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
Belfast Celebrates One Hundred Years of Terrorism
Options
-
04-05-2013 12:47pm#1Last week a 10,000 strong crowd turned out for the centenary celebrations of the UVF. The UVF played a fundamental part in subverting democracy in Ireland in 1912 which made way for the partition of Ireland, into north and south jurisdictions. Ireland was partitioned in order to avoid a civil war between the UVF and its supporters who opposed the democratic implementation of Home Rule against Irish Nationalists who supported it. However, following partition, a civil war ensued anyway and the northern part of the country suffered the worst riots in years between Catholics and Protestants, where the UVF played a crucial part.
Amongst the festive crowds goers at last week’s celebrations were former members of the Shankill butchers, who embarked on a notorious murder campaign against innocent Catholics during the troubles. But the reporter was quick to distance itself from any connection between the Old UVF and the modern day UVF, a similar approach which is taken in the south to distinguish the IRA of new from the IRA of old.
The interesting thing about the UVF is that all conflict in 20th and 21st century Ireland can be traced to the signing of the Ulster Covenant and the formation of the UVF terror group. One maybe easily mistaken that the origins of terrorism is an exclusive phenomenon attributed to Gerry Adams and the IRA. Even in the midst of the peace process, these people have the audacity to go out in thousands to celebrate these terrorists whose only contribution to Irish history has been to prolong British involvement in Irish politics which has proven itself to be a failure time and time again at the sad expense of the lives of innocent Irish civilians.
Isn’t it time that we examine the real root cause of conflict in Ireland and stop bashing Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein? If we are ever to have real truth and reconciliation in this country maybe it’s time we examine the heart of the problem which was on display last week in Belfast.
Last week an Irish Times journalist wrote an article suggesting that we eradicate Irish history from our school curriculum in order to prevent future conflict. After reading the article I was in between minds whether I should call the police since never were their such insane suggestions since the regime of Paul Pot. I gave the journalist the benefit of the doubt since through his insane proposals he may have a point. Instead of actually erasing Irish history perhaps it should be revised and may I suggest instead of teaching kids about the Treaty and Civil war perhaps we should emphasise the importance of the Ulster Covenant, the UVF, it’s continued glorification and why it contributes to more than a century of political violence in this country.
The modern day definition of a terrorist is someone or some group who uses or threatens to use violence designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public. Therefore, by that definition, the Old UVF were terrorists just like their modern counterparts.
Was it right that the country was partitioned because Irish democracy was threatened by the UVF? Perhaps if the threat of violence was contained in 1912 and 1913 we may be living in a very different Ireland today.3
Comments
-
No one should be supporting terrorism but stopping them will only do more harm then good. Best to ignore them OP. We'll be seeing a lot of this from the other side in 2016.An tAthair MacSuibhne wrote: »Last week a 10,000 strong crowd turned out for the centenary celebrations of the UVF. The UVF played a fundamental part in subverting democracy in Ireland in 1912 which made way for the partition of Ireland, into north and south jurisdictions. Ireland was partitioned in order to avoid a civil war between the UVF and its supporters who opposed the democratic implementation of Home Rule against Irish Nationalists who supported it. However, following partition, a civil war ensued anyway and the northern part of the country suffered the worst riots in years between Catholics and Protestants, where the UVF played a crucial part.
Amongst the festive crowds goers at last week’s celebrations were former members of the Shankill butchers, who embarked on a notorious murder campaign against innocent Catholics during the troubles. But the reporter was quick to distance itself from any connection between the Old UVF and the modern day UVF, a similar approach which is taken in the south to distinguish the IRA of new from the IRA of old.
The interesting thing about the UVF is that all conflict in 20th and 21st century Ireland can be traced to the signing of the Ulster Covenant and the formation of the UVF terror group. One maybe easily mistaken that the origins of terrorism is an exclusive phenomenon attributed to Gerry Adams and the IRA. Even in the midst of the peace process, these people have the audacity to go out in thousands to celebrate these terrorists whose only contribution to Irish history has been to prolong British involvement in Irish politics which has proven itself to be a failure time and time again at the sad expense of the lives of innocent Irish civilians.
Isn’t it time that we examine the real root cause of conflict in Ireland and stop bashing Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein? If we are ever to have real truth and reconciliation in this country maybe it’s time we examine the heart of the problem which was on display last week in Belfast.
Last week an Irish Times journalist wrote an article suggesting that we eradicate Irish history from our school curriculum in order to prevent future conflict. After reading the article I was in between minds whether I should call the police since never were their such insane suggestions since the regime of Paul Pot. I gave the journalist the benefit of the doubt since through his insane proposals he may have a point. Instead of actually erasing Irish history perhaps it should be revised and may I suggest instead of teaching kids about the Treaty and Civil war perhaps we should emphasise the importance of the Ulster Covenant, the UVF, it’s continued glorification and why it contributes to more than a century of political violence in this country.
The modern day definition of a terrorist is someone or some group who uses or threatens to use violence designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public. Therefore, by that definition, the Old UVF were terrorists just like their modern counterparts.
Was it right that the country was partitioned because Irish democracy was threatened by the UVF? Perhaps if the threat of violence was contained in 1912 and 1913 we may be living in a very different Ireland today.0 -
The 'other' side?0
-
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Yeah, the UVF on one side. The IRA on the other.
But didn't the IRA win freedom for Ireland?:rolleyes::)0 -
-
Advertisement
-
An tAthair MacSuibhne wrote: »Last week a 10,000 strong crowd turned out for the centenary celebrations of the UVF. The UVF played a fundamental part in subverting democracy in Ireland in 1912 which made way for the partition of Ireland, into north and south jurisdictions. Ireland was partitioned in order to avoid a civil war between the UVF and its supporters who opposed the democratic implementation of Home Rule against Irish Nationalists who supported it. However, following partition, a civil war ensued anyway and the northern part of the country suffered the worst riots in years between Catholics and Protestants, where the UVF played a crucial part.
Pretty accurate, although I'd class the Old UVF as rebels. The more recent UVF, terrorists? Sure.
Also the civil war didn't touch Northern Ireland. In fact, that country was seen as a bastion of political stability at the time. The IRA had no support in their ill fated border campaign. It seemed to bode well... for a short time.An tAthair MacSuibhne wrote: »Amongst the festive crowds goers at last week’s celebrations were former members of the Shankill butchers, who embarked on a notorious murder campaign against innocent Catholics during the troubles. But the reporter was quick to distance itself from any connection between the Old UVF and the modern day UVF, a similar approach which is taken in the south to distinguish the IRA of new from the IRA of old.
Just because someone wants to call themselves something doesn't mean that they are it. You could call yourself a Martian if you like. In the same way the modern IRAs like to say that they are exactly the same as their namesake from the 1920s. No organisation bothers calling themselves the IRB... for shame! Not that the IRA of the 1920s entirely covered themselves with glory either...An tAthair MacSuibhne wrote: »The interesting thing about the UVF is that all conflict in 20th and 21st century Ireland can be traced to the signing of the Ulster Covenant and the formation of the UVF terror group.
Other than the fact that the Old UVF wasn't founded as a terror group I suppose this is correct... although from the Unonists' POV they'd probably say that everything was dandy until Nationalists started going on about Home Rule and attempting to dominate people who wanted to remain entirely in the Empire (the fact that the Unionists ultimately accepted Home Rule for Northern Ireland is one of those ironic addendums)An tAthair MacSuibhne wrote: »One maybe easily mistaken that the origins of terrorism is an exclusive phenomenon attributed to Gerry Adams and the IRA. Even in the midst of the peace process, these people have the audacity to go out in thousands to celebrate these terrorists whose only contribution to Irish history has been to prolong British involvement in Irish politics which has proven itself to be a failure time and time again at the sad expense of the lives of innocent Irish civilians.
True, but you get plenty going to some Republican parades celebrating the same.An tAthair MacSuibhne wrote: »Isn’t it time that we examine the real root cause of conflict in Ireland and stop bashing Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein?
What's a root cause? Some Republicans say that it all started with Strongbow ffs. 800 years of repression iirc.
Did it start in 1969, or 1922, or 1916, or 1914, in 1870, 1848, or 1798?
Some people say that De Valera and Adams were cut from the same cloth. That's debatable.. but also largely irrelevant. The perpetrators of 1916 are all dead, the same cannot be said for those who took part in The Troubles. And whilst it does no great good to drag up bloody history for its own sake, it is more pertinent when people related to that history are attempting, or established, in positions of political power.An tAthair MacSuibhne wrote: »Last week an Irish Times journalist wrote an article suggesting that we eradicate Irish history from our school curriculum in order to prevent future conflict. After reading the article I was in between minds whether I should call the police since never were their such insane suggestions since the regime of Paul Pot. I gave the journalist the benefit of the doubt since through his insane proposals he may have a point. Instead of actually erasing Irish history perhaps it should be revised and may I suggest instead of teaching kids about the Treaty and Civil war perhaps we should emphasise the importance of the Ulster Covenant, the UVF, it’s continued glorification and why it contributes to more than a century of political violence in this country.
Actually the current curriculum does mention this; not in a particularly hectoring fashion, but it is clear for those who explore it and its ramifications. The idea of downgrading history is lunacy imo.An tAthair MacSuibhne wrote: »Was it right that the country was partitioned because Irish democracy was threatened by the UVF?
That's a god deal more complex than you give that question credit. There are very fundamental questions concerning the whole notion of Western politics that that particular episode in that part of the country generated.An tAthair MacSuibhne wrote: »Perhaps if the threat of violence was contained in 1912 and 1913 we may be living in a very different Ireland today.
The threat of violence was first and foremost against the Crown, against Westminster, and what was seen as its illegitimacy in attempting to shoehorn an unwilling people into a country which they had no desire to be part of. Would the army have marched and crushed Unionist intransigence? In the Curragh they made clear that the rank-and-file had no stomach for such orders.
Who knows what would have happened had war not broken out? But it was largely out of the hands of Nationalists as they were, at the time, engaging with the political process.0 -
-
RandomName2 wrote: »Also the civil war didn't touch Northern Ireland. In fact, that country was seen as a bastion of political stability at the time. The IRA had no support in their ill fated border campaign. It seemed to bode well... for a short time.
While the Civil War was underway in the Free State, there was a massive increase in IRA violence in the north in an effort to destroy the new statelet before it could be stabilized.0 -
Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »While the Civil War was underway in the Free State, there was a massive increase in IRA violence in the north in an effort to destroy the new statelet before it could be stabilized.
iirc Northern Ireland enjoyed a period of peace and stability after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, marred only by economic recession. Prior to that, during the War of Independence, there had been a great deal of violence, as there was in the rest of the island.0 -
The UVF were a major factor to delaying Home Rule and leading to the Easter Rising and the formation of the Irish Free State. I think it is clear if it wasn't for their promise to march on Dublin Castle that we would be living in a 32 county Ireland now, with a Home Rule government.
Given the problems that have arisen since that time as a result of this, most Irish people may not like to consider that they did actually have a point. Their objection was that the new Ireland would be excessively influenced by the Roman Catholic church. History has shown this indeed to be the case, and also that it was a very negative thing.
Nonetheless they were not justified in their actions. They could have engaged with the process politically to address their concerns, instead of threatening outright rebellion. Instead of just saying no they could have bought into the new Ireland and have their voice heard. This was the attitude of protestants in the south, who generally supported Home Rule enthusiastically. A result of their aggressive and violent stance was their opposite numbers gaining power. That is the Irish Republican rebels who also opposed Home Rule, and also advocating violence to achieve their aims.
I would guess that the view of the old UVF by Northern protestants today is akin to the view of the old IRA by southern Catholics (and many protestants tbh). That is a tendency to romanticise and idealise violent organisations whose influences have been caused terrible things for Ireland.
The idea of removing Irish history from the textbooks is bonkers, and would probably increase aggression rather than defuse it. Putting things more firmly in context would be a good idea though. Updating the history books, not cutting things out of them.
How about removing religion from schools altogether? Surely ending segregation of kids into Catholic and Protestant schools is a no-brainer. The fact we don't is just pandering to nutters. I recall stones being thrown at kids in the North who attended a mixed schools about ten years ago. I recall a similar but more minor thing happening in my own primary school, which was nominally protestant but had many Catholic pupils. Instead of pandering to loonies to help propagate their beliefs, why not go ahead with obviously constructive acts, and punish the loonies severely when they try harassing children.0 -
Advertisement
-
blatantrereg wrote: »
Given the problems that have arisen since that time as a result of this, most Irish people may not like to consider that they did actually have a point. Their objection was that the new Ireland would be excessively influenced by the Roman Catholic church. History has shown this indeed to be the case, and also that it was a very negative thing.
That's another Unionist myth been propagated since Home Rule. It was partition which influenced the Roman Catholic Church's power in the south and not Home Rule. Both are two very distinct concepts.0 -
An tAthair MacSuibhne wrote: »That's another Unionist myth been propagated since Home Rule. It was partition which influenced the Roman Catholic Church's power in the south and not Home Rule. Both are two very distinct concepts.
I am finding your logic a touch difficult to follow.
Home Rule: country granted authority to decide domestic affairs based on democratic principles.
Roman Catholic Church: a domestic institution within Ireland.
Unionist argument: as Catholics would outnumber Protestants 4-1 in a Home Rule Ireland, the Dail would be dominated by Catholic parties/interests. As such the Catholic Church would be granted extensive new powers within the state.
Partition: the vast majority of Protestants excluded from the Irish Free State.
So whilst Protestants would likely dampen down the influence of the Church somewhat if they had been included in a Hole Rule Ireland, I cannot see how they would have effectively curtailed the power which it ultimately achieved in the state.0 -
I would tend to agree with you that partition and the hostile position of the UVF had a much stronger influence in that regard than Home Rule would have. If Ulster protestants had bought into Home Rule then they would have been able to influence the shape of things in the island as a whole in a constructive way, instead of a destructive one. Their hostility would have considerably strengthened the influence of the RC church on the other hand. Nonetheless, the influence of the RC church on Ireland was a valid concern. The fact that the UVF aggravated this hugely rather than doing anything positive about it doesn't mean the concern was invalid.An tAthair MacSuibhne wrote: »That's another Unionist myth been propagated since Home Rule. It was partition which influenced the Roman Catholic Church's power in the south and not Home Rule. Both are two very distinct concepts.0 -
The thing is though, that at the time all this happened, there simply wasn't that much in the way of anti-British sentiment, nor tensions between protestants and Roman Catholics - no matter how propaganda would try to convince us otherwise. The UVF set themselves up as enemies, which stirred up a lot of bad things. Britain and protestants in general were cast the same way, and the extremists on the other side gained power in the south of Ireland.RandomName2 wrote: »I am finding your logic a touch difficult to follow.
Home Rule: country granted authority to decide domestic affairs based on democratic principles.
Roman Catholic Church: a domestic institution within Ireland.
Unionist argument: as Catholics would outnumber Protestants 4-1 in a Home Rule Ireland, the Dail would be dominated by Catholic parties/interests. As such the Catholic Church would be granted extensive new powers within the state.
Partition: the vast majority of Protestants excluded from the Irish Free State.
So whilst Protestants would likely dampen down the influence of the Church somewhat if they had been included in a Hole Rule Ireland, I cannot see how they would have effectively curtailed the power which it ultimately achieved in the state.0 -
blatantrereg wrote: »The thing is though, that at the time all this happened, there simply wasn't that much in the way of anti-British sentiment, nor tensions between protestants and Roman Catholics - no matter how propaganda would try to convince us otherwise. The UVF set themselves up as enemies, which stirred up a lot of bad things. Britain and protestants in general were cast the same way, and the extremists on the other side gained power in the south of Ireland.
Ah! A big 'what if'. Protestants were certainly persecuted during and after the War of Independence in what became the Irish Free State (thereby apparently confirming the unionists' point of view).
However, by the 1920s acts which would have seemed unconscionable during the 1910s had because possible due to the rising tensions between the three factions of Unionist, Nationalist, and Crown; the blood-letting at home and abroad, the radicalisation of political parties, and the crimes and reprisals committed by all belligerents in the conflict. The Unionists, due to their political inferiority (particularly when the power of the House of Lords was reduced) were the first to introduce arms into politics in the twentieth century.0
Advertisement