Irish Americans' attitudes to the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

political analyst

In this article published in the Spectator on Monday 10 April 2023, Tom Leonard mentioned the Cooper Union gathering, which took place last Monday and was attended by Bill Clinton, Gerry Adams and many others.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/its-no-surprise-some-irish-americans-remain-clueless-about-the-troubles/

The author of the article also mentioned that Congressman Richard Neal and others paid tribute to the 1981 hunger-strikers.

Why is it that so many US citizens of Irish extraction (and I'm not saying that it's a majority of Irish Americans) are sympathetic to the Provisional IRA?

Generally, did they actually think that it was OK for the Provisional IRA to kill innocent people (including many British citizens - military and civilian)?

Does the so-called special relationship between America and Britain (including D-Day, the foundation of NATO, the protection of Western Europe against the Soviet military presence in Eastern Europe during the Cold War) not mean anything to them?

ancapailldorcha

The Spectator is a publication I have no respect for. I've no interest in any of its columnists' opinions.

As for the killing of civilians by either side during the troubles, I have a hard time believing that anyone sympathises with this. That's clearly a loaded statement, as are the questions you've posited.

There's a certain romantic element to the Irish struggle which long predates partition. It's the struggle of a people with an identity, culture and language against an imperialist power. This allure did not die upon the creation of the Irish Free State and then the Republic. I'd say that's the basis of the fascination right there.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120475507#Comment_120475507

But it is a fact that Richard Neal and other US politicians praised members of the Provisional IRA. So please put your hostility towards The Spectator aside. The questions in the OP are simple. If you think they're loaded then you're reading into them something that isn't there.

As for those US citizens who were sympathetic to 'the cause', did they not give any thought to the fact that US military personnel were stationed in Britain and West Germany alongside the British armed forces in defence of freedom?

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120475785#Comment_120475785

Is it? I'd like a source please and preferably something better than a random opinion piece.

As for their thoughts, how would I know?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058292296/irish-americans-attitudes-to-the-troubles-in-northern-ireland

Most Americans are unaware that the UK thinks it has a "special relationship" with the US. The special relationship has a much higher profile in the UK than it does in the US.

Those Americans who are aware of the special relationship — which is, mostly, those who have some professional involvement — understand that it largely relates to intelligence-sharing for mutual advantage. It's not a military or political alliance — you have NATO for that — and it doesn't carry any general obligation of solidarity in regard to each countries' domestic policy.

My own perception is that Irish-American takes on Northern Ireland can be a bit simplistic. But, to be honest, no more simplistic than the Tom Leonard's takes in the linked artice, or indeed your own takes. If your view of the IRA is limited to "they kill innocent people (including many British citizens - military and civilian)" then it's woefullly oversimplified, and it ignores some fairly glaring questions, such as what led to the IRA doing this.

To be clear, I'm not remotely sympathetic to the Provisional IRA — quite the opposite. But your criticism of Irish-American takes on this is undermined by the fact that your own take appears to share many of the same flaws.

FrancieBrady

I'd imagine there is a bit of over sensitivity going on in the OP.

There would be support for what are seen as freedom fighters/revolutionaries etc from many place within the US, there would also be criticism and the view that they are bloodthirsty terrorists. See Israel/Palastine for example.

America is a big place with a diversity of opinion.

There is also the fact that some of the support(applies to more than Ireland too) comes from the romantically blind, but it also comes from a clear appraisal of what is and had been going on. Which is one of the benefits of seeing things from outside.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120475935#Comment_120475935

I'm not sensitive. I'm simply trying to understand the attitudes that I was referring to. I acknowledge that even retired British Army officer Colonel Bob Stewart thought that the hunger-strikers were courageous - although, obviously, he doesn't agree with their cause.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/what-bobby-sands-means-to-me-the-hunger-strikers-chose-to-die-daddy-didn-t-1.4525223

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477177#Comment_120477177

I don't see any overt support for the IRA.

I do see support for those who came into democratic politics as they were implored to do by American officialdom. That took associating themselves with IRA people as well as SF and building trust during the conflict/war. Couldn't have been done any other way IMO

That is often used against them and portrayed as overt support as it was against Hume etc by those now lionising him (The British, FG And media etc).

Arlene, Sammy Wilson, Bryson etc are flat out trying to say Joe's in the 'RA. Predictable.

Quitelife

Most Americans can’t understand how people can be content when Ireland is only three quarters free ie 26 of the 32 counties and generally support those that try and free all of ireland from British rule not three quarters of it .

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477253#Comment_120477253

Some journalists in the 1990s criticised Hume but that doesn't equate to condemning him. Nobody was suggesting that Joe was in the 'RA.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477308#Comment_120477308

I didn't say he was condemned, he was certainly criticised.

And the 'Joe is in the 'RA was tongue in cheek reflection on some of the things being said about him currently.

You asked a question.

I am just pointing out there is nuance in the relationships.

bucketybuck

I'd much prefer the OP to just come out with a few blatant insults, rather than the snide, underhand dog whistling that he decided to go with.

Fr Tod Umptious

It's not just Irish Americans attitudes to the troubles, Irish people in America attitudes can be a bit odd.

There are plenty of lads who have no problem shouting "up the ra" in a pub in Boston or New York, or throwing a few dollars into the collection hat for a "good republican" or some former prisoner, but wouldn't dare do it back in their home town in Ireland.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477537#Comment_120477537

There is nothing snide or underhand about my OP.

political analyst

Here's an ITN interview with Biden from 1986.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8gczLYYRfk

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120520224#Comment_120520224

Being worried about how Britain administers 'justice' is no bad thing IMO

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477278#Comment_120477278

"Most", really?

The problem for them is that most people in those six counties want things to stay as they are, and those people have the protection of an international agreement endorsed by, among others, the US, stating that the constitutional position of those six counties can only change when a majority of the people living there support such change.

Edit: do I really have to spell out that 'stay as they are' means 'remain in the UK'? Really??? 🙄

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120520364#Comment_120520364

I acknowledge that.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120522792#Comment_120522792

is that most people in those six counties want things to stay as they are,

Not true.

There is currently huge demands for change and reform of 'how things are' and then there is the latest poll findings which shows that majorities in both constituencies want a vote on 'how things are'.

However, there are strong majorities in both jurisdictions who are in favour of holding referendums.

More than three-quarters of voters, at 76pc, in the Republic are in favour of a border poll, with a majority favouring a timescale within five years.

More than half of Northern voters, at 55pc, favoured a referendum, with a majority preferring a longer timescale of 10 years.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/new-poll-shows-majority-of-people-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-against-united-ireland/42192775.html

Fr Tod Umptious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120526386#Comment_120526386

Where are you getting those numbers from?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120526452#Comment_120526452

Apologies...link there now.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120526386#Comment_120526386

Oh for goodness sake 🙄

Wanting a border poll doesn't mean you want it to be won. And it doesn't matter a damn how many voters in the Republic want one either.

You surely know I was referring to the constitutional status of NI - i.e. a UI or not - rather than vague 'change' and 'reform'

'Change' and 'reform' are the mom's apple pie of politics - few will say they're against them, they just have different or even totally opposing definitions of what those things are, and desire for 'changing' or 'reforming' Stormont does not amount to a demand for a UI either.

Oh let's look at the headline on the link you added - 'New poll shows majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote against united Ireland'

Well well well.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120527012#Comment_120527012

Would vote against a UI right now in the abscence of any plan for a UI.

I.E. will not vote for a blind alley. Perfectly natural and unsurprising.

What the numbers wanting a BP signify is a desire to see that plan. Why do they want to see a plan - because they don't want things to 'stay the same'.

Also stands to reason.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120475507#Comment_120475507

What is ironic about the Irish American support for the PIRA, Sinn Fein and Irish nationalism is that British people have been living on this island longer than Irish people who settled in America. If they were to start in their own backyard, they would kick themselves out of America.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120529445#Comment_120529445

. . . And, much like the Irish-Americans, a lot of British people living on this Ireland have a quaintly anachronistic view of Britishness, which is not widely shared in actual Britain.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120529445#Comment_120529445

The Irish set up a deliberately sectarian bigoted statelet that inevitably went up in flames and failed all it's people, in America?

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120530452#Comment_120530452

And for all the criticism of the British, they never enslaved the Irish people in the way the Irish did in the US to both native and imported human beings.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545212#Comment_120545212

The attempted sanitising of colonialism again. ^

Abberations by individuals compared to state led colonialism and subjugation on a worldwide scale.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545212#Comment_120545212

Sorry, but that is just not true.

The land in Ireland was confiscated and given to English/Scottish/Welsh supporters of the English ruler, and its inhabitants became slaves, living in hovels. Now they were not 'slaves' in that they were owned by the imperial landlord, but paid a rack rent that effectively meant the same. Eviction followed the non payment of the rent which meant destitution.

The famine was caused by the refusal to divert food from being exported to feeding the starving.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545212#Comment_120545212

They did it to lots of other people, though, including in (what is now) the US.

While individual Irish people may have owned or dealt in slaves, the Irish nation, or any state established by it, never instituted a system of slavery and never licensed or practised the slave trade. Complicity in slavery is definitely not a point of comparison which is going to favour the British over the Irish. If I were you I would drop this line.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545369#Comment_120545369

Wasn't St. Patrick taken as a slave to Ireland?

The point I was making was the comparison with Irish America and in relation to Irish-American support for nationalism in the North. Irish-Americans were slave-owners and they settled America well after British people settled here.

Dslatt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545578#Comment_120545578

Some black lads owned slaves as well..what's your point?

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545597#Comment_120545597

My point is clear. Irish-Americans should clean up their own sh!t before commenting on the mess in Northern Ireland.

In trying to refute that point, some others are trying to make my point something else.

Dslatt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545668#Comment_120545668

Right, well your point is nonsense. I've Irish American relatives, not a slave owned among them. I've relatives and friends from Northern Ireland, victims of sectarian abuse, gerrymandering and the current DUP hissy fit aplenty.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545685#Comment_120545685

https://www.historyireland.com/clean-hands-ireland-slavery-and-the-slave-trade/

"The Irish abroad—be it in the Caribbean, the American South or, as was the case for the Walshes, Sarsfields and other Wild Geese, in the slave-trading French port of Nantes—certainly had little compunction about participating in and benefiting from the enslavement of captured Africans."

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545710#Comment_120545710

This is just whataboutery in order to ignore/denigrate other opinions. A 'chilling' attempt to silence, as some might call this kind of comment.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545578#Comment_120545578

I'm not seeing how the fact that British people were settling America before Irish people were somehow gives them a pass for collectively establishing slavery and the slave trade in their American colonies, and individually owning and trading in slaves in America both before and after the establishment of the US. Not to mention British involvement in slavery and the slave trade in places other than America.

I repeat, you are on a hiding to nothing here. However grave the historic sins of the Irish in this regard, the historic sins of the British are, on any dispassionate view, far, far worse. It's hard to think that you could have picked any point of comparison that would have been more unfavourable to the British than slavery and the slave trade. Seriously, find another hill on which to die.

(Yes, St Patrick was brought to Ireland as a slave, almost certainly by Gaelic slavers. But there was no Irish state to which responsibility for this could be ascribed. And, even if there were, this is still not a comparison that would favour Britain, since slavery was also widely practiced in Britain at the time.

Slavery in Ireland died out with the Christianisation of the country, which of course happened well before the Christianisation of England. After Christianisation, Gaelic society was heavily stratified into groups with fewer or more rights, but there was no class which corresponded to slaves. Nobody could be bought or sold, and even people in the lowest class of society could and regularly did move up to higher classes. (Movement downwards was also possible.)

Slavery was reintroduced to Ireland by the Vikings, and was practised sometimes on a large scale in the Viking settlements. It would be unfair to ascribe responsibility for this to the Irish, though; they were typically the enslaved, not the slavers. The Vikings captured the native Irish as slaves, and either worked them in Dublin, Limerick, Waterford etc or (mostly) traded them abroad. But Viking slavery died out in the eleventh century.

Irish people did participate in the British slave economy when that got going, but not in large numbers — not, I suspect, because of any superior virtue or enlightenment, but simply because they lacked the capital required to get a start. Those who did become involved tended to relocate to Bristol, Liverpool or London, where the industry was controlled and managed and most of the actual slave trading was done.)

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545774#Comment_120545774

Again, I am not commenting on the British.

What I am commenting on is the hypocrisy of Irish-Americanism. Slave-owners, in the US for less time than the British in Ireland, yet they call for the British to get out of Ireland.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545787#Comment_120545787

Again, I cannot see what point you are making. The fact that British involvement in Ireland has been going on for a lot longer than Irish involvement in slavery in the Americas is hardly any kind of defence or vindication of British involvement in Ireland. Slavery in the US has been abolished. This is a good thing, obviously, and I struggle to see how the fact that it formerly existed there somehow invalidates American views on other political or moral questions. Should the Americans have kept out of the Second World War on the grounds that their history of slavery meant it would be hypocritical to oppose Nazis?

For that matter, does Britain's much more extensive involvement in slavery mean that it, too, is hypocritical in adopting any position on issues in Ireland? If not, why not?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545821#Comment_120545821

It's 'lie down croppy boy' cloaked in concern about the victims of slavery. Nothing else. Pretends he isn't talking about the British but it has everything to do with the British and his attempts to point elsewhere whenever they come in for criticism.

Appalling stuff really.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545821#Comment_120545821

I am sorry if you cannot see the point I am making. I have made it as simple as I can.

Irish-Americans treated slaves worse than the British treated the Irish and they are in America for a far shorter time than the British were in Ireland. If they believe that the British should get out of Ireland, they should look in the mirror and get out of America. The Irish-Americans were colonisers of the US, they oppressed the native people nearly to extinction, clean up their own backyard first.

It is as simple as that.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120477177#Comment_120477177

Your not trying to understand anything. Your mind is well made up and you clearly think you know the answers to all the "questions" you asked.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120546287#Comment_120546287

A thing can be simple and still nonsense. This is such a thing.

It may be true that (some) Irish-Americans treated slaves worse than the British treated the Irish. But so what? It's also true that the British treated slaves worse that the British treated the Irish. Plus, the British treated slaves much more badly, and for much longer, than the Irish treated slaves. I seriously do not know why you would want to be calling attention to this — "British involvement in Ireland is not, by a long measure, the worst think the British have done" is not helpful to your position. It does nothing to validate British involvement in Ireland, and nothing to invalidate criticism of the British involvement in Ireland.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120548959#Comment_120548959

Again, this is nothing to do with the British, it is about the hypocritical stance taken by Irish America, that is all.

Yes, the British did far worse elsewhere than in Ireland, that is true, but Irish Americans are more recent colonialists in America than the British in Ireland.

Dslatt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120549612#Comment_120549612

Slavery ended in the United States in 1865, the British occupation of the entire island of Ireland continued for 57 years after that.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120549612#Comment_120549612

You keep repeating this point as though it had some kind of significance, and I've already said that I cannot see how it does. Can you say exactly why you think it matters in the present context that the Irish-American presence in America is more recent than the British presence in Ireland?

Sam Russell

Irish Americans are a self identifying ethnic group.

They are not a political party. Nor are they driven by an ideology. However, they are pursued as a voting constituency by the main political parties in the USA.

They are an identity derived from their forebears, and a wish to keep the memories of the story of that identity alive in their own mind and in the broader story of the American story - how they arrived in America poor and destitute and made good. The epitome of the American dream.

Most have no connection with NI at all, and have more connection with Spancil Hill and the Fields of Athenry - at least they know the tunes!

This idea that Irish Americans is a political entity that has something to say about NI is just laughable.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120553048#Comment_120553048

It may or may not be laughable, but it's plainly true. Obviously Irish American voters do have views about NI, and do allow those views to affect their voting preferences. How else are we to explain the parade of US politicians who take an interest in, or adopt positions on, NI?

You can certainly question how well-informed most Irish-Americans are about NI (just as you can question how well-informed most British people are about NI) and of course you can question whether the positions they adopt tend to be progressive or regressive, beneficial or harmful. But that they do have views, and that they adopt positions, and that those views and positions matter, is pretty much undeniable.

Sam Russell

The point I was making is that 'Irish American' are not a united political party or political identity or even a united lobby group.

They are individuals united by a somewhat united history, but every individual has a family story that they wish to keep alive by announcing their heritage to all who would listen. That is not a political stance by them. Merely a look back at their grouped history.

You could contrast this with the Jewish identity in America. Most people who identify as (American) Jews, but not all, support the state of Israel - no matter what.

That is not the case with the Irish American identity. They wish for peace in Ireland, and perhaps a UI, but not the 'no matter what' stance that is shown towards the state of Israel by those that support that state.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120552780#Comment_120552780

Grand, you don't see the significance, that is your opinion. I have no issue with that.

DonegalBay

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120545710#Comment_120545710

So you have to go back some 300 years to find some 'Irish' who were involved in slave trading. The odds of their descendants some 15 generations later identifying as Irish Americans are slim at best. The big wave of Irish emigration to the US was post famine at a time when slavery was ending. Most of those were dirt poor and the odds of them owning slaves was minimal, in fact many were treated not much better than slaves themselves though some did fight on both sides in the Civil war. Anyone who identifies as Irish American nowadays is unlikely to go much further back than that post famine era in terms of their family history so trying to suggest they own their **** is just dumb as they had little to no part in Slavery era US. Racism on the other hand may be a different story.

For the record, Irish did emigrate in the 18th century when slavery was in full force, some 250,000 in fact. Some of their descendants went on to become presidents during that era, but you won't like it as that was almost entirely the Ulster Scots who were escaping religious persecution by the Church of Ireland here. They played a much bigger role in the role of colonisation in the US than any 'other' Irish. In fact it could be argued that they engaged in colonisation twice, in Ireland and then America. Any other Irish who went during that period were likely to be as indentured servants, a step up from slaves.

As for the article you linked, it talks about Irish ports being used, well take a guess who controlled most of those ports at the time? A hint, very unlikely to be the Catholic Irish. At the end of the 17th century, Catholics owned less than 15% of the land in Ireland. The Penal laws were in effect from start of 18th century. It mentions rich merchants, again the odds of Catholics being rich merchants at the time were slim and if they had retained wealth, odds were they in support of the Crown, otherwise they would have been dispossessed. Blake for example is a family name of one of the tribes of Galway who had dominated commercial life in that town. After the Cromwellian wars of the mid 17th century, many of those families converted to be Protestants to ensure they kept their fortunes. As for Sarsfield and others who served with the French, they don't really have any connections with Irish Americans, do they?

As usual with you, this is a silly attempt to portray Irish(or Irish Americans) as badly as the British, when that is clearly not the case here.