Childhood Times Within War
Guest writer Davy Carlin with the first in a series of short pieces reflecting on a childhood being created in a climate of destruction.
West Belfast – My early years
Series 2, Part 1
Previous Series on the Blanket page of a decade past
Introduction
This is a continuation of a wee series I have done over the years about my childhood growing up in the West. It is written with the rawness of the lingo of the time. It is also emotional and serious, heartfelt, yet humorous at times, as that is the way that I had wanted to write this particular series.
And while many of my articles have over the years given an understanding of class politics, this is because of my experiences in life. On the Blanket site I had also written of trade union and united working class struggles that our then union branch and more was at the forefront of, which had mobilised thousands of Catholic and Protestant workers on issues of socio-economic concern. Then I had written of us being part of mobilising thousands and then tens of thousands against sectarianism, death threats, and murder, whether they had come from Loyalist or Republicans at that time.
Then there were the times I had been on Anti Imperialist marches with senior loyalists, such as once Blanket writer Billy Mitchell, through to seeing other senior loyalists on anti racism rallies. Indeed I was to learn both how far each community can take stands on such issues, of their contradictions within such stances, and more importantly of how the green and orange card is whipped up to divide any potential unity of the Protestant and Catholic working classes.
For years I had did all the theoretical study of such Irish history while also sharing platforms with academics, authors, senior political heads etc on such matters of debate.
Yet it was my many direct experiences (however brief) of class struggle in action, ‘across the divide’ that had also helped shaped my politics. So I am aware that many on this site would take a differing view given their own experiences and particular studies of such.
But as I had said when big Mackers offered me a chance to write away back many years ago when many had not - that while we may not agree, nevertheless it is important to respect the right to those differing views.
The series below is about my early years and I have agreed in the time ahead {for another site} to a more specific in-depth recorded interview of those early childhood times within war.
Indeed what better way than to understand and learn from our troubled past than to get interviews and real life accounts from those involved in such, for future generations, from all viewpoints. Such accounts are necessary, essential and need to be protected.
I will add different parts to this series as and when more comes to mind.
To be continued ...
Davy looking forward to that it should be interesting, a good starting point I suggest would be Oscar Wildes "we are all in the gutter,but some of us are looking at the stars"
ReplyDeleteDavy,
ReplyDeleteyes, it will be interesting to see what is was like for a young black guy growing up in West Belfast. I remember the night you and me were coming down through the Rock streets and the cops were following us and giving out gip for what we felt were pure racist reasons. Then of course we had the odd drunk in the Hut who would make a snide comment. Good luck with it all mate.
Looking forward to this.
ReplyDeleteCan I ask you something though Davy? And this is a serious question. How can a loyalist be anti imperialist?
If an anti imperialist is someone who opposes all forms of colonialism and a loyalist is someone who is loyal to the British crown, it's crown forces etc etc, then how can someone be both?
Davy
ReplyDeleteI too look forward to reading more of your stuff, I look back at the Blanket with enormous fondness and affection. Anthony and Carrie gave working class folk like me and you an opportunity to get our thoughts out there without any of that bourgeois crap about you should'nt put a full stop or comma there. (If you get my drift)
At its best, I found reading it and writing for the Blanket exhilarating. Although I doubt some of the Connolly House crew found it as enjoyable.
Mick
Mick/Organised Rage,
ReplyDeletethat was a very nice comment about The Blanket. You were one of the stalwarts there. I don't agree that good grammar is all bourgeois crap but I laughed at it all the same. It was a welcoming port for all manner of ideas. But as you say the powers that be at Connolly House didn't appreciate it.
BB,
ReplyDeleteI guess if they are are loyal to being British and identify with the labourist strands of Britishness rather than the monarchist they might argue that they they are anti-imperialist in the sense that somebody in England might be.
Anthony; yes. I know many English who are anti imperialist so I considered this before my question.
ReplyDeleteBut surely, since Britain colonised Ireland then someone who is loyal to the coloniser can't be considered anti imperialist? Is this not a contradiction in terms?
I get there are Protestant republicans and anti imperialists, but a loyalist anti imperialist?
BB,
ReplyDeletebut they might not subscribe to the notion that an imperialist relationship now exists between Britain and Ireland. They might feel that Britain remains an imperialist country but that its relationship to Ireland is not characterised by imperialism.
They might also take the view that it is better to be linked to a strong British labour movement directed from London than give support to a labour movement in Ireland that might acquiesce in clerical authority.
This is all might and maybe. I don't really know what they think and am merely considering the possibilities. I see no iron law that would prevent a loyalist being an anti-imperialist.
Anthony; if your points are to be considered then my opinion would be that if loyalists here no longer subscribe to the notion that Britain colonised Ireland then they don't understand what imperialism is and should perhaps evaluate how they term themselves.
ReplyDeleteImperialism hasn't changed much over the centuries. The imperialist still works to exert power whether it be military or economic, over it's victim. Anti imperialists by definition oppose the might of the imperialist and it's armed forces against the native people. Ireland is a modern example of this.
My own opinion is that there is no such thing as a loyalist anti imperialist.
That's an excellent Piece Davy.
ReplyDeleteI wont go onto the blanket to view your subscriptions to it, the reason is, from what I have read in your piece,I don't read you as a loyalist, and, you Got senior Loyalist on Anti Imperialist demonstrations, I would also read into that, "That They had also seen the One side of Loyalist domination", All for one and Leaders for themselves. I am looking forward to your next piece.
Anthony,
ReplyDeletebut they might not subscribe to the notion that an imperialist relationship now exists between Britain and Ireland. They might feel that Britain remains an imperialist country but that its relationship to Ireland is not characterised by imperialism.
As in so many other matters you are more perceptive to the nature of the modern relationship between Ireland and Britain in a way that many here are not.
Robert; the modern relationship between Britain and Ireland is the same as it always was.
ReplyDelete'Feeling' different about it doesn't change that.
A loyalist anti imperialist is a paradox.
Belfast Bookworm,
ReplyDelete'A loyalist anti imperialist is a paradox.'
On the face of it yes. I am a loyalist but do not adhere to leftist tendencies so I am not in a position to speak on their behalf.
'the modern relationship between Britain and Ireland is the same as it always was.'
I think that is an argument that is very difficult to sustain. The economic value add to Britain is exactly what?
BB,
ReplyDeleteThey might feel that colonisation took place but might no longer feel it plays any part in the governance of the place; that dynamics change; that problems change or come to be redefined.
I have never met too many people who were persuasive in their arguments about imperialism. A lot of it particularly on the left is sloganising. I think at heart imperialism is an economic relationship and most people I have discussed it with seem pretty weak on economics. I understand economics only in the most macro of terms. It seems to me that a Belfast loyalist can, in theory, be as anti-imperialist as a London anti-imperialist. I can't see why not. If memory serves me right I was in discussion with loyalists who were very critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Can't recall the details as the thing is hazy.
Imperialism has changed over the centuries. Marxists moved from terming it imperialism to neo-imperialism. Through TNCs and international financial relations it ceased to need territorial scquisition. But it seems to me that for imperialism to be in place the dominant country must be drawing more out of the dependent country than it puts in. Every repressive relationship between two countries need not be imperialist. There is an enormous amount of oppression that goes on in the world which is not necessarily imperialist but which is carried out by countries that are imperialist. I often wonder about the imperialist nature of the US behaviour in Vietnam. The US were very brutal, should never have been there but was it imperialist reasons that they were there or because of regional power politics in South East Asia? In the struggle between the superpowers the US seemed to think in very ‘realist’ terms and Kissinger was the most consummate practitioner of realism. It is all about power and security and in its repressiveness does not differ from imperialist aggression. The argument has been made that from an imperialist point of view it made little sense for the US to be in Vietnam, that US imperialism functioned better by not being there and that ultimately it pulled out because imperialist relationships were not affected by its withdrawal. The US had struck an alliance with China which undermined the Soviets and made a presence in Vietnam much less essential. That made its behaviour no less brutal. It can also be argued that by applying a realist perspective rather than a simple imperialist one to global politics at the time the US read the situation wrongly on so many occasions.
I just think these things are more complex than I used to think they were.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteYou have fleshed out what I had briefly put to Bookworm. Imperialism in the classical terms that we understand it are not to be found in Anglo-Irish relations in 2013.
I think these things are more complex than they used to be with the rise of the corporate entity.
ReplyDeleteImperialism has been usurped somewhat by global conglomerate dominance. Governments now make decisions not for the purpose of protecting anything other that corporate interests ....ie. Iraq,Afghanistan, amongst others.
I am of the opinion that a lot of things are more complex than need be because the idea of life before profit is an alien one.
Anthony; I understand imperialism and anti-imperialism in only the simplest of terms; ie. an imperialist or coloniser siezes a, usually smaller, weaker in terms of military power, country and makes it it's own, exploiting that country's borders and resources - both human and natural, for it's own gain.
ReplyDeleteI oppose this in all lands, particularly so in my own, so consider myself anti-imperialist to a degree.
If a loyalist here considers themselves loyal to the British, even if they oppose the monarchy for example, then how can they consider themselves to be anti-imperialist.
Granted, dynamics have changed - and perhaps this was the imperialist plan - 'change how it 'seems' and 'appears' and they'll forget they've been colonised', but the essence is still the same.
Robert; I couldnt begin to tell you what the economic value of the north is to Britain today but what I could tell you is that they've had more than their fair share of value out of this place over the centuries;
Use of our ports and seas, a free military training ground (that they're still availing of), the mills and factories shipping/exporting internationally, all of our workers...the list goes on.
So yes, we've all heard that the north is an expensive place to 'run' and it's a drain on the British tax payer and I'm sure an economist could work out to the penny the cost but as it stands, maybe then they should give us back what they owe us and f*** off home.
This is an interesting discussion and Mackers, as always, has introduced some interesting points on the complexities of global politics and relationships. It seems to me the classical paradigm of Imperialism needs to be updated in order to take account of modren circumstanmces. Globaliztion, for example, is essentially imperialism in a more developed and complex form. It functions at the level of global capitalistic interests rather than that of the nation state.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mackers that imperialism is fundamentally an ecomonic relationship but it manifests itself in political forms as well. Neo-liberalism is an economic theory that acts in the interests of international capital. Likewise, the 'realism' of Kissinger can be viewed as a geo-political theory that expressed the interests of Capitalism at a time when the focus was on regional spheres of influence.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, another point raised by Mackers was the bone of contention between Connolly and Wlaker i.e. an independent Irish labour movement vs an Irish Labour movement linked to Britian. I, personally, think Connolly got the better of that exchange. It is well worth reading.
Belfast Bookworm,
ReplyDeleteI think because we do understand imperialism in the simplest of terms we need to allow for others to have their own uncomplicated understanding of it also. A loyalist may see it very simply as I have tried to outline.
If a loyalist here considers themselves loyal to the British, even if they oppose the monarchy for example, then how can they consider themselves to be anti-imperialist.
I presume in the same sense that a British worker in London could.
Granted, dynamics have changed - and perhaps this was the imperialist plan - 'change how it 'seems' and 'appears' and they'll forget they've been colonised', but the essence is still the same.
Perhaps but it would be a hard one to prove. It comes too close to the false consciousness concept.
I looked up the definition of imperialism today and its the same thing I learned when I first heard the term about 20 years ago as a kid.
ReplyDeleteIn its purest, simplest term it is still described as I've said in earlier posts. Of course dynamics have changed. The world and our place in it is constantly evolving, so is language even. But a word like imperialism is a bit like Ronseal in that it does exactly what it says on the tin.
A British worker from London could undoubtedly be anti imperialist. They are British, English nationality. Being born in a country known for its imperialism does not make every one of ts residents an imperialist. However, being born in a country that has been colonised, and opting to be loyal to the colonisers, considering yourself one of them, then claiming you're anti imperialist is absurd in my opinion.
They can't have it both ways.
BB,
ReplyDeletebut the loyalist might not feel that they are colons to use the expression from French run Algeria. Republicans for long called them misguided Irish people which is different from colonisers. They don't share our view that the North is a colony of Britain but integral to it. They assert their autonomy at times because they believe that Britain far from having imperial designs on the North is quite prepared to jettison it in it own self interest.
I can understand on those grounds why somebody who has a loyalty to Britain and who perceives their place in the word as radically different from how republicans perceive that place, could regard themself as anti-imperialist.
Many within the unionist community have argued for long enough that working class people in the North are better off under London than Dublin. That would seem to them a sensible reason for remaining with the Brits and one in which they would not experience any contradiction between loyalty to a British identity and an anti-imperialist stance.
Anthony; I hear what you're saying but 'views' are different from facts. Loyalists absolutely do not share my view nor I theirs, that the north is not a colony of but is an integral part of Britain.
ReplyDeleteBut the fact remains that Ireland was a colonised country and the 6 counties still are. It may be some sort of modern imperialism; the natives have been trained and are making less noise, we're feeding them and allowing them to get educated and vote, but it still imperialism.
Britain's colonisation of Ireland is 100's of years old but time passing does not change the fact.
If loyalists are anti imperialist, with whom do they have an argument or problem with?
Could a Malvinian who is loyal to the British crown consider themselves anti imperialist? No. They are loyal to the coloniser, part of the colonisation machine. Why or how could they say they opposed to it?
BB,
ReplyDeletebut what happens when people challenge our facts and query the factual basis of them? It is not just loyalists who believe the North is not a colony, many nationalists don't believe it either. Republicans who call the unionists misguided Irish people can hardly at the same time be consistent in calling it a colony.
Britain as an imperialist state does not need territorial acquisition in the North to advance its interests in any imperialist sense. Fine Gael would do that quite well. Sinn Fein and the DUP have shown little inclination to resist neo liberalism. That would hardly change were the Brits to pack up and go.
The preferrred British option at the time of the War of Independence was to have a right wing nationalist government for all of Ireland. Realpolitik determined otherwise. As Alec suggested imperialism can take specific political forms.
Could a Malvinian who is loyal to the British crown consider themselves an anti-imperialist? I imagine they could for the same reasons that a Belfast loyalist could. Another way of approaching that is to ask are those Malvina islanders who opposed the 1982 British invasion able to claim that claim they are anti-imperialist as a result? I don't see how it would automatically follow. The politics of the time drove a reactionary right wing pro-imperialist government in Argentina responsible for thousands of murders, disappearances and torture to play the nationalist card to divert attention away from its unpopularity. In doint so they prompted another right wing maniac to attack. I wrote to the Republican News at the time from jail arguing the logic of Kissinger during the Iran-Iraq war - pity they both can't lose.
Nor can we claim that because they opposed the Brits invading and supported the Galtieri regime that they were pro-torture/crimes against humanity/disappearances etc.
The world is more complex to my mind than the black and white prism we often try to make sense of it through.
Anthony; when a fact is a fact it can't be challenged surely? Theories and opinions can but not facts. Questioning the factual basis of something of course should be encouraged but in ths case, the north is an age-old product of Britain's colonisation of the whole island.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it no longer needs territorial acquisition to advance its imperialist interests as FG... And the rest.. Are only too willing partners!
I believe globalisation and capitalism has changed relationships between countries and imperialism no longer conjures up images of invasion, slavery etc when we speak about it in the western world. (I'm not referring her to imperialism in the Middle East, Africa, South America etc) but no matter what the relationship is now between the 'mother country' and her victims, it is still imperialism.
I think an unintended outcome - or perhaps intended - of imperialism is normalisation. Creating an acceptance of the imperialist among natives, enhancing the feeling of being at one with them and therefore remove any rsk of rebellion. In that sense it has worked here.
I wouldn't mind reading that letter you wrote if you've still a copy? Perhaps as an article on TPQ?
Belfast Bookworm,
ReplyDeletewhen a fact is a fact it can't be challenged surely?
But facts rerely present themselves. They have to be searched for and established as fact. We believe that the five techniques of 1971 were torture and we present this as a fact. The European Court of Human Rights siad they were something bad but not quite torture.
Often what people tell you are facts are in fact their opinion of something being a fact.
but no matter what the relationship is now between the 'mother country' and her victims, it is still imperialism.
I view this as an opinion. It is too sweeping a generalisation for me to be able to offer it as something that is totally consistent with the specific facts of each particular relationship. The less we know about something the less able we are able to speak about it factually.
The letter was in 1982 and I wrote it as the block PRO of H6 if I remember rightly. It was winding Gerry Fitt up about something and the Malvinas came into for some reason.
Anthony; but the fact I'm referring to here is the fact that Ireland was colonised.
ReplyDeleteThere's no grey area here. It's an utter fact. If a loyalist then says; 'aye but its not really a colony now is it?' Because s/he 'feels' its not, doesnt change the fact that it is, only their feeling about it.
In this respect a loyalist, ie, someone who is loyal to Britain the coloniser in any shape or form, cannot therefore be anti imperialist against Britain!
Anthony; the fact I'm referring to here is that Ireland was colonised. That's not in dispute at all. It is fact.
ReplyDeleteBecause a loyalist 'feels' that the relationship is no longer one of imperialism does not change the fact that it was a colonised country and part of it still is.
Therefore, a loyalist who by definition is loyal to the crown/Britain or whatever, cannot be an anti imperialist. If they're a run of the mill prod they can, but not a loyalist. It simply does not make sense.
Belfast Bookworm,
ReplyDeleteor only your feeling that it is. I don't feel it is a colony today whatever it may have been in the past. I think the people of the North are as Irish as I am. Not that I have any great attachment to nationalism.
I don't think many nationalists feel it is a colony. Few people seem to use that type of language today. That doesn't make it any less oppressive. Even when Brian Feeney uses the term 'colonial secretary' I laugh because it is funny but I don't view it as meaning to characterise the relationshp as one of colonialism.
I generally try to avoid those situations where I claim to have the facts and that everybody else merely holds opinions. I never find things so clear cut. This is why I see religion as an opinion whereas the religious try to tell me it is a fact. Did you ever read Foucault on regimes of truth? I always found him helpful on these matters and in particular on how we have come to know what we claim to know. I don't think he invented the term 'dictatorship of facts' but his thinking would not be far removed from that concept.
BB,
ReplyDeleteI still think you are stating opinions and assigning fact to them. Because a fact took place in the past does not mean it continues to be a fact today. But it seems neither I or a million unionists will persuade you otherwise!
Anthony; it is a fact that Britain invaded Ireland is it not in the early 12th century?
ReplyDeleteIt s a fact that with this invasion began 800 or so years of English and British rule. If these are facts - and I really don't see how they can be 'only perceived' as so, then surely it is factual that Ireland was and is colonised.
Are you suggesting that these things - the invasion of Ireland - is not fact, that it could only be my feeling that it is?
Sure, language has changed and when many speak of colonisation today we refer to modern colonisation of middle eastern countries, Africa etc. but because our language has softened, the fact remains that Ireland was seized by Britain and part of the country is still in British hands.
It is still therefore a colony. And those who back and support the colonisers cannot claim to be anti imperialist.
Simple.
Anthony; here's an analogy;
ReplyDeleteIf SF claim they seek an end to British rule in Ireland and want the Brits out, but are administering British rule in a British micro government how can they then claim to be republican?
Anthony.
ReplyDeleteYou can be magical with words at the best of times, but I have to agree with BB on this one, If an event occurred and It was stated as FACT, then logic is it was a fact, no matter how many centuries ago the fact happened , it is still FACT to this very day, was it not a fact when Collins was rebuked for being late for the downing of the Union Jack and the raising of the Tricolour, he said, 7 minutes?, you kept us waiting 700 years?. that is still a fact to this day. In my opinion, once a fact has been proven, it remains a fact forever. would you not agree with that.?
Belfast Bookworm,
ReplyDeleteSomething to consider over breakfast perhaps?
'In this respect a loyalist, ie, someone who is loyal to Britain the coloniser in any shape or form, cannot therefore be anti imperialist against Britain!'
The United States is not party to the Kyoto Protocol. If we apply your logic to global warming, for instance, no American could claim to be an environmentalist.
BB,
ReplyDeleteIt seems neither of us can persuade each other. But that it the way of debate.
The analogy does not work for me. SF is hoist on its own petard and ultimately trapped by its own logic. It has accused others of not being republican for doing the very thing it is doing now. SF states very clearly that republicans cannot administer British rule. They still deny they are administering British rule. Francie Molloy was the only one I ever heard actually admitting it and he later retracted. I have a very firm opinion of that even if my opinion is contested. I don’t state that my opinion is a fact that cannot be disputed.
If a loyalist does not support imperialist aggression, opposes wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine etc but does not believe that Britain is in Ireland today because of imperialist purposes, but is there because a section of the Northern population wants it to be there, then that person can believe of himself that he is an anti-imperialist. Just as the person who supported the right of the Malvinas not to be invaded by the British but believed the Argentine military had a right to be there cannot reasonably be accused of being a supporter of the dirty war, the loyalist cannot be accused (in every circumstance) of being pro imperialist. It is determined by their attitude toward Britain’s relationship to Ireland. If a loyalist supported imperialist aggression - in the way SF supports the administration of British rule – then it would be very hard for them to make the case that they were anti-imperialist.
Then the problem becomes even more complex when we consider that people who profess to be anti-imperialist Marxists of the left, support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They don’t even define it as imperialist aggression. Then we have self-defined Marxists who supported the clerical fascists during the Danish anti-theocratic cartoons dispute. Are they not Marxists and merely fascists? I would find it very hard to make that argument even though I disagree with them.
And of course we had the republicans who colloborated with the Nazis during WW2. Would they have been in a good position to criticise those loyalists who fought the Nazis? I am sure you will find in loyalist culture a strain of though that will feel nationalist Ireland lacked anti-imperialist credentials because of the way it responded during WW2 when the world was faced with one of the most vicious imperialist onslaughts in history.
Itsjustmacker.
ReplyDeletebeing disagreed with is hardly a new phenomeon in my life! Nor is being wrong either. But on this one I am confortable with the perspective I subscribe to. Not that it is something I ever gave much thought to prior to this.
Totally outside the context of the current discussion can it be said that if an event occurred and It was stated as FACT, then logic is it was a fact, no matter how many centuries ago the fact happened, it is still FACT to this very day
Look at the 'fact' of the guilt of the Birmingham six. It was 'stated as fact', was accepted by many as fact, and was in fact overturned. Now we have a different fact. Most people now know that their 'guilt' was not a fact.
Take the ‘facts’ of religion – the infallible pope. A laughable notion but held by millions to be a fact.
On the question of facts - I happen to think it is a fact that Ireland was colonised. And in my view that will continue to remain a fact until such until such times as somebody comes up with the historical evidence to allow us to reconsider the factual basis of that claim.
I don't believe it is a fact to say that the North of Ireland today is a colony where a group of British foreigners are living as settlers for the colonial purpose of holding the territory for the metropolitan centre. That is an opinion and is seriously challenged by others who do not subscribe to it. Republicans who refer to them as misguided Irishmen can hardly juggle the two balls in the air - colons and Irish nationals. In my view they are Irish citizens who have dissented from the Irish nation state and have given their allegiance to another nation state. Which they feel they have a right to belong to. They have done this for a myriad of reasons which I think we often get back to front. They don’t sit in Ireland for the purpose of holding the territory for the British. They think they are holding the British on the territory when the British would just give it up out of self interest. This invites a range of discussion which we can’t go into here but merely raise some of the associated questions, such as: is the nation inviolable to dissent; whether people have the right to dissent only from some things not others; should people have a right to secede from a nation? If not, then is Pakistan not a nation nor Bangladesh for that reason? Should nationalism ultimately have a greater call on a persons’s loyalty than religion? I don’t think these questions can ever be addresses through our simple schemas which we use as short hand to make sense of what goes on around us.
The difference of opinion between myself and Bookworm is not about the past as I have offered no opinion on it, assuming it to be the fact that BB states it to be. It is about the present situation in which a loyalist might regard herself as an anti-imperialist. I believe they can and BB that they cannot.
Immanuel Wallerstein in his World Systems model has some interesting things to say on how a nation can move about levels in the world, progressing form periphery to semi periphery and even to core. The fact that a country was peripheral to the world economy in the past is not proof of its factual status today. The world is not a static place. It seems very ahistorical to think that it is. When I did history I tried to look for what was discontinuous as well as what was continuous.
Robert; if you'd read my earlier posts you will see that I clearly stated that someone born in England - an imperialist aggressor, does not necessarily have to be an imperialist themselves. This would apply to any American citizen who is an environmentalist. I have to say this was a stupid comparison you made.
ReplyDeleteMy points are clear; someone, ie the loyalists in this case, who supports British rule in Ireland can not be anti imperialist about Britain. They probably can about Palestine etc but not about Britain. They are part of that imperialism.
Anthony; your fact points (about the Birmingham 6) is not the same thing. The 'facts' of this case were not facts at all and were later overturned. The fact that Ireland was invaded will not and cannot be overturned because it happened. All the evidence is there. How else did they come to be here?
The Birmingham 6 case wasn't fact because the men accused didn't do what they were accused of. 'Facts' were made up and presented as factual at the time.
BB,
ReplyDeleteThe Birmingham 6 case wasn't fact because the men accused didn't do what they were accused of. 'Facts' were made up and presented as factual at the time.
As is often the case with what is stated as fact. What people often present as fact is not fact but opinion, often enforced as fact in a 'regime of truth' where what passes for truth has no basis in fact.
My approach is to see most things as opinions, some of which are more easily to substantiate than others. I don't relativise opinions so that all are of the same merit. I merely accept that people often have a different view of what I consider facts and have a right to hold that opinion.
Anthony; 'As is often the case with what is stated as fact. What people often present as fact is not fact but opinion, often enforced as fact in a 'regime of truth' where what passes for truth has no basis in fact. '
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
Ill not regurgitate any of my points again though. We will have to agree to differ on this one.
I was hoping a unionist or loyalist would step in and offer some insight or contribution to the discussion.
They must know I'm right! ;)
BB,
ReplyDeleteok. Hope you are enjoying your Mother's Day.
Belfast Bookworm,
ReplyDelete'This would apply to any American citizen who is an environmentalist. I have to say this was a stupid comparison you made.'
Precisely!
Robert;
ReplyDelete'Precisely!'
Your contribution here has been very valuable, really helped shed a light on the matter and no doubt enlgihtened other posters, as it has done me, to other perspectives.
Belfast Bookworm,
ReplyDelete'Your contribution here has been very valuable, really helped shed a light on the matter and no doubt enlightened other posters, as it has done me, to other perspectives.'
It is questionable what contribution could be made to this debate by myself or anyone else that would be beneficial to you. Anthony has clearly turned you inside out on this. It has been such a one sided affair that shedding any further light on the matter would only succeed in illuminating further a theoretical adherent that finds herself on the wrong side of the twentieth century. It would, of course, also increase your anger.
Those intent on sloganising to the extent that they are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion are rarely, I find, up for other perspectives, they merely want to reiterate. I think you have displayed that type of impervious nature here. You may find humility a much better option.
Robert,
ReplyDeleteI didn't see it in terms of anybody turning anybody else inside out. I think it is the type of discussion that republicans need to have.
Yes Robert. What could you possibly say for yourself that Anthony didn't say for you?
ReplyDeleteThank you though for your impervious complement. I do try.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete'I didn't see it in terms of anybody turning anybody else inside out.'
I never detect that as your intent in addressing anyone but where a gladiatorial stance is adopted it has that affect.
Belfast Bookworm,
ReplyDelete'How like a moth the simple maid still plays about the flame'
'What could you possibly say for yourself that Anthony didn't say for you?'
I doubt know if ventriloquism is a function that Anthony performs here? Gottle O Gear. Much like your views on imperialism it is very much an opinion rather than a fact.
Robert,
ReplyDeleteI thought Belfast Bookworm made a good contribution to the exchange. I hadn't much thought about the matter in this context until she raised the question. I think there is a lot of space opening up for republicans to reevaluate their perspective on unionism and loyalism. It is something myself and Mickey McMullan had been writing about from the prison in 1986. He was more attuned to the autonomy of unionism than I was then.
Political analysis has to be like medicine: revised, reworked and reapplied until it produces the best result. Old remedies that don't change over time lack the strength to deal with the issues they seek to combat.
But ultimately Belfast Bookworm has raised matters that have to be addressed in a manner that corresponds with the position loyalists actually take as distinct from the theoretical possibilities I have sought to outline.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete'I hadn't much thought about the matter in this context until she raised the question.'
Bantering aside, I thought she raised a pertinent point on what is an insurmountable contradiction for her about a matter that did not readily stand out from the piece.I did enjoy the exchange.
'Political analysis has to be like medicine: revised, reworked and reapplied until it produces the best result. Old remedies that don't change over time lack the strength to deal with the issues they seek to combat.'
This for me was highlighted in the debate. I think there is something to be said of Schumpeterian economics that can also be applied to political analysis in general - innovate or go bust.