The éirígí protest at the GPO April 16, 2011
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, Northern Ireland, The Left.trackback
Here’s a press release from éirígí which gives an outline of the events planned for this lunchtime outside the GPO and the rationale behind them. One wonders how the ‘citizen’s jury’ will work out…
The socialist republican party éirígí have revealed further details about their protest against the upcoming ‘British royal’ visit, which takes place at the
GPO in Dublin at 1PM (Saturday April 16th).The street theatre element of the protest will involve a mock guillotine and
effigy of Elizabeth Windsor, as well as a ”judge’ who will outline Britain’s
historic and modern imperial crimes.A ‘citizens jury’ comprised of all the members of the public who attend the
protest will then decide the fate of British Imperialism and Britain’s head of
state and commander in chief of the British army.Some of the sample charges that will be laid against British Imperialism in the
form of Elizabeth Windsor include:* Bloody Sunday (Croke Park/Derry)
* The Dublin/Monaghan Bombings
* Fallujah Massacre’s in Iraq (November 2004)
* Continued occupation of Six-Counties
Speaking in advance of the protest éirígí Cathaoirleach Brian Leeson said:
“Windsor represents an elitist, bigoted and anti-working class institution that
has no place in the modern world. As British head of state and
commander-in-chief of the British army, she is not just a symbolic head of
state. She bears more than a little responsibility for the litany of crimes
committed in the name of Britain by her troops in Ireland and elsewhere.“We would encourage people from Dublin and the rest of the country to take part
in what will be a novel and participatory protest involving an act of street
theatre where those in attendance will decide the fate of Elizabeth Windsor and
British Imperialism.”Leeson concluded: “The Windsor visit is about normalising and legitimising the
continued occupation of the Six-Counties. However, the right to national
self-determination and freedom from military occupation is not normal and is
non-negotiable. For as long as Britain continues to occupy the Six Counties, no
self-respecting Irishman or Irishwoman should welcome the British head of state
to Ireland.”
That’s all you were wondering about? Not why none of the left in Ireland has had nothing to say about the forthcoming visit, nor indeed does not intend to protest, maybe (IAWM, SP etc.)? Same as when the RIR marched through Belfast in 2009. Silence was deafening from the left then stomped the streets of Ireland’s second city, and will be again when ‘the queen’ and they return next month.
But, oh yeah, let’s concern ourselves solely with the what undoubtedly will be a ‘kangaroo’ court? Makes lots of sense that.
That’s not what you were implying? Oh how sorry am I indeed for misunderstanding. Yeah right.
Sorry that a bit of street theatre such as this offends your bourgeois sensibilities so.
In case it helps, she was despatched far more cleanly than many of the people above that were killed for ‘queen and country’.
How are those eggs and salmon this morning?
Both the SP and SWP are essentially Unionist, if I recall their policies correctly. They’re just local offices of bigger UK organisations.
(I’m open to correction here, if anyone wishes to do so)
You are of course completely wrong, as any reading of even the material hosted here on the left archive will attest. The Socialist Party is part of an international organised in over 40 countries, while the SWP form part of another organised along roughly similar lines. Both these internationals include British sister parties…and French sister parties…and Italian sister parties. Accusing either of being local offices of a British organisation would be like accusing the 80s WP of being local offices of a Moscow organisation. But if silly little digs with no substance behind them are all you have to offer by way of legitimate argument then I fear you may be heading down the same road as young Vladimir here.
@ Budapestkick
No “sly dig” intended. This is honestly the impression I gained from reading comments that other people have made about them over the years.
You are completely incorrect on both counts.
Vladimir, that’s a pretty childish attitude to take towards what was intended as a serious question.
Not to mention defensive. The press release was carried on full and you choose to take issue with an innocuous question?
Your strident tone, to say the least, won’t win any folk to your viewpoint or call to demo. As someone who has some sympathy with your implied stance, I couldn’t be bothered to be around such negativity in these trying times.
Also a little basic marketing might help. Socialists tend to view the world quite differently than those whose main or sole viewpoint is coloured by Republicanism – especially the more focused Irish variety. Maybe an appeal to common ground on the stated ideology of class division and hierarchy symbolised by Monarchy would be more nuanced message that might peek Socialist interest.
Of course, you’d have to hear out various Socialist groupings viewpoints seriously and may need to compromise your stance about how you’d go about demonstrating. But your post sounds rather uncompromising.
Spot on. Like you I’d also have some sympathy too – I’m no fan of the monarchy, British or otherwise, and I know Vladimir has made good points on a range of issues here previously, but one crucial thing is to recognise is that people can’t be browbeaten, insulted or forced to agree with a point of view. It’s something too many people on the left, republican or otherwise, sometimes forget.
Fair play for carrying the press release. That being said, yours is not the only site to have done so. Carrying the press relese certainly does not exempt you from criticism, especially when your sign off invites a response to/focus on, the ‘citizen’s jury’. That of course is your prerogative. To suggest that my drawing attention to this, and putting it into a wider context of the left and its position vis-a-vis the British royalty, British troops parading in Ireland etc. was ‘defensive’, is also your prerogative. It doesn’t make it so however just because you say so.
Indeed, your focus on/concern for ‘due process’ (and implication/conern that it was going to be a ‘kangaroo court’ – yes, my words not yours) is part of the whole narrative that depicts republicans as recaltricants that cannot think outside of the narrow, reactionary strictures of the ‘national question/struggle’.
This is directly reflected by the substantive (sorry but I can’t help you out with you not being ‘bothered to be around such negativity in these trying times’) concerns of ‘anon’.
He/she makes the point that “Socialists tend to view the world quite differently than those whose main or sole viewpoint is coloured by Republicanism – especially the more focused Irish variety. Maybe an appeal to common ground on the stated ideology of class division and hierarchy symbolised by Monarchy would be more nuanced message that might peek Socialist interest.”
The implication being that éirígí is not socialist, and needs to come to a similar position as outlined above. This would be true if it was not already éirígí’s stated position.
See http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest150411.html
“There are many grounds upon which the upcoming visit by Elizabeth Windsor should be opposed by all socialists, republicans and democrats.
Indeed, if these political designations are to have any real meaning today, then those who would profess to hold them are, I would contend, duty-bound to oppose this visit.
Foremost among the reasons for opposing her visit must be the fact that this woman represents the epitome of a system based upon class privilege – a system whereby power and privilege are assumed and passed on based upon the type of blood that flows in one’s veins and upon the money and influence that one’s family has inherited over time.
It is the notion of class-based entitlement at the expense of others which is at the very heart of the worldwide system of domination and exploitation that has ruled over and destroyed much of this planet we live on……”
Indeed there are ‘republicans’ on other websites criticising éirígí for missing the point that the issue is ‘sovereignty’ and not class. Maybe, like Connolly, it is class (fundamentally), but also the ‘national question’?????)
The original post doesn’t help this general and recurring historical (I would also contend, wilful) misunderstanding – inviting comment as to the legalities/’niceties’of the legal processes involved in a piece of street theatre, in isolation from addressing a whole raft of other issues certainly doesn’t. But, again, it is you prerogative to write/ask what you like on your site. No problem.
Neither is this misunderstanding helped by the deafening silence on this site and others with regard to éirígí’s position paper on socialism entitled ‘From socialism alone can the salvation of Ireland come’ (http://www.eirigi.org/pdfs/socialism.pdf). I appreciate that there are far more important things for people to be concerned with/commenting on, but it does not absolve those ‘socialists’ who by default knee-jerk and rush to imply that ‘republicans’ are somehow reactionary, in what is really, I would contend actually a knee-jerk response that seeks to absolve themselves from taking a truly left position with regard to imperialism in Ireland, RIR, Brit Queen visit etc. etc.
Where was Connolly in 1911 when British King George V came? Where was he in 1916? Why was he there in both instances??
Think before you knee-jerk….
How’s that for defensive??
Sorry, and I truly am not being smart, but I don’t intend to try and browbeat, force or insult people to accept my point of view (as suggested). I will debate and argue as vociferously and trenchantly as is required to defend the political positions I hold. I thought that is what the notion of ‘(class) struggle’ was all about.
Regards
“How’s that for defensive??”
Pretty much so to be honest.
Never said we were the only one to carry the press release, so unfortunately you’re projecting onto us a negative attribute which simply isn’t evident in anything we’ve/I’ve said.
Secondly, what’s all this re some strange argument about ‘due process’? I was simply expressing a curiosity as to what the response of those at or around the protest to the citizens jury might be? I don’t see how that ties me into a bourgeois mentality, given that my interest is in how working people respond and react to the protest.
To suggest otherwise is projection on your part.
To be honest, the half-humourous thought crossed my mind after writing that question, what happened if the people around out shopping or whatever decided not to do away with her head, but I didn’t write that down, and so the intent was merely a curiosity as to what might happen.
You’ve mentioned that document before IIRC, but come on, for all the interesting aspect of its protests éirígí simply isn’t, in the context of Irish elections and broad activism, the only show in town. There’s simply not enough time in the day for me to address every document issued by every party/formation etc, and so your thought about ‘deafening silence’ is therefore a bit inapposite.
I’m also surprised about your use of the word ‘reactionary’. I’ve never made a value judgement about éirígí one way or another as to its politics [though if you want an on the fly critique of the document one thing that it doesn't detail is how socialism is to be introduced here, there's no mention of the mechanism that will do so] . I see it as republican left, never felt the need to categorize it more than that.
I’m always happy that there are more people who are republicans or socialists or republicans and socialists, even better.
Re the queen. I’m a republican, I don’t have any sympathy for monarchies, whether British or otherwise. And it’s just a bit condescending for people to presume otherwise. But that begs many questions as to how one engages with the reality of the existence of monarchies in the contemporary era. But that’s another days work to be honest.
Defensiveness, projection. Oh the irony. Keep going. Whatever.
Seeing as you are on a roll with the Freudisms, what is the mechanism by which one avoids the issue at hand? Avoidance. Is that it?
I never said you said eirigi was reactionary. Nor did I say that eirigi was the only show in town. In fact I recognized that there were many more pressing matters at hand for the people that frequent this site. Having read my post you know this but nonetheless still chose to imply that I was upset that eirigi didn’t get more attention.
Keep reading Freud. You might get something of the (very few useful) things he had to say with regard to defense mechanisms, and indeed, generally. It’ll help you in the debates you have here in future. Know thyself and all that
But hey, like I said, whatever
You’re the one who mentioned ‘deafening silence’, not me Vladimir. So it’s perfectly reasonable for me to take the implication that you are upset.
You’re the person who said that I had some problem about ‘due process’ when I never mentioned, implied or did anything to indicate same. That’s projection, and it’s precious little to do with Freudianism.
As for aversion and avoidance, yet again you ascribe things to me that you couldn’t possibly know, that I haven’t indicated one way or another, when by contrast I’m dealing entirely and exclusively with what you actually write.
In other words you’re absolutely great at dishing it out but quite the opposite at accepting a criticism [or critique] of your own words.
Em, it’s clear that this group are super-sensitive and thin skinned but I think there will be some amusement at the inclusion of the Fallujah massacre on Lizzie’s indictment. My understanding is that the Fallujah operation was perpetrated by the US marines with the Brits providing a very small to negligible supporting role. Éirígí will only subject themselves to ridicule by including Fallujah – but given that this short thread has been a short-sharp reminder of the dogmatic dead end of this particular expression of socialist republicanism, I doubt if éirígí will take my advise and remove Fallujah. The Sindo will have a field day with this.
Is that right CMK? Yeah. Really super-sensitive and then skinned. Imagine drawing attention to this below? Oh yes. The British Army only played secondary role. Ah I see the error now. The dead of Fallujah are still dead, no?
It is interesting that you sought to identify where the Brit army was not culpable. What say you of the other ‘crimes’? And you would class yourself as being of the left? Now why doesn’t that surprise me when it comes to the Irish ‘left’. I suppose you are all right with the RIR ‘workers in uniform’ parading through the streets of Belfast next month having returned from another tour for ‘queen and country’ in Afghanistan? nothing remotely comparable to Fallujah of course….
(British) Army to be sued for war crimes over its role in Fallujah attacks
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/army-to-be-sued-for-war-crimes-over-its-role-in-fallujah-attacks-1961475.html
Vlad, my point was that you should match the imperialist crimes to the correct imperialist aggressor. Fallujah was a US crime not a Brit crime. The Bengal Famine was a British genocide; the Ukrainian Famine wasn’t, and so on, and so on. Some members of éirígí may have noticed that they’re operating in a particularly hostile media environment and simple, stupid, errors like attributing the US war crime of Fallujah to the UK is a stupid error that will be seized upon as evidence that éirígí are incapable of getting the basic facts of recent imperialist aggression correct. I was merely pointing out an inconsistency in the charge sheet éirígí are laying against Lizzie.
But, hey, I think you’ve proved my point about super-sensitive and thin skinned, qualities, it’s safe to say, that usually impede the ability to offer coherent political analysis, as you’ve proved in abundance today.
I actually was planning to attend some of the protests against Lizzie, but as Mark P pointed out in another thread, they look like they’ll just attract the monster raving looney republican set to which éirígí, on the evidence of Vlad’s contributions, seem eager to join. Better things to be doing with my time.
Okay, now let’s step back a ways…
Imagine for the sake of argument that the CLR was running an event somewhere and you posted up the details and had a throwaway line that went something like ‘i wonder what the response will be?’.
Then imagine if I came onto the eírígí site and started to attack you for not getting what the CLR was about, arguing that by asking about what the response by those attending you were aligning with bourgeois morality, that you were attacking the socialist republican ideals of the CLR and that by the way you never turned up to CLR events anyhow…
You’d be mighty surprised and rightly so.
But unfortunately that’s kind of the tenor of your contributions here from the get go this morning Vladimir.
And now you’re spreading out your net to have a go at others.
Now maybe you got out of bed the wrong side, or you’re nursing a hangover, or who knows what, but it might be best to just give it a rest, look at what those of us here actually said, note that at no times did we diss the protest or eírígí at all – indeed still haven’t, and chill out.
I don’t take offense at what you’re saying, that’s entirely up to you, but I’m sort of surprised. And now I’m off to watch Madagascar with my three year old daughter. So for the love of God, a bit of calm please.
Make sure and watch Madagascar II: the monkeys unionize.
Excellent. It’s on the list.
True story. On the ICTU march before Christmas I brought the creature with me. Coming up to O’Connell Bridge I asked ‘do you like the march?’
‘No’.
‘What do you want to do?’
‘Go home.’
So, just a little bit more political education yet to be done. Though for all I know it was her protest against the union leadership, in which case she’s entirely justified.
It was a cold day in fairness to her! My teenager tells me she’s refusing to go on the May Day march this year, or attend the Jim Connell memorial event locally (plug: it’s on Saturday, April 30, 2011 at 11:00am, Crossakiel, Kells, Co Meath). Kids, eh!
Yes it was, but she’s got to be prepared for revolutionary activity. I’m only half joking.
Two cases for democratic centralism if ever there I saw them.
Btw we should sort out that meeting.
You might be right Garibaldy…
I’m with Joss Wheedon, martial arts for girls/women, etc… It’s going to be a tough 40 years ahead…
That msg was for you LATC, though it would be great to meet up with you G too…
p.s. – don’t forget to look good at the picture related to the article from the independent. You should hang your head in shame for thinking to defend those responsible.
In future you should watch that knee-jerk
I’m presuming that’s not a considered response to my post.
But if it’s one to CMK’s post that’s well over the top. CMK wasn’t ‘defending those responsible’.
The one thing I find about the net that really is great is the way it brings out the absolute best in people. Particularly those from different formations who seek largely the same ends. No way that people use it to sublimate [now there's a bit of psychoanalytical stuff for you] their own frustrations and problems, no sireee. It’s courtesy all the way down that information highway.
Fantastic.
I dont want to get into the nuts and bolts of the handbag fighting here I havnt got a party or ideological line but I think I am anti-war and anti-imperialist and want a fairer world and are frustrated at the silent threat of violence by the state and media to anyone who opposes the upcoming visit so I hope to see everybody out in opposition to her and Obomba. Fair play to eirigi for organisin this, a witty idea, hope more people step it up in coming weeks
But here’s the thing. No one here has said it wasn’t. Nothing, no so much as a word of criticism has been uttered as regards it.
Re that document from éirígí I’ll post the link up to during the week to generate discussion.
I note that I can’t reply to your response to my post above. Anyways. In a few posts you have managed to attribute following to me: that I was insulting, browbeating, attempting to force people to agree with me, defensive, projecting, aversive, and sublimating.
You have had nothing whatsoever to say with regard to the substantive issues. Rather you suggest that the my issues with this post are sychological rather than political. No where have that type of attempt to dismiss the political as psychological before?
I once again refer to the historical issue of the relationship between the national and social questions. If memory serves me correctly, the only two articles about eirigi on this website are this one (which I took to seek to focus on the ‘judge and jury’ as
As to CMK – his/her post may indeed have had nothing to do with defending the British Army and more to do with putting the boot into the ‘dead-end dogmatism of socialist republicanism’, as he terms it, and his obvious concern for what the sunday independent thinks. Although it must be noted that he did try and downplay the role of the BA in the events that occurred in Fallujah, did he not?
“In a few posts you have managed to attribute following to me: that I was insulting, browbeating, attempting to force people to agree with me, defensive, projecting, aversive, and sublimating.”
Yes I did. And I did it on the basis of what you wrote.
There’s been no ‘substantive’ issue to address when from the off you started to let fly at this site, at me and at anyone else who came on here to comment.
No one here has made any judgement good bad or indifferent on the protest. Yet you persist in attributing a profoundly negative interpretation of all of us and one which seeks to paint all of us here as being at fault.
And all the time you keep introducing more and more more straw men ‘where have we that type of attempt to dismiss the political as psychological’ etc.
You say ‘tendentious’? How so?
You took one comment, off the cuff, above…”One wonders how the ‘citizen’s jury’ will work out… ” to launch an attack on this site, on those who post or comment on it and so on.
At no time have I done anything in regard of putting forward a negative interpretation of eírígí. If you cannot see that there’s no way I can make you.
Sorry. The difficulties of trying to write on a phone keyboard …. The last post was sent before I has finished. The second last paragraph should have read:
I once again refer to the historical issue of the relationship between the national and social questions. If memory serves me correctly, the only two articles about eirigi on this website are this one (which I took to seek to focus on the ‘judge and jury’ aspect of what is a far more complex issue, and something which is happening at a time of increased ‘felon setting’), and another very strange article on the Irish Times being the ‘media wing’ of eirigi. I certainly wasn’t complaining that eirig don’t get enough attention on this site as was suggested. It is however frustrating that a tendency
that is endeavoring to get, as it would see it, ‘back to Connolly’ in the best sense of the term, is only recognized on this site in the most tendentious of ways. And, for the third time, I say that fully conscious of the fact that eirigi are political minnows in many respects.
Maybe when you get around to looking at that paper then actions like this will be less likely to elicit the type of resonse that this one did from Anon-anon
CMK said:
‘dogmatic dead end of this particular expression of socialist republicanism’
Vlad (ostensibly quoting CMK) said:
‘dead-end dogmatism of socialist republicanism’
Vlad, keep on digging and you will probably convince me (as a socialist repubilcan) that CMK is right.
This is gas altogether!
Check out CMK’s rationalization above. He persists in exonerating the Brits of any culpability for Fallujah.
Be my guest Dilettante.
Vladimir, having seen enough of these threads degenerate I would suggest actually engaging with the criticisms being raised, otherwise, as dilletante rightly points out, you run the risk of alienating people from your own point of view.
Duh! Did you actually read the ‘Independent’ report you cited regarding Fallujah. To point out that the Brits had a very limited support role in the Fallujah assault is in no way to exonerate them. But, as would be clear from anyone who knew anything about Fallujah since 2004, the US has conducted several battles there and is responsible for inflicting these diabolical health problems on the population.
There are and were plenty of other crimes you could have added to Lizzie’s indictment (the suppression of the Mau Mau in Kenya, the various war crimes of the Malaysian conflict post 1945) why you chose Fallujah baffles me. It’s clear, though, that if you’re representative of éirígí then there a seriously off-balance organisation who’ll likely do serious damage to the modest progress the left has made here in recent years.
Certainly the crimes of the British empire should include the suppression of the Mau Mau uprising:
“there was “‘systematic’ torture, starvation and even the burning alive of detainees” in the Mau Mau detention camps of Kenya (Papers reveal brutal treatment of Mau Mau prisoners as victims bring fight to Britain, 8 April). And four elderly Kenyans “who claim they were variously whipped, beaten, sexually abused and castrated while detained under colonial rule in the 1950s” are looking for the UK to take responsibility for the structure of systematic torture created by its colonial administration and military forces, and authorised at the highest levels of the British government.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/14/torture-mau-mau-camps-kenya
And the British organized ‘dirty gangs’ in Kenya led by Frank Kitson became the template for subsequent counter-insurgency operations.
Perhaps the Irish government could bring some of the surviving Mau Mau victims to Ireland, have them meet the queen, and have her apologize. Some of the Mau Mau were veterans of the British army, having survived the fight against fascism.
I’m baffled at some of the comments on this thread, which seem to me to have been the result of getting the wrong end of the stick time and again.
Anyway, for anyone who is interested in watching the event, and forming a judgment on the grounds for it given at the event itself by the organisers, there is a link here
http://roaringandshouting.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/eirigi-takes-the-queens-head/
Re the protest by eírígí at the Garden of Remembrance, mentioned on that blog, wouldn’t it have made more sense to have kept that on the qt, rather than making that public? Surely all the Gardai have to do now is to block entry to the Garden before hand and to put in place an exclusion area around Parnell Sq?
Although in truth that’s presumably what they’d be doing one way or another.
Jeeps.
While I have no time for Mrs. Windsor-Saxe-Coburg-Whatever-Your-Having-Yourself, her family of parasites, and all they represent; I really think there are bigger fish to fry.
Obama is the chief warlord of western Imperialism.I would see a huge focus on making that known and protesting his visit.We must end the illusions that American Democrat politicians are in any real way better than Republican ones (terms used in the USA context). Shannon is being used to aid the American war machine.Reagan,Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama are the same. You could say Shannon is an American base just like the bases maintained by our local Imperialist in the North.
I will protest the visits of both M. Windsor and Obama. On Windsor I hope not to be associated with the deadend, cul de sac, suicidal strategy of the militarist republican sects.On a world basis protesting Obama is probably more important.Blair and Cameron are junior partners in the current Imperialist invasions.
I hope that certain parties are not representative of Eirigi.
In ULA there are differences. Denunciations and sneers will not overcome them. Unity on the broader left and a necessary development of strategy which involves coming to an understanding of Imperialism in the current situation involves debate and analysis, not just denunciations.
Can I add that the disasters of the Pro0vo military campaign (eg Birmingham) laid a basis where many decent leftists ( not to neglect many sections of the population) turned off the national struggle. Where it can be said that the ashes of Bomabay St. was the genesis of the Provo campaign, then the Abercorn restaurent laid the basis of the turn off.
As a great marxist once said we must patiently explain.
Enda Kenny spouting nonsense about the visit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13113580?utm_source=twitterfeed
I feel we are in for some Bruton style fore-lock tugging..
Is there commemoration for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings on Talbot street on the 17th? I might go (no exams that day. In other news people who were timetabled for exams on that day in Trinity have had them moved earlier to the Saturday for “security reasons”. The SU is annoyed for once.)
*There should be an “a” between “there” and “commemoration”.
so how did the ‘citizen’s jury’ will work out…
yeah 1798 the families have a commemeration there every year.
As someone who adheres in most areas of politics and culture to the broad Irish Republican vision for Ireland (or perhaps more correctly, a Gaelic Republican vision) I find myself very much in two minds about this upcoming official visit by Elizabeth II.
On one hand there is an immediate discomfiture at the idea of the British head of state (and member of the British royalty) visiting Ireland, an almost instinctive feeling of unease, not helped by the nagging suspicion that ‘some’ will use this event as a mechanism to advance the acceptance and ‘normalization’ of the British Occupation of the North of Ireland (yes, ‘Occupation’), and the continued violent enforcement of Partition as a permanent state of affairs on this island.
The official description of the British head of state as, ‘Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith’, is more than a little insulting containing as it does Britain’s aggressive territorial claim over part of the nation of Ireland.
There is also the worry that all sorts of hitherto safely held-in-check members of the pre-Independence pro-British Ancien Régime will come crawling out of the crumbling Big House woodwork to cause trouble and conflict. West Brits, Neo-Unionists, Neo-Loyalists, Seoníní, Castle Catholics, Neo-Colonists, British Apologists, Planter Irish, Leathghaeil, Anglos, Pale’s-folk, Ascendacy-folk, Slave Irish, and all the other euphemisms (insulting or otherwise) of the Old Order that still dominate most of the Irish media establishment, and who will no doubt make hay while the sun shines (step forward Myers, Lynch, Dudley Edwards, and other post-colonial neurotics).
Do we really need old ethno-national and political antagonisms in this part of the country stirred up again? And in the run-up to the Centenary celebrations of the 1916 Revolution? What benefit is that?
Yet… I can see that a de facto formal acceptance by Britain of Ireland’s struggle for freedom and nationhood, through attendance by the British head of state at the Garden of Remembrance, would be hugely symbolic – and welcome (even if it was just the traditional wreath fussing rather than wreath laying ceremony). Likewise any attendance at Croke Park. Even more so if a formal apology for the original Bloody Sunday was to be made (as media rumour claims – though I remain sceptical).
But then this is offset by a ‘tour’ (ceremony?) at Islandbridge, which again makes one somewhat queasy. The rather unsuitably named ‘Irish National War Memorial Gardens’ (is this not rightly the name for the Garden of Remembrance for those who died in the Irish Revolution? Our ‘Irish National War Memorial’?) have unfortunately been a focus of Unionist and Neo-Unionist propaganda flag waving rather than a simple remembrance for those Irish people of all allegiances who died in WWI. Who will that particular visit pander to? Irish people? Or Irish born-again Unionists?
A complex situation, with lots of good and bad in it. But I’m not sure the recent éirígí events in Sraid Uí Chonaill particularly helped one way or another. I think éirígí have lots of energy, imagination and enthusiasm, and may be a political force to watch in future years even if they don’t exactly float my particular ideological boat. But I find them frequently more negative than positive. More what they are against than what they are for, and this event somewhat fell into the former category. But, as activists, I certainly think they have tapped into the sort of PR street theatre and web 2.0 savviness that you find with more conventional activists groups across western Europe.
in terms of symbolism think the whole dublin monaghan thing seems to be a by the way, whats the odds people who had been planning this trip for years, a trip thats only significance is symbolism picked the anniversey of a masacare in living memory that the british state is strongly suspected of involvment in, is that co -incidence or planned.
if people suspect its not planned should progressives be making it an issue or would that equaly be bad taste. my original intention when she was coming was to ignore it but when the date was announced not sure. eirigi and SF both released statements with reference to DM both are argueing different stragagies. the provos are staying away eirigi aren’t. i accept other progessive groups might not have the same gut feeling when it comes to a brit monarch but do they concider the outstanding issues of DM relivent to the day?
I’ve had not dissimilar thoughts to yourself Séamus which I’ll air in more detail during the week.
‘British Queen’ meets the guillotine at the GPO
http://www.eirigi.org/latest/latest180411.html
People should click on the two links at this politicalworld thread, and read the urls
http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=7792
In relation to the Dublin/Monaghan bombings, which were arguably an act of international state-sponsored terrorism on behalf of Britain (a cabal of Unionist paramilitary groups organised, armed, funded and directed the British military and intelligence services in co-operation with elements of the British civil government), I see more blame in the actions of the Irish authorities than their British counterparts.
British-sponsored terrorists carried out those dastardly attacks, so one can hardly be surprised at British denials in relation to them. Would we expect the Libyans, Syrians or Iranians to confess to their particular crimes of international terrorism? Just because the British are a democracy, and a Western European neighbour, why should we expect more of them, when they were waging a ‘Dirty War’ to protect their territorial and colonial interests in Ireland?
It is the Irish authorities of the period (and since) who should be taken to task since they failed in their fundamental legal and constitutional duties: namely to protect the lives and well-being of the citizens of Ireland from violent aggressive acts by a foreign power.
Not only did they fail in that but, arguably, they were culpable in the actions of the terrorists, by covering up the ultimate source of the outrages – Britain. In doing so they actively broke Irish criminal law, committing dozens of offences, as well as behaving in a morally repugnant and politically unforgivable manner.
Members of the Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fáil governments of the time were accessories after-the-fact to the Dublin/Monaghan atrocities.
Let’s focus on that as well.
Should read, ‘a cabal of Unionist paramilitary groups organised, armed, funded and directed BY the British military and intelligence services in co-operation with elements of the British civil government’…!
[...] to go to a memorial of Irish Republicans [and here I'd echo the thoughts of Séamus as expressed here] and having to visit a site where the British Army opened fire on an unarmed crowd and murdered [...]