a general way, two additional speakers would then give "perspectives" i.e. discuss that topic as it was seen subjectively from the particular point of view of each community in the north. To simply quote Parkinson as the Irish Times did was to take his words somewhat out of context.

On the more general use of "pogrom", while it doesn't fit the technical definition of pogrom as it evolved in Russia or Armenia, it was the term that was used by nationalists at the time as it reflected what they felt was being done to them - the Provisional Government discussed "pogrom propaganda", G.B.Kenna wrote "Facts and Figures of the Belfast Pogrom" in 1922, etc.

"Inter-communal violence", on the otherhand, is a little bit sanitised for my liking. While Whitelines is quite right to point out that both Catholics and Protestants suffered, and while each was guilty of perpetrating acts of sheer sectarian brutality, to gloss over that fact that - as even Parkinson acknowledged - Catholics suffered to a hugely disproportionate degree is run the danger of ignoring the imbalanced reality.

MarchDub

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

It should be noted that the comments of Alan Parkinson quoted in the Irish Times were part of his contribution to a series of seminars recently held at Stranmillis College in Belfast on the theme of "Remembering the Future" - the structure of these was that after one speaker introducing a subject in a general way, two additional speakers would then give "perspectives" i.e. discuss that topic as it was seen subjectively from the particular point of view of each community in the north. To simply quote Parkinson as the Irish Times did was to take his words somewhat out of context.

Thanks for this within context contribution. Very helpful.

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

On the more general use of "pogrom", while it doesn't fit the technical definition of pogrom as it evolved in Russia or Armenia, it was the term that was used by nationalists at the time as it reflected what they felt was being done to them - the Provisional Government discussed "pogrom propaganda", G.B.Kenna wrote "Facts and Figures of the Belfast Pogrom" in 1922, etc.

"Inter-communal violence", on the otherhand, is a little bit sanitised for my liking. While Whitelines is quite right to point out that both Catholics and Protestants suffered, and while each was guilty of perpetrating acts of sheer sectarian brutality, to gloss over that fact that - as even Parkinson acknowledged - Catholics suffered to a hugely disproportionate degree is run the danger of ignoring the imbalanced reality.

Yes - language is powerful and while some words might be used just for emotive purposes - not my purpose at all I should add - it is also important as you say to not ignore, or misrepresent, the historic reality of the period.

whitelines

I believe that there were about twice as many RC deaths as Protestant between 1920 and 1922. Apparently Craig and Collins agreed that Collins would call off The IRA campaign in NI and Craig would try and reign in militant Loyalists.

One Loyalist 'reigned in' was the infamous 'Buck' Alec, who was actually interned by The NI authorities at this time. He led a truly unbelievable life and is well worth 'googling'. They certainly don't make them like him anymore!

CDfm

whitelines wrote: »

One Loyalist 'reigned in' was the infamous 'Buck' Alec, who was actually interned by The NI authorities at this time. He led a truly unbelievable life and is well worth 'googling'. They certainly don't make them like him anymore!

It would be good if you filled us in on the facts and recomended sources as anything gets into google or wikipedia.

Dr.Nightdub

Not the most salubrious of characters was Buck Alec:

http://buckalecrobinson.rushlightmagazine.com/

CDfm

thecommietommy wrote: »

However I would agree with you that the Unionist population isn't some sort of monolith - though back in the ' good old days ' that's what they used to describe their hold on the northern state. See Micheal Farrell's The Orange Sate.

Is this the guy and the book,

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr200/orange.htm

The catholic experience in NI did lead to the Civil Right's Movement and sociologists call segregation structural and to enforce it required a lot of effort.

It is hard to argue against it factually because the evidence is all there.

whitelines

CDfm wrote: »

It would be good if you filled us in on the facts and recomended sources as anything gets into google or wikipedia.

There's a difference between Google and Wiki. Wiki isn't a credible source at all, though it can be used as a starting point. Google is more like a vast library containing a broad selection of documents of varying quality. It is the responsibility of the reader to decide which documents to take seriously and why.

MarchDub

whitelines wrote: »

There's a difference between Google and Wiki. Wiki isn't a credible source at all, though it can be used as a starting point. Google is more like a vast library containing a broad selection of documents of varying quality. It is the responsibility of the reader to decide which documents to take seriously and why.

Google has a priority system in its search engine so you're not always brought to the most valid/informed sites ...and the web is full of bad information. An uninformed reader cannot discern between the good and the bad - believe me, I've seen students who just pump out whatever comes up on the Google search.

And it's not confined to students either - read the daily papers and you can spot the Google results on many subjects where the reporter/journalist just went in and took nonsense verbatim.

whitelines

MarchDub wrote: »

Google has a priority system in its search engine so you're not always brought to the most valid/informed sites ...and the web is full of bad information. An uninformed reader cannot discern between the good and the bad - believe me, I've seen students who just pump out whatever comes up on the Google search.

And it's not confined to students either - read the daily papers and you can spot the Google results on many subjects where the reporter/journalist just went in and took nonsense verbatim.

That's where experience and judgement come in. The same applies to books.

There's no easy way round it.

MarchDub

whitelines wrote: »

That's where experience and judgement come in. The same applies to books.

There's no easy way round it.

We're getting off topic -

but I would say that a particular book can be vetted by author, reputation, standing etc. whereas a Google search brings up all kinds of sites and blogs that are not vetted in any way and the inexperienced can and do easily fall into thinking that what they read is legitimate based on nothing more than a Google result.

CDfm

whitelines wrote: »

That's where experience and judgement come in. The same applies to books.

There's no easy way round it.

There is, quote your sources to back up your point and sure it'll all be grand.

And then I am sure we can discuss you point and the sources.

Dr.Nightdub

OK so, on the subject of "Buck Alec" Robinson:

"...acknowledged by police as 'a dangerous gunman and leader of a murderous gang'. Though based in the area around Andrew Street and described in the press as 'the Dockland bomber and gunman', Robinson was engaged in 'freelance' terror, involving himself in shootings and bombins across the city. A colourful character, Robinson's infamy as a killer of Catholics was unsurpassed and despite a criminal record, managed to serve as a 'C' Special, before being interned in November 1922."
Source: Alan Parkinson, "Belfast's Unholy Wars", p281

And for "balance", from a more nationalist perspective:
"His minute sheet reads: 'He is reported to be a Protestant gunman of a most dangerous type who does no work and whose ordinary amusement is murder.' In October he was arrested and interned,, but released on condition that he go to England for two years. Robinson returned soon after. On October 21, 1922, the RUC Commissioner's Office reported he was 'One of the most notorious gunmen and murderers in the City of Belfast. His history was fully reported some short time ago and the Government ordered his arrest. His last known exploit was the murder of Mrs. Rafferty in Andrew Street on 17th ult.'"
Source: Jim McDermott, "Northern Divisions, The Old IRA and the Belfast Pogroms 1920-22", p270

With the RUC, a unionist historian and a nationalist historian all identifying Robinson as a scumbag, I think it's fair to conclude that Robinson was indeed a scumbag.

thecommietommy

whitelines wrote: »

'Pogrom' is one of those loaded words that seem to get Irish Nationalists all hot and bothered - like 'death squad', 'collusion', 'shoot to kill', 'gerrymander', 'sectarian', 'discrimination', etc. They usually use such words in a grossly narrow manner and seem to lack the ability to contextualise their absurd rhetoric. Just my opinion.

As for 'pogrom', a more accurate phrase in this particular context would be 'inter-communal violence' - reflecting as it does the idea that both Catholics and Protestants suffered - as was the case.

It should also be pointed out, that many Protestants were also the victims of the orange order mobs, they usually were Protestant anti sectarian trade unionists and/or nationalists. Also no one more than unionists are capable of using words to grossly exaggerate their absurd rhetoric, for example, here where they tried to claim the IRA had carried out " genocide " no less by the killing of 10 men at Kingsmills in 1976. The killing of 10 - must have been the smallest " genocide " in history

" SHOCKED English MPs have rejected a Stormont minister’s testimony that the IRA carried out “genocide” against unionists in south Armagh. "
"http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/mps_in_row_over_ira_genocide_1_3483623

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

"Inter-communal violence", on the otherhand, is a little bit sanitised for my liking. While Whitelines is quite right to point out that both Catholics and Protestants suffered, and while each was guilty of perpetrating acts of sheer sectarian brutality, to gloss over that fact that - as even Parkinson acknowledged - Catholics suffered to a hugely disproportionate degree is run the danger of ignoring the imbalanced reality.

Well I agree in general with you Dr. but personally I think the wording should be used to try and reflect the actual reality of the events instead of sanitising the extreme violence. " Poignantly, the first victim was Mrs Margaret Noade, a young mother from the Short Strand, shot dead by police as she crossed Cromac Square. Over the next two years 500 people would die violently, of whom a staggering 58 per cent were Catholics in a city in which they numbered only 25 per cent of the population. ...... Over the next two years 23,000 people, mainly Catholics, were driven from their homes in the city. The Irish government estimated that 50,000 persons left the North permanently in response to the violence and intimidation of these years. " - which to me anyway, does indeed represent a pogrom.

http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume14/issue1/reviews/?id=114012

cormacocomhrai

My maternal grandmother was from Belfast. One of three Catholic families in the street. They were tipped off by a neighbour that they were going to be targeted and so cleared out. That was July 1920. They went first to Glasgow and then to Manchester. They ended up in Cork city (her grandfather was a naval pensioner originally from Cape Clear so they had Cork relations) on December 10 1920. That night Cork city was burned by the Auxiliaries. An eventful few months.