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
On this day in 1981 Bobby Sands began his Hunger Strike
Options
Comments
-
Sorry, reading post from op to date again - whats your point?0
-
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.0 -
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?0 -
ChicagoJoe wrote: »Like post #24, what evidence have you to back that up? ( and Wiki's do not countTheHappyChappy 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.0 -
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
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...0 -
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).0 -
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.pedroeibar1 wrote: »I see no justification to extol Sands
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!0 -
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.0 -
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.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.
http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/irish_news/arts2005/mar11_hunger_strike_war_of_words.php0 -
Advertisement
-
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/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.
Your telling fat ones buddy
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 etcI 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).0 -
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.
Moderator0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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 saidThroughout 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!0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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 thatBobby Sands is without doubt internationally respected
As for your questionHow 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!0 -
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
0 -
Advertisement
-
"Without doubt internationally respected"
More Provo propaganda. Probably a few streets named after in him in such predictable spots such as Baghdad or Havana. The list all the capitals /countries that give him no recognition (or have never heard of him) will take a lot longer.0 -
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).
Your more recent reply shows the wide ranging international reaction to the death, much more than Iranian ire as first suggested. Your post below emphasises that with number of countries listed. The derisory comments (such as "big deal") do nothing to lessen the message that Sands death did mean something to the international community.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.
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.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Your more recent reply shows the wide ranging international reaction to the death, much more than Iranian ire as first suggested. Your post below emphasises that with number of countries listed. The derisory comments (such as "big deal") do nothing to lessen the message that Sands death did mean something to the international community.
No doubt it did mean something at the time, not so much now, beyond a minority who would like to believe he was more significant than he actually was - in contrast to someone like McSwiney.
The the OP saidThroughout 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.
Is there any evidence to suggest that today or currently he is held up as a figure of resistance and equality? (and I mean in a meaningful way, not just in a niche, minority way).
......and where is the evidence that he is internationally respected - the use of the word 'is' suggests that the respect is also current - where is the evidence for that?
Plus, if we're being honest, that oft repeated quote about laughing grandchildren is pretty rubbish - it lacks depth, insight and emotion.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Your more recent reply shows the wide ranging international reaction to the death, much more than Iranian ire as first suggested. Your post below emphasises that with number of countries listed. The derisory comments (such as "big deal") do nothing to lessen the message that Sands death did mean something to the international community.
That response is in my view considerably beneath your usual level of comment.
I acknowledged that Sands’ death meant something, but the entire thrust of my argument was that it was no big deal at an international political level. The implication throughout my remarks was to suggest that Sands place in international history is dead, forgotten by all but for a few ‘wonks’ and some people in Ireland who, now as back then wish to use him for propaganda purposes. That remains the case, as the OP ‘s claim that Sands is internationally respected as a figure of equality etc. is a nonsense. Read the OP, its language, and the subsequent failure of the poster to substantiate anything that supports a claim couched in student rhetoric with BS on grandchildren. Arguably the OP is a political statement rather than one of historical intent and as such has been continued by the OP (and I won’t bother to detail the OP’s subsequent childish remarks such as the misspelled French and the coat trailing in #49.)
In the earlier post, I cited just one example of support derived from political motivation – Iran -, who wished to give 2 fingers to Britain by renaming the street on which the Brit. embassy stood. Is it henceforth necessary to quote multiple examples? On being ‘pushed’ I gave several other examples as to why there were political agendas behind the remarks. Do you honestly believe that a few once-off protests by students in a few overseas cities, or a few moments of silence by minor opposition parties (overseas) mean anything to any government, more particularly to a powerful one whose leader was christened the Iron Lady? What did all those protests achieve? or change? Using a contemporary event as an example, last week Eamon Gilmore spoke out strongly and wagged the finger at Putin on Crimea. Do you really think that Putin is losing sleep over that, a remark, not by students or an opposition politician, but one by a Deputy PM of an EU country? Skibereen Eagle comes to mind.
What is incorrect about my comments on the political ideology of the parties who observed silence? Not one power of note condemned the UK’s stance, instead they expressed ‘regret’ or sent ‘condolences’ to the family, or organized a 'mass of condolence'. In international ‘diplomatic speak’ it was as I said ‘tut, tut’, and nothing more. If I really wanted to be argumentative I could posit that most political influencers were condemnatory of Sands, with comments such as ‘blackmail’ and ‘misguided kamikaze’.
Incidentally, on street renaming in France it’s done at ‘Commune’ level **, so it’s quite an easy process, rarely taken seriously because of the political overtone attached to the process and frequently for that reason it becomes a joke topic – as it would have been in Dublin if the council called that new bridge ‘the bridge of the 1914-1918 failed to return home’ (or whatever suchlike was being put forward.)
Like the vast majority of people in the 'south' I have no interest in the radical politics of the 'north' and I regard the fanatics on both extremes with equal distaste. They are total dreamers, bigots and have no conception of the economic realities involved. As Behan said, 'Ireland, Mother Ireland, you're rearing them yet!'
** The Commune of St. Denis, Paris, in which there is a Bobby Sands St., is a bastion of the French Communist Party, and has been controlled by the communists since at least 1922 (with a brief interlude during WW2). The mayor in 1981 was Marcelin Berthelot0 -
But is it not possible that the nature of the group to which Sands belonged would be the reason why no government was willing to say anything other than 'tut tut' publicly? I mean you dismiss the examples of governments that supported him (correctly too i believe, dont get me wrong) as being politically motivated, but I would also dismiss the silence of other governments as politically motivated.
Say for example Germany,
at the time they would have had troubles with the RAF, it would certainly not be in their interests to support any sort of political radicals in another country.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.0 -
riffmongous wrote: »But is it not possible that the nature of the group to which Sands belonged would be the reason why no government was willing to say anything other than 'tut tut' publicly? I mean you dismiss the examples of governments that supported him (correctly too i believe, dont get me wrong) as being politically motivated, but I would also dismiss the silence of other governments as politically motivated.
Say for example Germany,
at the time they would have had troubles with the RAF, it would certainly not be in their interests to support any sort of political radicals in another country.
I agree, Germany (and many others) learned hugely from where one could end up as a result of appeasement and acceptance of the demands of RAF/BM and their like. If a foreign policeman put a bullet in a ‘deserving’ head, well, just look the other way, because it could be the turn of one of yours to do it next week. The French knew this, they had long experience of ‘disappearing’ people or simply shoving a few dozen unconscious protesters into a river. In that era the US had gone from VietNam with dirty hands and was up to its neck in torture/subversion in South America (and many other places.)
Interfering in another country’s internal affairs was/is not done, unless that country is ‘on the way out’. The fall-out is too considerable, a classic example is the follow-on to CJH’s comments / antics on the sinking of the Belgrano. More recently it was fine for Obama et al to put the boot into Assad/Syria at the beginning of his internal strife, but when it looked he was here to stay, the international community backed off and instead goes ‘tut, tut’ and mumbles / witters on about 'humanitarian tragedy.'
But a comparison between the IRA and the RAF is not a very good one, the IRA was much more professional but less ‘personally committed’ than the RAF, who were suicidal, more akin to the output of the more rabid madrassas. When caught, the RAF ‘languished’ in a German prison, extra-big cells, TVs, personal libraries, etc, with the support of biased media comment from the Left (poseurs like Boll and Sartre) and crooked lawyers who smuggled them dope and whatever else they needed. One story I remember is that they insisted on having electric blankets in their cells (brought a different meaning to being ‘on the blanket’). This meant that the electricity had to be left on all night and they were able to tap into the prison speaker system to establish a communications network. The raid on the hijacked plane (a hijack co-arranged by BM/RAF with the PLO) at Mogadishu was a turning point for Germany’s attitude.
Not a lot to do with Sands, but it paints a backdrop and puts political response in a historical perspective.0 -
Just to put things into prespective with regard to the activities of the Red Army Faction ak RAF, and those of the so-called 'Troubles #2' - to differentiate that period from the Troubles #1, let's look at the total casualties in Northern Ireland between 1969 and 1981. Perhaps then some of you might see why Mr Sands' decision to starve himself to death had rather less resonance than you might have wished for among those of a less-than-impressed world-wide audience.
Total DEATHS in Northern Ireland - Period 1969 - 1981. The injured are not noted, but can reasonably be expected to be at least twice to three times these total amounts.
Civilians - 1261
British military - 712
Republican Paramilitary - 242
Loyalist Paramilitary - 78
If seeing a reminder of the numbers of innocent people reduced to bloody pulp by bombs or left bleeding in the streets and hedgerows from the combined efforts of the late Mr Sands and his pals causes offence........
Tough.
tac0 -
Well if you happen to construe that this form of non violent resistance was blackmail, I'm sure you fully supported the British actions with regard to Terence McSwiney, Thomas Ashe etc in the early part of the last century. ( Indeed since others such as Ghandi, suffragettes, used hunger strike against the British Govt of the day, I'm sure you would be quite admiring of the Brits stance against non violent resistance - even though the Britain were probably one of the most violent imperialists in history ).pedroeibar1 wrote: »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.
When the New York Times comments on an issue, then you couldn't make the point better that his death was indeed an international issue. Not as big say as Nelson Mandela's passing, but to try and suggest after mentioning the various countries where it was an issue and then claiming it wasn't an international issue is just shooting yourself in the foot. It's the type of waffle that we'd come expect from the Sunday Independent or some other comic.The New York Times said: 'Despite proximity and a common language the British have persistently misjudged the depth of Irish nationalism.'0 -
My intention wasn't to compare to IRA and RAF in any other way than as destabilising political forces and point out why a country might not want to comment on another countries problems, which could explain the lack of official response to Sand's death.0
-
Advertisement
-
ChicagoJoe wrote: »Well if you happen to construe that this form of non violent resistance was blackmail, I'm sure you fully supported the British actions with regard to Terence McSwiney, Thomas Ashe etc in the early part of the last century. ( Indeed since others such as Ghandi, suffragettes, used hunger strike against the British Govt of the day, I'm sure you would be quite admiring of the Brits stance against non violent resistance - even though the Britain were probably one of the most violent imperialists in history ).
When the New York Times comments on an issue, then you couldn't make the point better that his death was indeed an international issue. Not as big say as Nelson Mandela's passing, but to try and suggest after mentioning the various countries where it was an issue and then claiming it wasn't an international issue is just shooting yourself in the foot. It's the type of waffle that we'd come expect from the Sunday Independent or some other comic.
Death is the ultimate form of violence; suicide is the ultimate form of self-violence. Threatening to do violence to achieve an end is blackmail. Does not matter who does it, but the ethics of the matter are more debatable when the blackmailer has a huge degree of support, e.g. Gandhi, Mandela, McSwiney.
To compare Sands to McSwiney (as you are trying to do) is both unrealistic and total non sequitur. McSwiney had the support of a huge part of the national population and was elected unopposed by his local population. Sands was elected by a very narrow margin in a contested election and out of electorate of 60,000 he got a shade over 50% of the vote. He did not have national support, because the IRA had no mandate from the vast bulk of the population of this island. In the 1981 election (26 counties) the Anti-H-Block people fielded 12 candidate and just 2 (both hungerstrikers, in border counties) got in. That result was the vast majority of the 26 county’s population telling the HBlock/IRA that ‘we do not support you’. The main reason is given in the death figures posted by TAC Foley above.
The IRA (and their Loyalist counterparts) still have no mandate, unless you want their thugs to support a side-line business in bank raids, drug dealing or fuel laundering.
Your comment on Sands getting a mention in the NYT being a claim to 'international status' well just a month ago I was struck by the headline ‘A Cleavage Trend Reveals a More Natural Décolletage for Hollywood Stars on the Red Carpet.’ The amount of some starlet’s flesh on show at an awards ceremony is hardly in international issue, yet it drew a big headline and a long article..
None of those who posted here in support of Sands have been able to say what benefit he could have brought to this country. Neither you nor the OP has contributed any serious way (apart from misty-eyed sentimentalism) to support your claims on what Sands achieved or on my commentpedroeibar1 wrote: »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.
So, simple Yes or No, do you support what Sands main torchbearers stand for and are saying today?0
Advertisement