On this day in 1981 Bobby Sands began his Hunger Strike

bobbysands81 · 01-03-2014 09:17AM #1

Like him, loathe him or indifferent to him his actions, and those of his comrades, irrevocably changed the face of Irish politics.

During the course of the Hunger Strike Bobby Sands was elected as a Member of British Parliament.

His election, though not as a Sinn Féin candidate, showed Sinn Féin the massive support that was latent out there that could potentially be tapped into. This was a direct continuation on from Kieran Nugent's initial refusal in 1976 to wear prison clothes "nor meekly serve my time" which, together with Bobby's election, has led to the Peace Process on this island.

Throughout 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.

If we really are a 'mature nation' it's time we properly embraced our past and heroes like Bobby Sands and remembered them with the love and pride they deserve, not the disdain, embarrassment and confusion that many exude mainly due to a lack of knowledge.

Bobby Sands and others didn't cause the war, they merely fought back. Fighting back against an invading aggressive army is never wrong.

How this country could do with Bobby Sands today, the time is coming that we will soon hear the laughter of our children.

"I may die, but the Republic of 1916 will never die. Onward to the Republic and liberation of our people"

01-03-2014 11:14AM

MOD MOVING COMMENT:
This thread is of historical nature and may be better featured in the History and Heritage forum. It's being moved locked, so that mods may review it for appropriateness.

jonniebgood1 · 01-03-2014 06:43PM

A very noteworthy figure in Irish history. I think a thread that debates his actions and the effect he had on Irish history is fine. I would note though that the charter will be strictly enforced at moderators will on any poster that is deemed to be trying to derail thread.

Einhard · 01-03-2014 09:00PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Like him, loathe him or indifferent to him his actions, and those of his comrades, irrevocably changed the face of Irish politics.

You start off so well...

During the course of the Hunger Strike Bobby Sands was elected as a Member of British Parliament.

His election, though not as a Sinn Féin candidate, showed Sinn Féin the massive support that was latent out there that could potentially be tapped into. This was a direct continuation on from Kieran Nugent's initial refusal in 1976 to wear prison clothes "nor meekly serve my time" which, together with Bobby's election, has led to the Peace Process on this island.

And continue in a nice, objective vein...

Throughout 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.

Which then begins to crumble...

Bobby Sands is unknown t the vast majority of people internationally. To some who have heard of him, he is a hero and well-respected. To others, he represents violent terrorism. Others don't have an opinion either way. To claim however, that he is "internationally respected" is ludicrous. I have friends from many countries. It would be daft however, to claim, on that basis, that I am internationally liked. And it's equally as spurious to claim international respect for Bobby Sands on the basis of a street in Tehran, and a partisan and narrow reading of disparate viewpoints.

If we really are a 'mature nation' it's time we properly embraced our past and heroes like Bobby Sands and remembered them with the love and pride they deserve, not the disdain, embarrassment and confusion that many exude mainly due to a lack of knowledge.

Mature nations generally have populations with disparate viewpoints. Mature societies respect differing opinions. And mature people don't seek to paint different opinions as the product of ignorance. Nice try, but it's nonsense.

Fighting back against an invading aggressive army is never wrong.

Ummm, yes it can be. It all depends on the tactics and strategy one employs. It's very naive to think that the act of fighting back automatically enobles all who follow that case, regardless of actions is naive in the extreme.

How this country could do with Bobby Sands today, the time is coming that we will soon hear the laughter of our children.

I hear the laugther of children every day.

johnny_doyle · 02-03-2014 12:57AM

and Roger Casement returned home (1st March 1965)

twowheelsgood · 02-03-2014 09:48AM

Bobby Sands, as a physical force republican, presents a problem that few others do. He certainly did present himself to the people and was massively endorsed. What exactly the people endorsed in a matter of opinion. I disagree with the OP who thought it was latent support for Sinn Fein and think in truth, it was a vote greatly swelled by the anger of nationalists at the British handling of the hunger strikes.

But the road Bobby Sands originally took was not endorsed by the Irish people. In the late 20th century, as now, and even perhaps before, the Irish did not and do not sanction physical force to bring about a united Ireland.

If we were to upgrade his official status to Irish hero surely we are giving licence to current and future groups who would use force to being about political ends (and they need not even be republicans) who would not need worry about mandates from their peers as their more enlightened descendents will redeem their reputations?

pedroeibar1 · 02-03-2014 02:35PM

OP is a rather trite rosetinted view and quite inaccurate in many of its claims.

bobbysands81 wrote: »

If we really are a 'mature nation' it's time we properly embraced our past and heroes like Bobby Sands and remembered them with the love and pride they deserve, not the disdain, embarrassment and confusion that many exude mainly due to a lack of knowledge.

Sands & co wanted a 32 county Socialist Republic and were prepared to (and did) shoot and bomb people to try to get their way, regardless of the views of the majority. The sentiment throughout Dublin at the time of the hungerstrike largely was anti-British and while many people were against what Britain was doing to Northern Ireland they were not supportive of all the aims of the hungerstrikers nor did they support the IRA’s violence or its aspirations. It is nonsense to state there was 'huge latent support for Sinn Fein' – there is a huge difference between support for a party/individual and a once-off vote against an existing political system. I am neither confused, ill-informed nor embarrassed over my views on Sands and like many I find your remarks unnecessarily condescending and quite inaccurate.

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Bobby Sands and others didn't cause the war, they merely fought back. Fighting back against an invading aggressive army is never wrong.
How this country could do with Bobby Sands today, the time is coming that we will soon hear the laughter of our children.

The British troops were initially welcomed into the North by the people of Derry; the mismanagement of NI by Westminster changed that view. Ignoring the claim of the ‘invading aggressive' bit, fighting an army is one thing, but planting bombs, robbing banks and maiming thousands of innocents is not heroic. Sands’ torchbearers today do not support the peace process and there are strong Real IRA connections, so no, I do not see any need to glorify people like that or indeed how Sands could contribute anything to Irish society today. There are a lot of dead innocents that cannot hear the laughter of their grandchildren due to the IRA, so that last sentence is a load of BX.

jonniebgood1 · 03-03-2014 08:09PM

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Sands & co wanted a 32 county Socialist Republic and were prepared to (and did) shoot and bomb people to try to get their way, regardless of the views of the majority. The sentiment throughout Dublin at the time of the hungerstrike largely was anti-British and while many people were against what Britain was doing to Northern Ireland they were not supportive of all the aims of the hungerstrikers nor did they support the IRA’s violence or its aspirations. It is nonsense to state there was 'huge latent support for Sinn Fein' – there is a huge difference between support for a party/individual and a once-off vote against an existing political system. I am neither confused, ill-informed nor embarrassed over my views on Sands and like many I find your remarks unnecessarily condescending and quite inaccurate.

Was there not support in Dublin for the hunger strikers. There were attacks on the British embassy the night of Francis Hughes death. Source- CAIN What prompts your suggestion that Dublin sentiment was 'anti British' rather that supporting the hunger strikers?

The 5 demands of the huger strikers were relatively simple- I do not see any evidence that people with an interest in the 'troubles' would have denied these rights. After the hunger strike was ended the 5 demands were granted which begs the question why the deaths were allowed happen. That Sands had been elected MP and was not listened to was and is controversial as it can be considered that after his election he had a mandate for his cause (The use of democracy adding legitimacy to the strikers).
Also I do not understand your suggestion that this was a "once-off vote against an existing political system". The current administration in northern Ireland proves this to be a doubtworthy statement.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The British troops were initially welcomed into the North by the people of Derry; the mismanagement of NI by Westminster changed that view. Ignoring the claim of the ‘invading aggressive' bit, fighting an army is one thing, but planting bombs, robbing banks and maiming thousands of innocents is not heroic. Sands’ torchbearers today do not support the peace process and there are strong Real IRA connections, so no, I do not see any need to glorify people like that or indeed how Sands could contribute anything to Irish society today. There are a lot of dead innocents that cannot hear the laughter of their grandchildren due to the IRA, so that last sentence is a load of BX.

Linking Sands to the Real IRA seems like a desperate stretch with no proper proof even possible. His memory in reality is enhanced as are many who die for a cause, when the death appears to have been imposed. He is remembered by both his own followers and most neutral observers as a martyr. Whether that was manufactured by IRA leadership may be debated but it is the way he is remembered. His legacy as a Martyr is proven in some of the headlines of the time in response to his death:

"On the question of principle, Britain's prime minister Thatcher is right in refusing to yield political status to Bobby Sands, the Irish Republican Army hunger striker. But this dying young man has made it appear that her stubbornness, rather than his own, is the source of a fearful conflict already ravaging Northern Ireland. For that, Mrs. Thatcher is partly to blame. By appearing unfeeling and unresponsive, she and her Government are providing Bobby Sands with a death-bed gift-the crown of martyrdom." "Britain's Gift to Bobby Sands"
New York Times, 29 April 1981

"As they did with Kevin Barry, executed at 18 by the British in 1920, poets will write sad songs of Bobby Sands, filling American saloons with late-night tears and beers...Ireland does not need more sad songs. Ireland does not need more martyrs. The slow suicide attempt of Bobby Sands has cast his land and his cause into another downward spiral of death and despair. There are no heroes in the saga of Bobby Sands."

Boston Globe, 3 May 1981,

Reaction flooded in from around the world. The US Government issued a statement expressing deep regret. The Longshoremen's Union announced a twenty-four-hour boycott of British ships. The New Jersey State legislature voted 34-29 for a resolution honouring his 'courage and commitment'. More than 1,000 gathered in St Patrick's Cathedral to hear New York's Cardinal Cook offer a Mass of reconciliation for northern -Ireland. Irish bars in the city closed for two hours in mourning. The New York Times said: 'Despite proximity and a common language the British have persistently misjudged the depth of Irish nationalism.' In San Francisco's Irish community the mood was reported to be 'subdued, courteous enough, but curiously menacing, as if everyone is waiting for a message as yet undelivered'. In Rome the President of the Italian Senate, Amintore Fanfani, stepped into the breach left by the British Speaker, expressing condolences to the Sands family. About 5,000 students burnt the Union Jack and shouted 'Freedom for Ulster' during a march in Milan. In Ghent students invaded the British consulate. Thousands marched in Paris behind a huge portrait of Sands, to chants of 'The IRA will conquer.' The town of Le Mans announced it was naming a street after him, which the British Embassy said was 'an insult to Britain'.

The Hong Kong Standard said it was 'sad that successive British governments have failed to end the last of Europe's religious wars'. The Hindustan Times said Mrs Thatcher had allowed a fellow Member of Parliament to die of starvation, an incident which had never before occurred 'in a civilized country'. Tehran announced Iran would be sending its ambassador in Sweden to represent the Government at the funeral. In Oslo demonstrators threw a balloon filled with tomato sauce at the Queen, who was on a visit to Norway. In India Opposition members of the Upper House stood for a minute's silence in tribute. Members of Indira Gandhi's ruling Congress Party refused to join in. In Portugal members of the Opposition stood for him.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/hstrike/beresford.htm

rockatansky · 03-03-2014 08:43PM

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Sands’ torchbearers today do not support the peace process and there are strong Real IRA connections,

The organisation that Bobby Sands was a member of fully supported the Peace Process, it's political representatives are today elected members of the resulting power sharing executive. To try and suggest that he was or is some how linked to the Real IRA is wrong.

I don't believe that anybody who takes such course of action (hunger strike) can be 'hero worshiped'. I do believe he and all the others who participated in the blanket and Hunger strikes showed a strength and determination that can only be admired by those who find themselves in a similar situation.

TheHappyChappy · 03-03-2014 08:47PM

I started reading Bobby Sands Diary from his time starting on the hunger strike till he was too ill to write any further. It is an extraordinary read.

rockatansky · 03-03-2014 08:49PM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

How this country could do with Bobby Sands today

"

Genuinely, If he were alive today, what positive effect would he have on the country?

Santa Cruz · 04-03-2014 10:27AM

rockatansky wrote: »

Genuinely, If he were alive today, what positive effect would he have on the country?

He would be a great inspiration to those participating on Operation Transformation

pedroeibar1 · 04-03-2014 11:45AM

You have some unusual inferences in your post on what I wrote, JBG.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Was there not support in Dublin for the hunger strikers. There were attacks on the British embassy the night of Francis Hughes death. What prompts your suggestion that Dublin sentiment was 'anti British' rather that supporting the hunger strikers?

Yes, of course there was some support in Dublin for the hungerstrikers but it was not unconditional. That is why I wrote (bold added)

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The sentiment throughout Dublin at the time of the hungerstrike largely was anti-British and while many people were against what Britain was doing to Northern Ireland they were not supportive of all the aims of the hungerstrikers nor did they support the IRA’s violence or its aspirations.

I specifically wrote in those terms because at the outset of the ‘Troubles’ (e.g. after Burntollet, the general behaviour of the B Specials, after the publication of Denis Faul’s booklets (e.g. the one on snatch squads, hooding & sensory deprivation) the support for the Republican movement was far, far greater. A typical example was the burning of the British Embassy after Bloody Sunday. By the time of the hunger strike, that support in ‘ordinary circles’ had diminished considerably as a result of the violence of the IRA’s tactics. The sentiment was anti ‘British Establishment’ (not British people) as a result of the failures by successive UK governments to tackle what was happening and their total mis-management and stupidity in directing affairs in Northern Ireland. There was considerable frustration as to how the Brit. Estab. continuously played into the hands of the IRA, (e.g. Widgery) the bias of the BBC on newscasts (a ‘Protestant crowd protested’ – v - a ‘Republican mob’) and the arrogance of senior Brit. officials, such as the idiot General who said ‘we will win because we have hah fah pah’ (higher fire power). Even ex-British servicement were disgusted - Lord Kilbracken even returned his medals. Concomitantly, the IRA was robbing banks down here, blowing up and shooting unarmed people in NI, punishment beatings and also had an agenda against the State here, such as a concerted effort to undermine the legal / court system. It also just followed the era of Mad Dog McGlinchy, who initially operated with two of the strikers, cousins Hughes (as mentioned earlier by you) and McErlane. Lord Mountbatten's murder/assassination is another example of why people were disgusted. By association Sands & co were linked with all that , so no, there was not huge sympathy/support.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The 5 demands of the huger strikers were relatively simple- I do not see any evidence that people with an interest in the 'troubles' would have denied these rights. After the hunger strike was ended the 5 demands were granted which begs the question why the deaths were allowed happen. That Sands had been elected MP and was not listened to was and is controversial as it can be considered that after his election he had a mandate for his cause (The use of democracy adding legitimacy to the strikers).

Rightly or wrongly (a) people in the ‘South’did not see the hunger strike as an appropriate means to obtain anything. (b)By 1980 most people in the ‘South’ were sick and tired of the trouble in NI, did not want to hear any more; (c) Saw Sands and co as people tainted by the bombings/violence/robberies and did not care sufficiently to bother about them. Denis Faul (whom I met on several occasions, he had nephews in Dublin, one of whom was Barney O’Beirne, the captain of the Viscount that went down off the Tuskar Rock) spoke out very publically against the hungerstrike and was deeply against Sinn Fein / IRA’s manipulation of it and the strikers. In the ‘South’ he was seen as being more Republican than most but still was excoriated by the IRA/Sinn Fein over his stance on their behaviour.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Also I do not understand your suggestion that this was a "once-off vote against an existing political system". The current administration in northern Ireland proves this to be a doubtworthy statement.

The "once-off vote against an existing political system" is a common practice – for example the preliminary elections in the French presidential campaign inevitably contain such a vote as a ‘warning’ to the main power/contender (e.g. big vote for le Pen in the ‘primary’ but don’t vote for him/her in the main). Similarly, our last election should be seen as a vote against the Greens and FF rather than as a vote for FG, L & SF. (The next election will prove this). The vote for Sands was more similar to the old ‘Put him in to get him out’ and a raising of the two fingers to Brits.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Linking Sands to the Real IRA seems like a desperate stretch with no proper proof even possible. His memory in reality is enhanced as are many who die for a cause, when the death appears to have been imposed. He is remembered by both his own followers and most neutral observers as a martyr. Whether that was manufactured by IRA leadership may be debated but it is the way he is remembered. His legacy as a Martyr is proven in some of the headlines of the time in response to his death:

That is not what I said or attempted to do. I wrote

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Sands’ torchbearers today do not support the peace process and there are strong Real IRA connections, so no, I do not see any need to glorify people like....

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.

I’d maintain that most people who were students in the late 60’s /early 70’s supported the Burntollet marchers and initial protest movements (including initially the IRA) in NI but by the time of the hunger strike were totally disillusioned with Sinn Fein, the IRA and that brand of republicanism.

Nowadays most people under 40 probably neither know nor care about Sands and the other strikers and the event is probably a margin-note in their memory.

TheHappyChappy · 04-03-2014 11:53AM

While working in local youth club the teenagers were quite animated about the hunger strike & Bobby Sands

Santa Cruz · 07-03-2014 08:45AM

TheHappyChappy wrote: »

I started reading Bobby Sands Diary from his time starting on the hunger strike till he was too ill to write any further. It is an extraordinary read.

A lot of people are of the opinion that these "diaries" were written by another person as propaganda fodder. Sands didn't have a history of writing and due to his protest was unable to avail of any educational courses in Long Kesh

TheHappyChappy · 07-03-2014 02:58PM

Santa Cruz wrote: »

A lot of people are of the opinion that these "diaries" were written by another person as propaganda fodder. Sands didn't have a history of writing and due to his protest was unable to avail of any educational courses in Long Kesh

I'm studying history at NUIM at moment could you tell me where you seen this written as I've never come across that suggestion previously

ChicagoJoe · 07-03-2014 04:54PM

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

There are a lot of dead innocents that cannot hear the laughter of their grandchildren due to the IRA, so that last sentence is a load of BX.

All ultimately victims of British violence and the reactions it inevitably produces.

jonniebgood1 · 07-03-2014 05:47PM

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

All ultimately victims of British violence and the reactions it inevitably produces.

Such a narrow minded view does not warrant any response.

Santa Cruz · 08-03-2014 03:53PM

TheHappyChappy wrote: »

I'm studying history at NUIM at moment could you tell me where you seen this written as I've never come across that suggestion previously

You will cover it in year 4

TheHappyChappy · 08-03-2014 04:22PM

Is santa cruz a spoofer?

TheHappyChappy · 08-03-2014 04:22PM

Santa Cruz wrote: »

You will cover it in year 4

Second year History Post Grad,

Obviously you made up your comment & your embarrassed to be found out as a spoofer

Your a spoofer Santa Cruz....yes?

Santa Cruz · 08-03-2014 07:13PM

TheHappyChappy wrote: »

Second year History Post Grad,

Obviously you made up your comment & your embarrassed to be found out as a spoofer

Your a spoofer Santa Cruz....yes?

No I'm not. You shouldn't believe everything that is pushed by the Provo side
Sands alleged diaries should be filed under fiction or credited to the proper author. At the time the SF/PIRA propaganda department was under pressure to paint Sands as a latter day poet/writer/Patrick Pearse. Such stereotype drivel came out then as his writings.

jonniebgood1 · 08-03-2014 07:44PM

TheHappyChappy wrote: »

Is santa cruz a spoofer?

Watch your conduct or I will ban you.

You have the opportunity to back up your opinion on Sands diary if you wish. Calling people names will end in only 1 way. If it happens again you will be banned.

moderator

09-03-2014 03:37AM

Santa Cruz wrote: »

No I'm not. You shouldn't believe everything that is pushed by the Provo side
Sands alleged diaries should be filed under fiction or credited to the proper author. At the time the SF/PIRA propaganda department was under pressure to paint Sands as a latter day poet/writer/Patrick Pearse. Such stereotype drivel came out then as his writings.

What evidence have you to back that up?

FISMA · 09-03-2014 04:05AM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

it's time we properly embraced our past and heroes like Bobby Sands and remembered them with the love and pride they deserve

Considering the anemic amount of Michael Collins statues in Ireland, I do not hold out much hope for signs of remembrance for the hunger strikers.

bobbysands81 · 09-03-2014 11:47PM

Santa Cruz wrote: »

A lot of people are of the opinion that these "diaries" were written by another person as propaganda fodder. Sands didn't have a history of writing and due to his protest was unable to avail of any educational courses in Long Kesh

Utter tripe. Any links at all to back that up???

Sands was always a prolific writer.

"I wish I was back home in Derry" and "McIlhatton" were both written by Sands and recorded by Christy Moore.

Bobby Sands would have been 60 today.

At least some major figures in Ireland recognise the sacrifice of Bobby Sands - http://www.christymoore.com/news/remembering-bobby-sands/

pedroeibar1 · 10-03-2014 11:00AM

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Utter tripe. Any links at all to back that up???

Sands was always a prolific writer.

"I wish I was back home in Derry" and "McIlhatton" were both written by Sands and recorded by Christy Moore.

Actually Christy B said that he was given the song by another who told him it was written by Sands. So do you have any source to back up your claim?

ChicagoJoe · 10-03-2014 03:02PM

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Actually Christy B said that he was given the song by another who told him it was written by Sands. So do you have any source to back up your claim?

Like post #24, what evidence have you to back that up? ( and Wiki's do not count

)

TheHappyChappy · 10-03-2014 04:53PM

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

Fratton Fred · 10-03-2014 05:09PM

TheHappyChappy 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

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.

ChicagoJoe · 10-03-2014 05:36PM

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.

On this day in 1981 Bobby Sands began his Hunger Strike

Comments