jump to navigation

“represent relatively reprehensible views, culturally speaking” September 13, 2016

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
trackback

Does Martin McGuinness deserve this? In a piece on The Journey, a fictionalised account of the McGuinness/Paisley relationship we read:

Ultimately, however, The Journey’s success is likely to be judged by how it fares outside the UK and Ireland, where Paisley and McGuinness are far less well-known figures, and where their individual political stances will be less resonant. Hamm is confident that it will translate. “In the end, it’s about two people who are relatively unlikable, and represent relatively reprehensible views, culturally speaking, to most people as we understand it. Neither was that popular, in global terms, but we are trying to say something about the nature of politics: in the end, you have to talk. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like what someone is saying; you have to sit down with them.”

Comments»

1. Joe - September 13, 2016

Does Ian Paisley deserve it?
What does it mean anyway – ‘represent relatively reprehensible views, culturally speaking, to most people as we understand it’? It’s gobbledegook isn’t it? Who are the ‘we’ of whom this person Hamm speaks?

Like

RosencrantzisDead - September 13, 2016

Does Ian Paisley deserve it?

Yes.

Like

WorldbyStorm - September 13, 2016

I think Paisley although redeeming himself in part in the latter section of his life played a deeply problematic role right into the 2000s. Of course one could say that someone like him might have stepped in to a similar political position, and that is perhaps correct, but he had a particular blend of charisma and reaction and…well, call it outright sectarianism for much of the time, that certainly added to the overall problem. He was, as it were, there at the start whipping up the worst instincts of unionism and loyalism and he was there many steps along the way. I also find his toying with, to put it at its kindest paralegal approaches, profoundly hypocritical given his other stated stances.

Like

2. EWI - September 13, 2016

I get the impression that both Hamm and Bateman are ‘middle-class Prods’, i.e. the backbone of the OUP/UUP. So, why does their equating horror at both Paisley and McGuinness surprise anyone?

Like

3. gendjinn - September 13, 2016

It always seemed to me that McGuinness’ sole crime was wearing the wrong uniform, not the deeds themselves.

Paisley on the other hand offended when he dropped the euphemisms in much the same manner Trump has done.

Like

4. roddy - September 13, 2016

Bateman is from Bangor and therefore would know fuck all about the Bogside ,the realities of the troubles or anything outside the confines of cricket fields of North Down,the most prosperous and most unionist area of the North.SF is certainly popular “in global terms” amongst every anti imperialist and liberation movement worldwide.

Like

5. Pasionario - September 13, 2016

Maybe leading involvement in a decade-long campaign of sectarian murder could be considered “reprehensible”.

Like

Joe - September 13, 2016

Yes indeed. Directing the men who put the bomb in the La Mon hotel and burned all those Protestants alive; directing the men who put the bomb in the bin in Warrington and blew those two little boys to pieces; directing the men who forced the man to drive a bomb to a checkpoint and blow himself up. And so on.
Let me think now. What word can I think of to adequately describe such actions? Ah yes, reprehensible.
Yes I think McGuinness deserves reprehensible.

Like

WorldbyStorm - September 13, 2016

Yes but that’s not quite what was being mentioned in the original quote. It was “relatively reprehensible views, culturally speaking”. The acts you point to which were indeed reprehensible were political and paramilitary acts. Not cultural. I think there’s a distinction that’s worth drawing attention to and exploring how and why it is used and what justification there is for saying it.

There are others too if we want to really go there in terms of McGuinness and the PIRA and PSF leadership recognising the cul de sac of armed struggle and even more importantly in the Paisley context the necessity of compromise with unionism long before Paisley recognised the necessity of latter with nationalists or republicans.

Like

6. Pasionario - September 13, 2016

“decades-long” that should read.

Like

7. roddy - September 13, 2016

Joe ,the military wing of the party you support were involved in killings of civilians,sectarian killings,killing of workers employed by the “security forces” and political assasinations.There may have been a difference in numbers but the “official IRA” actually carried out all the categories of killing you condemn others for and supplied arms to the UVF ie the Shankhill butchers.

Like

Joe - September 13, 2016

Fair point Roddy. Equally reprehensible.

Like

8. john harper - September 14, 2016

I gthink they majority of the people here on this site were not from the north are even born in what we call the troubles.Sectarism was rife in the north ,the civil rights was the leader in equal rights,the Offical Rebublicans supporet a freedom of speech.After Burntollet the provos saw the opening for violince,hence the andersontown civil rights that had there rallies in the falls park and subtle innundeeos led to vio;ence against the peace people.The republican clubs wanted civil rights the provos wanted war the got it,now they are in a p-lace the fiught against,small world

Like

Joe - September 14, 2016

Fair play John. Agree with most of that.

Like

9. roddy - September 14, 2016

What are you on?

Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: