Bobby Sands Movie

[full back]

SammyG may be wrong in his allegation about Sands' role in the IRA.  In particular being OC in the Maze would not be a reflection of his role on the outside.  This fact is refered to in Ed Moloney's & Peter Taylor's works on the area.   It is also refered to in Sean Callaghan's autobiography (for what that's worth!) and I think in one of Adam's books.  An OC was appointed in prisons and all were under his command regardless of their external rank.   That is a fact, in as much as you can know facts about secret armies.

I couldn't be arsed reading the whole 6 pages of this thread but I'm going to hazard a guess as to what the argument is about: Sands, sectarian or not.

To his defenders here:
a) He was a member of an organisation that carried out many, many sectarian acts.  You can argue till the cows come home but there are too many incidents of targetting civilians and attacks of a sectarian nature to argue otherwise.  I know supporters will trot out that their aims weren't and the closet supporters will state that their methods wrong but aims honourable.  At the end of the day you have got to accept that unionists like SammyG saw these activities as sectarian and an attack on their community.  He has got good reason, get over it.

2) The attacks on the Balmorrall furniture store had a sectarian edge to them and saw people killed (although not the particular instance Sands was arrested).  My local Sinn Féin councillor told me that these were attacks on economic targets they were not sectarian, but that they had to hit Protestant targets so as not to alienate their support base.  Fair enough but that is admitting the business targetted were protestant so in effect these were sectarian attacks.

So regardless of your own views, you should be able to see the validity of SammyG's views.  State your objections but don't vilify the guy for holding what are reasonable views.

To SammyG,

Republican supporters do not see the IRA campaign as sectarian, the fire-bombing of economics targets as sectarian and hence Bobby Sands was not sectarian.   Therefore the only issue here is his death for the 5 demands and so he must be a hero and man of principle. 

So not matter how you argue about his position in the IRA it won't change these people's view of Bobby Sands.

/Jim.

A logical well thought out response
Looking at both sides of the debate
Not shouting down the other side & bringing stupid petty 'facts' into the debate

Sorry Jim, but you are out of place on this board

[Donagh]

Jim, Sammy has said Sands was the Belfast OC (which is wrong by the way) and as such was responsible of the list IRA actions on a previous page. The facts are that Sands was a very minor player at that time and indeed many people who were in Long Kesh with him said he was very vocally opposed to the leadership on the outside which was carrying out retaliatory (sectarian) attacks during the ceasefire.

By implication you have said it's reasonable to argue that Sands was sectarian because he was a member of that movement, even though he was opposed to sectarian attacks. So how far do you take this? i.e.were all republicans sectarian if they sympathized with the movement even if they opposed sectarian attacks? Were all unionists sectarian because they were members of, supported, or sympathized with the 'security forces' that probably carried out many more sectarian attacks than the IRA? Are the Irish people as a 'sectarian' because the government allows the yanks to route their military through Shannon on the way to Iraq?

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Donagh,

I would think that it is reasonable to argue that any active member of the IRA could be sectarian.  I would say that for every n'th degree you take it away: supporting, sympathising the argument waters down.

In the case of Sands I would say the nature of the Balmorrall attacks are a big black mark.  Economic targets is too shaky an argument for me. 

I would also question your assertion about Sands being vocal against attacks on the outside.  In the excerpts of comms you posted here previously there was a comm about how he read the newspaper about an operation and it lightened his heart to know that people were continuing the fight.  I don't know what the operation was or how sectarian it was.  Was he selective in what he was opposed to?

As for unionists, I think large swathes of unionists are at best naieve, possible ignorant of or at worst sectarian when it comes to the security forces, in particular the UDR.

/Jim.

[Donagh]

Donagh,

I would think that it is reasonable to argue that any active member of the IRA could be sectarian.  I would say that for every n'th degree you take it away: supporting, sympathising the argument waters down.

In the case of Sands I would say the nature of the Balmorrall attacks are a big black mark.  Economic targets is too shaky an argument for me. 

I would also question your assertion about Sands being vocal against attacks on the outside.  In the excerpts of comms you posted here previously there was a comm about how he read the newspaper about an operation and it lightened his heart to know that people were continuing the fight.  I don't know what the operation was or how sectarian it was.  Was he selective in what he was opposed to?

As for unionists, I think large swathes of unionists are at best naieve, possible ignorant of or at worst sectarian when it comes to the security forces, in particular the UDR.

/Jim.

Jim, you certainly could argue that any active IRA member could be sectarian just as you could argue that anyone has the potential to be sectarian. With an understanding of where Sands and the new leadership of the IRA post-'76 were coming from, it's a lot easier to argue that they were anti-sectarianism.

I think this is probably what you are missing from your analysis i.e. that the IRA 1971-1976 and the IRA post 1976 were two very different organisations. The pre '76 organisation was pretty much taken over and politicised by the young men that educated themselves in the Cages. Youths who had probably joined up in a gut reaction to the violence on the streets or been interned began to realise allowing themselves to get caught up an internecine sectarian conflict was was futile. Below is a few extracts from Chapter 8 of the O'Hearn book which describes the thinking of those that began to dominate the movement post '76.

---------------
---------------

Bobby and the others developed from a near-childish understanding of politics to a relatively mature political analysis. They were under the guidance of the new leadership but they achieved the transition by learning from each other. Learning came through participation and debate, not through lecturing and the handing out of "truth" by a "teacher" of superior intellect. Possibly they read Frieire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which was published in Britan in 1972. More likely, they were discovering a wheel that has been discovered in similar ways in many revolutionary situations, all with their own local characteristics. Either way, the young prisoners were awakening their own consciousness and talking about how they would change the organisation of their life in their communities once they got out of prison.
The fundamental political lessons they explored were rooted in five basic principles, which Adams called "the five isms": Nationalism, Socialism, secularism, anti-sectarianism and internationalism. ... Against the public image of the IRA as a "green Catholic army", he talked about secularism and anti-sectarianism. ... that the differences between orange and green, Protestant and Catholic, had always been carefully fostered by Britain. He cited intelligence that purportedly showed that the British and police were behind many Loyalist attacks on Catholics and that they had armed the Loyalists who carried them out. The men began to question the IRA's involvement in reprisal attacks against Loyalists. It was up to them to turn this around. Republicanism can only be as anti-sectarian as its volunteers.

The enemy, they decided was not defined by religion but by politics. Adams summarised what they were saying in their discussions:

"They must be enemies because they are anti-People and pro-Profit, not because they go to a different church or no church at all, not because they have better ghettoes or none at all. They cannot be enemies because someone else has defined them as the enemy for us. If we look hard enough we will find the real enemy in behind there somewhere. In behind making profits out of old score."

Defining the enemy in this way, rather than by religion and "warring tribes" as the press and government consistently did, was highly appealing to Bobby. It was just what he was waiting to hear: an analysis that merged his international anti-imperialist struggle with a practical analysis of their own struggle against British imperialism. The IRA should fight the British because it is anti-sectarian and Socialist, because the British were "armed mercenaries" and, therefore, "we must be armed revolutionaries".  ... Nobody bluntly stated that the current IRA leadership was wrong but the discussions raised questions that encouraged the men to work out alternative explanations of British behaviour from what their leaders were telling them.   

...

the article hit the press with a strong indictment of sectarianism, at a time when the IRA was in the middle of a sectarian war with the Loyalist paramilitaries. The article appeared a mere three days after a young IRA volunteer named Brendan McFarlane drove a bomb ... which killed three men and two women, all Protestants.

"Taigs and orangies, Prods and micks. But it all goes deeper than name-calling, as you know better than I do, and only the British reap the benefits. "Let you and him fight", sez one Sassenach. "While you are at it I'll be left alone to impose solutions, to build new profits on the backs of old scores. Let you and him fight and me and the privileged few will see things through."

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Donagh,

I am not at all confused about the IRA of any period.  Whether or not the IRA and it's members said it or meant it many, many of their attacks were at least open to the accusation of being motivated by sectarian reasons.

In the context of Sands can you not agree that the Balmorral furniture attacks could be painted as sectarian and that this was as likely a reason as it being an "economic" target?

What about the biggy: Enniskillen???  Do you want to seriously dismiss people who saw this as attacking protestants rather than military targets?

The Balcombe Street gang:  London's West End and it's restaurants, military targets.

I'm not asking you to share SammyG's views or anyone else but at least recognise where they are coming from.

/Jim.

[Donagh]

Jim I recognize some of the IRAs actions may leave them open to accusations of sectarianism, I have never denied that. I'm sure some of their actions leave them open to accusations of Marxism or anti-Catholicism. What I am saying is that the vast majority of their members were not motivated by sectarianism and it is unfair to label Sands as sectarian when the evidence points to the opposite.

The IRA was a huge organization backed up by support groups, a very large section of the community and other sympathizers. I know there is a case for claiming collective responsibility, but in such a secretive organization where many units through necessity had to act autonomously it can is unfair to label all members, supporters and sympathizers because of the actions of a few. 

BTW, my input on this thread was to refute Sammy's insistence that Sands was Belfast OC in the 70's.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Jim I recognize some of the IRAs actions may leave them open to accusations of sectarianism, I have never denied that. I'm sure some of their actions leave them open to accusations of Marxism or anti-Catholicism. What I am saying is that the vast majority of their members were not motivated by sectarianism and it is unfair to label Sands as sectarian when the evidence points to the opposite.

The IRA was a huge organization backed up by support groups, a very large section of the community and other sympathizers. I know there is a case for claiming collective responsibility, but in such a secretive organization where many units through necessity had to act autonomously it can is unfair to label all members, supporters and sympathizers because of the actions of a few. 

BTW, my input on this thread was to refute Sammy's insistence that Sands was Belfast OC in the 70's.

Donagh,

I concur with assertion about Sands not being an OC or anywhere near it.  Nothing I have read of the time would point to that.

As for evidence of Sands sectarianism, I still think his invovlement in Balmoral Furniture store is enough of grounds to warrant the accusation. 

/Jim.

[MW]

As far as I've known Sands was leader of the IRA in Twinbrook when he was arrested for the final time. Indeed, Donagh has previously posted a 'tribute' to Sands which referred to this.

[MW]

The facts are that Sands was a very minor player at that time and indeed many people who were in Long Kesh with him said he was very vocally opposed to the leadership on the outside which was carrying out retaliatory (sectarian) attacks during the ceasefire.

Did he oppose the leadership within the Maze, i.e. Brendan 'Bik' McFarlane of Bayardo Bar massacre 'fame'?

[SammyG]

Jim, Sammy has said Sands was the Belfast OC (which is wrong by the way) and as such was responsible of the list IRA actions on a previous page. The facts are that Sands was a very minor player at that time and indeed many people who were in Long Kesh with him said he was very vocally opposed to the leadership on the outside which was carrying out retaliatory (sectarian) attacks during the ceasefire.

Donagh

As per my previous couple of posts. I have only listed actions carried out by Sands unit of the Provos, in West Belfast as you'd accepted that he was involved in these. If I listed all the actions that he is 'alledgedly' responsible for it would take a fortnight and use up enough bandwidth to run a small town.

By implication you have said it's reasonable to argue that Sands was sectarian because he was a member of that movement, even though he was opposed to sectarian attacks. So how far do you take this? i.e.were all republicans sectarian if they sympathized with the movement even if they opposed sectarian attacks? Were all unionists sectarian because they were members of, supported, or sympathized with the 'security forces' that probably carried out many more sectarian attacks than the IRA? Are the Irish people as a 'sectarian' because the government allows the yanks to route their military through Shannon on the way to Iraq?

It is possible to infer that Sands was sectarian because he was a leading member of a gang of sectarian murderers. Obviously there is a tiny possibility that he was able to pick and choose his 'operations' and he only ever engaged in face to face action with the evil Brit invaders, but it would be stretching credibility a bit, especially when you look at his actions regarding that great hero Bik Macfarlane.

[Fíor Gael]

It'll be interesting to see the movie and the way they protray Sands and his comrades, even more interesting will be the various inerpretations of different people about the movie.
Regardless of your political view point it has to be accepted that Bobby Sands was a courageous, selfless, inspiring figure who along with his 9 comrades died for a cause they believed in.

'They have nothing in all their emperial arsenal that can break the spirit of any Irish man who does not want to be broken'

[SammyG]

It'll be interesting to see the movie and the way they protray Sands and his comrades, even more interesting will be the various inerpretations of different people about the movie.

As Donagh said (and it's not often I agree with Donagh), the movie looks like being some sort of arthouse shite rather than any attempt to look at the issues.

Regardless of your political view point it has to be accepted that Bobby Sands was a courageous, selfless, inspiring figure who along with his 9 comrades died for a cause they believed in.

Sorry but that is absolute twaddle, why does somebody killing himself mean that he was 'courageous, selfless and inspiring', especially given his previous history? I would have thought any normal person would see him as the exact opposite.

[Donagh]

Sammy, you listed actions carried out by the West Belfast IRA, when Sands was based in Twinbrook only. A unit which as I said had little weaponry or experience and confined to robbing debt collectors and cars.

[SammyG]

Sammy, you listed actions carried out by the West Belfast IRA, when Sands was based in Twinbrook only. A unit which as I said had little weaponry or experience and confined to robbing debt collectors and cars.

Aye he was actually a boy scout and spent his time helping oul dolls across the road with their messages. 

[magickingdom]

Sorry but that is absolute twaddle, why does somebody killing himself mean that he was 'courageous, selfless and inspiring', especially given his previous history? I would have thought any normal person would see him as the exact opposite.

sammy, are you that fckin blind that you cant even admit that he was courageous? whatever about anything else. if a loyalist starved himself to death i wouldnt miss him but at least id admit he was courageous...