John Hume

Morlar wrote: »

None of those altered the course of events which led to the battle of the bogside. If you are asserting that the above are the proof that violence was never necessary during the troubles I'd remain unconvinced.

I agree. It was the violent reception and banning of the civil rights marches that was one of the grave errors in the 1960s civil rights movement in NI. When William Craig, the minister for Home Affairs, banned the Derry march on 5 oct 1968 it was the death-knell of any hope for a peaceful resolution to the mess that NI was. The perception was that Orange marches could go ahead but civil rights marches were to be banned and this outraged many in the Catholic community who just saw business as usual from the government.

The unarmed civil rights marchers in Derry were then met with the violence from the RUC and sundry UVF thugs who showed up to use force and what, show their determination that nothing was going to change in NI. And this was expressed with violence. The violence was blared onto TV screens world wide and it was an embarrassed O'Neill who was forced to take some action and give in on some reforms. But his policies did not at all have any backing from the majority in NI and at one point O'Neill was pelted with eggs and flour in public.


The issue of one man one vote - central to the civil rights marches - was not included in these reforms - adding further frustration to the mix. More importantly the RUC were visibly beating the s*it out of the march supporters and Ian Paisley was on television every night with his nightly rants against granting Catholics any rights in NI. To observers at the time Paisley had become the effective leader of NI and seemed never to be off the screen with his threats and anti-Catholic vitriolic screeds. The resistance to the civil rights movement was implacable and seen as such in a very visible way.

I lived through this period and remember it all quite well as it unfolded onto our TV screens in the south- and to me the tragedy of the civil rights movement was the failure of government to respond and put the men of violence - the RUC, the UVF and even members of the NI government who were egging it all on - in jail, that led on to further tragedy. O'Neill was run out of office for his apparently 'giving in' to the civil rights demands.

But the point is the violence BEGAN with the UVF and the RUC attacking unarmed marchers and raiding whole neighbourhoods with violent 'searches' - an excuse used to intimidate the Catholic community with violence. The limited response of British and NI government to the civil rights movement was a mistake that led on to 30 years of tragedy.

I suppose I should add that when you live through events like this - and witness them at close range - it's not the same as reading about them later. The utter tragedy of these marchers who hoped that the constitutional way would give them equal civic recognition and status and to watch as the whole thing degenerated into violence - apparently supported by the state - is beyond me to ever understand.

donaghs wrote: »

However, I still favour John Hume approach to that of the IRA. Violence is rarely justifiable.

I'm certainly not trying to justify anything, especially violence - just put on record the sequence of events and what led to 30 years of chaos.

The impression I sometimes get from these discussions is that somehow the violence on the Catholic side was a reasoned choice that arose out of a calm atmosphere that was open to the demands of the Civil Rights movement for equality under the law - it didn't happen that way.

Unfortunately and tragically, the civil rights movement never stood a chance at remaining non-violent. From the very beginning UVF thugs were out in numbers looking to cause trouble for the marchers and blatantly using violence to make their point.

Severing the link was always on the table - it was part of the narrative that surrounded all issues in NI. Remember there were still living memories at that time of the border being established. Paisley was chanting about it from the get go - or should I say, saying that hell would freeze over first etc etc. so it wasn't a huge leap by any means to take by anyone to take a position on the subject or take the issue in that direction. In fact in 1966 when the UVF revamped it was for the purpose of not allowing the border to disappear. And this was some years before the PIRA formed.

I hate violence - so the tragedy for me was to see the entire situation descend into a volcanic mess. I can still remember seeing on the evening news the early victims of all this sprawled on pavements. It was unreal to us at the time.

Morlar wrote: »

Their response might be something along the lines of pointing out that the 'wretchedness of Catholic conditions' were caused by that british link which they sought to forcibly break.

I have a lot of respect for J.H. even bumped into him several times in the vicinity of Dublin castle circa 1995 but I believe that if it werent for the response of the IRA then the likes of hume would happily have been left to piss into the wind till the end of time. Take the IRA out of that equation and you deflate the sdlp positioning of themselves as the 'constitutional alternative to the physical force republicanism'. As an example their pre resurgence track record is not particularly impressive to me (all talk of credit unions & 'comission to hold an election to appoint someone to file complaints with' aside).

Agree. That's exactly the point I was making too in my long post - there was not much response by government to the civil rights marches. And the situation became seriously volatile with the banning of marches [great idea that was!] and the unchecked attacks by the RUC and UVF on unarmed marchers.