Martin Mc Guinness Passes Away at 66

[haranguerer]

What the reaction to his death shows is that unionists haven't changed much at all, still refusing to accept the role they and the British state played in the collapse of their little sectarian statelet - it was just all the nationalists causing trouble.

I've heard some talk about the rewriting of history, and I suspect thats why Arlene and her ilk make such a fuss about doing anything that could be interpreted as reaching out, its a correcting of history, not a rewriting.

[seafoid]

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/no-paramilitary-trappings-at-mcguinness-funeral-1-7879517

[vallankumous]

What the reaction to his death shows is that unionists haven't changed much at all, still refusing to accept the role they and the British state played in the collapse of their little sectarian statelet - it was just all the nationalists causing trouble.

I've heard some talk about the rewriting of history, and I suspect thats why Arlene and her ilk make such a fuss about doing anything that could be interpreted as reaching out, its a correcting of history, not a rewriting.

I find it very difficult to find a link between the language used by Unionist leaders and my Unionist friends. I think Unionist leadership is slightly behind the curve on much of this.
In contrast I think when Paisley died the Nationalist and Republican leadership acted in a way that was a reflection of the larger community they represent.

[Rossfan]

Unionist "leaders" always seem to start from the standpoint of what the most backward extremist thinks.
Like Arlene's prevarication over going to Martin's funeral.
She should of course have said "I'm going because it is the right, proper and decent thing to do"
She took one step forward in her Assembly speech yesterday.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

I see Arlene is undecided whether or not she's attending the funeral...

It's maybe not that surprising. There might be some political theatre by the boys in front of the coffin.
Maybe the DUP heads will go to the removal or find some other way out.

Any political/military theatre would be wrong but I don't think it will happen.

It would be appalling indictment on Foster if she cannot bring herself to attend her working colleague's funeral.  Using a fear of what others will do it is an excuse.  She might find Martin's actions over his life distasteful or wrong (lots of discussion here) but she has a duty as outgoing First Minister to represent the people whom Martin represented. 

It's like the famous soccer matches in France.  She is entitled to be an OWC supporter and have no private interest in the Republic but as First Minister she has a job to represent all of Northern Ireland.  Going to the match would have been a small thing but would reflect that.

Since devolution, that penny only seemed to have dropped for Paisley.  To me it's a failure of Unionist Leadership.  Martin at least tried to reach out (whether it was accepted/believed is another question) to all his constituents.

For a lot of people it would be just one more blot on the copy book of Foster if she doesn't go.  Also I hope that Sinn Féin leadership reflect on what Martin McGuinness brought in terms of leadership and in coming weeks, follow his example.

Ar dheis dé go raibh a anam.

/Jim.

She is quite small minded.

If she wants to be a leader she need to put her personal small-mindedness aside in the context of being DUP Leader and First Minister.  She has not demonstrated the ability to do that.

Today the supposedly de facto Leader of Northern Ireland and unionism should go and respect her colleague and nationalist leader and not get side-tracked on issues of "trappings". 

She says she wants to go so time to tell her party that she is taking a lead and going.  In her own tribal context that maybe a risk (because even a tricolour will be call a "trapping" by some in her community) but leaders take risks: Like McGuinness often did.

/Jim.

[screenexile]

She's going . . .

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/arlene-foster-to-attend-martin-mcguinness-funeral-mass-in-derry-35557125.html

[OakleafCounty]

I understand what drive men of the 60's and 70's to join the IRA but I can't countenance some of their actions once they had joined it. Had they stuck to strictly military or strategic targets most of that would have been defensible but most of the time innocents were targeted. What did the deaths of Nicholas Knatchbull or Paul Maxwell have to do with republicanism or Irish independence? Posters regularly round on Fearon when he defends how the church abused and caused the deaths of hundreds of children but yet can find room to defend the IRA who were complicit in the deaths of many innocent women and children. Many here have recounted stories about the troubles but no amount of harassment at UDR checkpoints or guns being waved in your face is worth the lives of innocent children.

Leaving that aside, I had great time for Martin McGuinness. Too much has been made of his chuckle brother routine with Paisley and using Paisley as a counter-point. His nearest equivalent would have been David Ervine who was also also a paramilitary turned politician and also a man whom held my respect. To their credit both seen the futility of the bloodshed and had a humility in the post-troubles years that to me dictated a sense of remorse for the years of slaughter. That humility I find lacking in Adams, Robinson, Foster and to a certain extent Paisley who all appear/appeared to think that the peace process was their accomplishment as opposed to how they should feel; that the troubles was their fault.

Sadly the highlighted part is not the case.
There were many bad decisions and bad actions. Running the risk of being seen as heartless I do want to add some context.

The IRA were hailed as a major organised and guerrilla army. In reality they were not. This was a tag given to them to justify failed British policy and British Army actions.
Many actions carried out by the IRA were done by young men and women who were terrified, unskilled, angry and revengeful. A potent mix for disaster.
Your comment above is sweeping. I can't fathom that anyone ever thought they were going to kill children. Especially an 18 year old and a 19 year old who  tried to take a bomb to a Courthouse in a town they didn't know through a landscape peppered with military security and intelligence.

While you isolate child victims you omit so much else of the context. Regardless if you agree or not history tells us you are wrong. Harassment at check points, in prisons, at protests, in you home, at your place of work (not to mention murder) is cause for for violent reaction. Loyalists were also subject to this and their violent actions in return to IRA actions was also understandable in the real lives of those young people.

It's documented that Martin McGuinness was the top IRA man in Derry at 22 years old.

One aspect of the adoption of violence is that it is hard to turn it off
Another aspect is that it elevates sociopaths to positions they do not have in civilian life.

NI has always been dysfunctional. It would have been much better to restructure things in the 60s but the Unionists didn't want to.
Maybe the violence was inevitable. It wasn't sustainable. And there was an awful lot of cruelty on both sides.

I wrote a dissertation on the gerrymandering of post-war public housing in rural areas and in my research I realised that change was on the way at the start of the troubles but it was far too late and slow to stop what was already set in motion. ie. the Housing Executive was in place by 1972. However, I think that if the Civil Rights movement had started 10 years earlier then the troubles would also have started 10 years earlier. It was always inevitable that violence would follow the Civil Rights movement when change didn't happen fast enough.

Although violence was inevitable I think it's been proven that it was never really necessary.

[JohnDenver]

Although violence was inevitable I think it's been proven that it was never really necessary.

One thing for certain, it can never be proven one way or another - I'm sure there are plenty of arguments to support it's necessity and effectiveness in bringing us to the current climate.

[haranguerer]

Although violence was inevitable I think it's been proven that it was never really necessary.

Necessary for what?

And violence by whom?

[haranguerer]

What the reaction to his death shows is that unionists haven't changed much at all, still refusing to accept the role they and the British state played in the collapse of their little sectarian statelet - it was just all the nationalists causing trouble.

I've heard some talk about the rewriting of history, and I suspect thats why Arlene and her ilk make such a fuss about doing anything that could be interpreted as reaching out, its a correcting of history, not a rewriting.

I find it very difficult to find a link between the language used by Unionist leaders and my Unionist friends. I think Unionist leadership is slightly behind the curve on much of this.
In contrast I think when Paisley died the Nationalist and Republican leadership acted in a way that was a reflection of the larger community they represent.

Your unionist friends probably speak very differently regarding it to you that they do to each other. I know my unionist friends do anyway.

Amongst moderate unionism, the narrative is that 'hes changed' and deserves credit for that. But I resent that narrative as much as the one that hes evil.  It suggests that he started the fight, which wasn't good, but in fairness to him saw the error of his ways and brought it to a close, which dismisses everything he stood for, and everything that occurred during the troubles. The fact is, unionists have to recognise our narrative on an equal footing to their own and they refuse, or are unable, to do so. 

[OakleafCounty]

Although violence was inevitable I think it's been proven that it was never really necessary.

Necessary for what?

And violence by whom?

It wasn't necessary in achieving equality for Catholics and I don't think it was effective in protecting communities either on both sides and didn't stop innocent civilians getting killed in crossfire. It just turned into tit for tat killings some of which were extremely sinister. Obviously it didn't achieve a United Ireland either.

It was good for keeping drugs off the streets and policing very deprived communities but that's about it for me.

[Syferus]

That article from Jude Collins hits the nail on the head. In particular the fact that Trimble and Robinson had to wait until he was dead before they could utter a positive sentiment about the man.
            In a way it sort of sums up the entire Unionist mindset of not an inch and lie down croppie. During the peace process Martin genuinely tried to reach out to the other side of the community. He tried to put himself in their shoes took risks and pushed the boundaries of his own Republicanism in order to show good faith and keep the peace.
            Look at what happened to any Unionist leader who ' did a Lundy ' . Trimble got the boot for the timmerity of attempting to power share. Eventually Paisley got the same treatment for daring to have a friendly relationship with Martin. And last but not least magic Mike got the boot for merely saying he would give his second preference to a party from the other side of the house.
             The very fact that our previous first minister has yet to ' decide if ' she would attend the funeral of her deputy first minister is all part of the same aul backward looking mindset.          Not that i would highly rate his intellect but sadly i'd say Jamie ' flegger' Bryson's views on Nationalism would broadly be in line with the majority of Loyalists and Unionism when he said that ' Sinn Fein are great at trying to reach out to Unionists but they dont really mean it as secretly they still want a United Ireland and that these acts of friendship were just another strategy'. Sadly with a few notable exceptions that is the Unionist mentality. They see it as a sign of weakness, when in fact reaching out to a future Nationalist majority is exactly what they should do. But alas they can't see the elephant in the room.

The buck plannng to blow unionists up a few years earlier would hardly find many friends in the unionist camp no matter how much he tried to reach out. It's not him that should have been in a position of power to begin with in the nationalist movement.

I think you've manage to miss the entire point of Jude's blog and my post.
     Anyway Who was the buck or buckos that planted the first bombs of the ' troubles ' ? 
   

Does it matter who planted the first ones? It's not the moderate unionists that he was trying to court either way. McGuiness heading up a peace process was like Timothy McVey leading an IED safety committee.

What's fûcked the north now was the hardline parties on both sides seizing power in the toxic environment that exsisted in the Troubles.

[Man Marker]

Although violence was inevitable I think it's been proven that it was never really necessary.

Necessary for what?

And violence by whom?

It wasn't necessary in achieving equality for Catholics and I don't think it was effective in protecting communities either on both sides and didn't stop innocent civilians getting killed in crossfire. It just turned into tit for tat killings some of which were extremely sinister. Obviously it didn't achieve a United Ireland either.

It was good for keeping drugs off the streets and policing very deprived communities but that's about it for me.

so you believe that Unionists would have started to share power with their catholic neighbours out of good will. lol

Well my view is that the British were brought to the peace table as a result of the war and particularly the attacks that were being specifically targeted in England, which were becoming more regular towards the latter end of the troubles.

[leenie]

Martin McGuinness,' funeral will be aired on rte news now from 2pm

[OakleafCounty]

Although violence was inevitable I think it's been proven that it was never really necessary.

Necessary for what?

And violence by whom?

It wasn't necessary in achieving equality for Catholics and I don't think it was effective in protecting communities either on both sides and didn't stop innocent civilians getting killed in crossfire. It just turned into tit for tat killings some of which were extremely sinister. Obviously it didn't achieve a United Ireland either.

It was good for keeping drugs off the streets and policing very deprived communities but that's about it for me.

so you believe that Unionists would have started to share power with their catholic neighbours out of good will. lol

Well my view is that the British were brought to the peace table as a result of the war and particularly the attacks that were being specifically targeted in England, which were becoming more regular towards the latter end of the troubles.

Power sharing didn't come until armed struggle ended. 30 years after it started! None of us can be 100% certain but I think it would have taken less than 30 years without violence.

Equality in terms of housing and jobs (public sector at least) came in the first half of the conflict but by then it was too late. And that equality was thanks in a large part to the first generation of educated Catholics and not the ra.