IRA "fired first" in 1987 attack in Loughgall

[Myles Na G.]

We've veered quite far from the original focus of this thread.  Still, picking up the themes of crassness and ignorance relating to the Civil Rights movement as well as its sidekick "bullsh1t", I would laugh at EG's Pollyanna portrayal of the situation in the late 60s if it weren't so inaccurate and symptomatic of a growing historical revisionism that seeks to present unionism as a benign entity, waylaid by a handful of extremists on both sides.  That was simply not the case.

By the late 60s, republicanism was more aspirational than actual, and becoming increasingly irrelevant as it was reduced to a very small, virtually weaponless, and aging group, largely reduced to distributing copies of the Republican News, handing out Easter lilies and singing Wolfe Tone songs.  Its political representatives, the Nationalist Party, were impotent and disengaged, their sole legislative coup a single piece of legislation relating to birds!

And along came the Civil Rights movement, drawing heavily on the American model as well as Gandhi's efforts.  And in the face of reason and righteousness, how did the unionist establishment react—that's right, beat the crap out of them.  There was no tugging by extremists from both sides.  The only extremist was the entire unionist monolith that had kept Nationalists under thumb, supported enthusiastically by its ultra-extremist mob incited by the likes of Paisley to believe that poor but Protestant, they were of superior stock than those shiftless Fenians.  Some fair-minded Protestants did find their way into NICRA, but the vast majority were aligned to that catchphrase of compromise—No Surrender.

So let's not perpetuate the lie that if it weren't for those darn Loyalist and Republican extremists, unionism would have done the right thing.  It wouldn't have and didn't.  Brian Faulkner as the epitome of reason!  Are you serious?

You include in your scroll of the CAIN chronology the Armagh civil rights march, which typifies the state of affairs at the time.  What happened that day (and by the way I lived in Armagh then)?  A peaceful Civil Rights march was stopped in Thomas Street, faced down by a throng of blackthorn-wielding Loyalists at the corner of Scotch Street.  And what did the RUC do? Did they arrest the mob that was threatening the peace?  Hell no!  Why would they arrest their own?  They were one and the same.  I can hear you scoff, but they arrested Paisley and Bunting later, but one of the indelible memories of my life at that time was being in Marco's café in Thomas Street watching a gang of police and Tartans chasing after a gang of Taigs.  Impartiality my arse.  And don't forget Burntollet, where police in and out of uniform either did nothing to prevent the ambush or, worse yet, participated in the attack.
Given the feet-dragging intransigence of the Stormont regime coupled with the make-up of the police force, it should be of little surprise that the Nationalist community turned to the only group it could to seek protection—the Provos—a group formed in the aftermath of Bombay Street etc. etc.  There was no Republican extremist group until unionists gave birth to it by their violent acts of commission or their egregious acts of omission.

So, please do not twist the facts of history to make your fellow unionists feel good about themselves by writing:  "Had these two extremes not been allowed to prevail, I have no doubt that NI might well have emulated eg of the success of the Black Civil Rights movement"   

There were not two extremes until unionists caused the second to come into being, and then when the army arrived and it was used exclusively against the Nationalist population, unionists gave the Provos their ultimate raison-d'etre.
But back to Loughgall.  This is where EG typically cries, I vehemently oppose murder and execution, but I feel no remorse that it happened.

The Black Civil Rights people in the States got exactly the same treatment as the CRA did here. They were beaten off the streets, arrested, murdered in some cases. It was at this point that Martin Luther King founded the Black Freedom Army and proceeded to wage a 25 year campaign of armed struggle that saw thousands of innocent civilians killed or maimed...Sorry, that last bit's not right.

[MW]

ahhhh the discredited cain report again....


I have to try and recall where it was that disputed the 'findings' (notice I didnt write 'facts' ) on this flawed set of details. I am pretty sure someone posted it on this board a couple of years ago. *

* if I could be arsed.



I take it that we can safely say that the 'fact'/'finding' that the IRA fired first in loughgall is a load of 'cain' (ie rubbish) also?

There is no "CAIN report", and there are no "findings". It's an academic database which contains a chronology of the Troubles, among many other things.

Still I'm sure the intellectual might of lynchbhoy will be able to come up with some actual counter-points...

[Maguire01]

Great post oraisteach, we are seeing more and more of this waffle revisionism. Anyone who thinks the unionist state had any interest in being fair and reasonable to the "enemy within" is away with the fairies.

I'm sure plenty of US states had very little interest in being fair and reasonable to their black population either.

[Oraisteach]

Myles, you misunderstand the intent of my post.  I was not justifying the actions of the IRA nor endorsing their campaign, merely explaining how they came to be and correcting misinterpretations of the unionist mindset.

Still, the 1960s is the US was a powder keg that could easily have erupted into its own wholescale civil strife.  Don't forget the Watts riots in LA, the Detroit riots, the Hough riots in Cleveland as well as the emergence of groups such as the Black Panthers that saw violence as a more suitable way to redress social injustice. 

Shoot, all they would have needed would have been gangs of whites burning blacks out of their homes, the police and National Guard doing squat, and the introduction of internment without trial, and Bob's your uncle.

[trileacman]

We've veered quite far from the original focus of this thread.  Still, picking up the themes of crassness and ignorance relating to the Civil Rights movement as well as its sidekick "bullsh1t", I would laugh at EG's Pollyanna portrayal of the situation in the late 60s if it weren't so inaccurate and symptomatic of a growing historical revisionism that seeks to present unionism as a benign entity, waylaid by a handful of extremists on both sides.  That was simply not the case.

By the late 60s, republicanism was more aspirational than actual, and becoming increasingly irrelevant as it was reduced to a very small, virtually weaponless, and aging group, largely reduced to distributing copies of the Republican News, handing out Easter lilies and singing Wolfe Tone songs.  Its political representatives, the Nationalist Party, were impotent and disengaged, their sole legislative coup a single piece of legislation relating to birds!

And along came the Civil Rights movement, drawing heavily on the American model as well as Gandhi's efforts.  And in the face of reason and righteousness, how did the unionist establishment react—that's right, beat the crap out of them.  There was no tugging by extremists from both sides.  The only extremist was the entire unionist monolith that had kept Nationalists under thumb, supported enthusiastically by its ultra-extremist mob incited by the likes of Paisley to believe that poor but Protestant, they were of superior stock than those shiftless Fenians.  Some fair-minded Protestants did find their way into NICRA, but the vast majority were aligned to that catchphrase of compromise—No Surrender.

So let's not perpetuate the lie that if it weren't for those darn Loyalist and Republican extremists, unionism would have done the right thing.  It wouldn't have and didn't.  Brian Faulkner as the epitome of reason!  Are you serious?

You include in your scroll of the CAIN chronology the Armagh civil rights march, which typifies the state of affairs at the time.  What happened that day (and by the way I lived in Armagh then)?  A peaceful Civil Rights march was stopped in Thomas Street, faced down by a throng of blackthorn-wielding Loyalists at the corner of Scotch Street.  And what did the RUC do? Did they arrest the mob that was threatening the peace?  Hell no!  Why would they arrest their own?  They were one and the same.  I can hear you scoff, but they arrested Paisley and Bunting later, but one of the indelible memories of my life at that time was being in Marco's café in Thomas Street watching a gang of police and Tartans chasing after a gang of Taigs.  Impartiality my arse.  And don't forget Burntollet, where police in and out of uniform either did nothing to prevent the ambush or, worse yet, participated in the attack.
Given the feet-dragging intransigence of the Stormont regime coupled with the make-up of the police force, it should be of little surprise that the Nationalist community turned to the only group it could to seek protection—the Provos—a group formed in the aftermath of Bombay Street etc. etc.  There was no Republican extremist group until unionists gave birth to it by their violent acts of commission or their egregious acts of omission.

So, please do not twist the facts of history to make your fellow unionists feel good about themselves by writing:  "Had these two extremes not been allowed to prevail, I have no doubt that NI might well have emulated eg of the success of the Black Civil Rights movement"   

There were not two extremes until unionists caused the second to come into being, and then when the army arrived and it was used exclusively against the Nationalist population, unionists gave the Provos their ultimate raison-d'etre.
But back to Loughgall.  This is where EG typically cries, I vehemently oppose murder and execution, but I feel no remorse that it happened.

The Black Civil Rights people in the States got exactly the same treatment as the CRA did here. They were beaten off the streets, arrested, murdered in some cases. It was at this point that Martin Luther King founded the Black Freedom Army and proceeded to wage a 25 year campaign of armed struggle that saw thousands of innocent civilians killed or maimed...Sorry, that last bit's not right.

To a degree though the American government supported the CRA and incidents such as the civil rights act and James Meredith. In other american regions, New York /Miami /California, discrimination was not as pronounced and the majority of the American people sympathised with the civil rights association. As Oraisteach said the reality in the North was different and not as simplistic as you make out.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

...[Or for an alternative example of how a British Government might be persuaded to accede to peaceful calls for political reform, you might see the stunning success of Gandhi's non-violent campaign for independence for India.]

The Indian Independence Movement  (IIM) culminated with Gandhi and non-violence and civil resistance, but there was militancy in the early decades of the 20th century; so it's not true to say that India's freedom was won through non-violence alone -- the militancy-through-to-pacifism of the IIM was a continuum, with the last stages only eschewing militancy.

That's bullsh1t.

There were essentially three reasons why the British marched out of India without a fight:
1. Like other colonies, India was becoming too much of an economic burden on a UK which was hugely indebted by WWII;
2. During WWII, India raised the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen to fight on the side of the Allies. This was in stark contrast to the (relatively tiny) INA, which fought for the Japs, and was greatly appreciated by the UK;
3. Gandhi's consistent campaign of non-violence meant that the British could stage an "honourable" withdrawal, rather than being seen to have been forced out.

For you to claim the events in the 20's and 30's were influential, when WWII had changed everything immeasurably, is both crass and ignorant. I assume you do so because India's example comprehensively rebuts your claim that the Brits would never leave anywhere, including Ireland, until forced out.

But if you really insist on drawing parallels, I would suggest that those who fought for Irish Independence post-1916 might have been better served had they had the vision and principle demonstrated by the people of India in No.s 2 and 3 (above)...   

You state that:

...[Or for an alternative example of how a British Government might be persuaded to accede to peaceful calls for political reform, you might see the stunning success of Gandhi's non-violent campaign for independence for India.]

So it's all down to Gandhi... but wait:

There were essentially three reasons why the British marched out of India without a fight:
1. Like other colonies, India was becoming too much of an economic burden on a UK which was hugely indebted by WWII;
2. During WWII, India raised the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen to fight on the side of the Allies. This was in stark contrast to the (relatively tiny) INA, which fought for the Japs, and was greatly appreciated by the UK;

No mention of Gandhi there (your number 3 nothwithstanding)... D'oh! 

So WWII changed everything, well I never (that's still not Gandhi)! 

Despite Gandhi, the absence of violence was not proof of future absence as the British were only too aware. Yes, Gandhi gave them a literal 'get-out clause', but only because militancy awaited in the shadows, and violence had played a part with the Independence Movement in the past (that's an immutable fact).

Anyway, I think you've tied yourself in enough knots for one thread (even you)! 

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Myles, you misunderstand the intent of my post.  I was not justifying the actions of the IRA nor endorsing their campaign, merely explaining how they came to be and correcting misinterpretations of the unionist mindset.

Still, the 1960s is the US was a powder keg that could easily have erupted into its own wholescale civil strife.  Don't forget the Watts riots in LA, the Detroit riots, the Hough riots in Cleveland as well as the emergence of groups such as the Black Panthers that saw violence as a more suitable way to redress social injustice. 

Shoot, all they would have needed would have been gangs of whites burning blacks out of their homes, the police and National Guard doing squat, and the introduction of internment without trial, and Bob's your uncle.

Excellent Oraisteach (with your previous post), nothing like a bit of the stark unpalatable reality to put a pollyanna or two in their places.

[Evil Genius]

We've veered quite far from the original focus of this thread.  Still, picking up the themes of crassness and ignorance relating to the Civil Rights movement as well as its sidekick "bullsh1t", I would laugh at EG's Pollyanna portrayal of the situation in the late 60s...                      ... that seeks to present unionism as a benign entity, waylaid by a handful of extremists on both sides.  That was simply not the case.

Where have I ever tried to claim that (bold), or anything like it?

Until or unless you can demonstrate that that was my argument, then your subsequent rant in rebuttal is worthless (as are the subsequent plaudits of your supporters, who lack even the basic literacy to construct a rant like yours.)

Back to you.

But back to Loughgall.  This is where EG typically cries, I vehemently oppose murder and execution, but I feel no remorse that it happened.

There are two ways of viewing Loughgall:
1. It was a terrorist enterprise which failed utterly, most likely because of a tout amongst their ranks; or
2. It was an "act of war" which went badly wrong, most likely because of a tout amongst their ranks.

I much prefer No.1, but either way I am delighted it failed and am relieved and pleased that the scum involved in prosecuting it got done to them exactly what they would have done to their victims, had their enterprise succeeded.

Or, more simply: "Hell Slap It Up Them".

[Evil Genius]

...[Or for an alternative example of how a British Government might be persuaded to accede to peaceful calls for political reform, you might see the stunning success of Gandhi's non-violent campaign for independence for India.]

The Indian Independence Movement  (IIM) culminated with Gandhi and non-violence and civil resistance, but there was militancy in the early decades of the 20th century; so it's not true to say that India's freedom was won through non-violence alone -- the militancy-through-to-pacifism of the IIM was a continuum, with the last stages only eschewing militancy.

That's bullsh1t.

There were essentially three reasons why the British marched out of India without a fight:
1. Like other colonies, India was becoming too much of an economic burden on a UK which was hugely indebted by WWII;
2. During WWII, India raised the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen to fight on the side of the Allies. This was in stark contrast to the (relatively tiny) INA, which fought for the Japs, and was greatly appreciated by the UK;
3. Gandhi's consistent campaign of non-violence meant that the British could stage an "honourable" withdrawal, rather than being seen to have been forced out.

For you to claim the events in the 20's and 30's were influential, when WWII had changed everything immeasurably, is both crass and ignorant. I assume you do so because India's example comprehensively rebuts your claim that the Brits would never leave anywhere, including Ireland, until forced out.

But if you really insist on drawing parallels, I would suggest that those who fought for Irish Independence post-1916 might have been better served had they had the vision and principle demonstrated by the people of India in No.s 2 and 3 (above)...   

You state that:

...[Or for an alternative example of how a British Government might be persuaded to accede to peaceful calls for political reform, you might see the stunning success of Gandhi's non-violent campaign for independence for India.]

So it's all down to Gandhi... but wait:

There were essentially three reasons why the British marched out of India without a fight:
1. Like other colonies, India was becoming too much of an economic burden on a UK which was hugely indebted by WWII;
2. During WWII, India raised the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen to fight on the side of the Allies. This was in stark contrast to the (relatively tiny) INA, which fought for the Japs, and was greatly appreciated by the UK;

No mention of Gandhi there (your number 3 nothwithstanding)... D'oh! 

So WWII changed everything, well I never (that's still not Gandhi)! 

Despite Gandhi, the absence of violence was not proof of future absence as the British were only too aware. Yes, Gandhi gave them a literal 'get-out clause', but only because militancy awaited in the shadows, and violence had played a part with the Independence Movement in the past (that's an immutable fact).

Anyway, I think you've tied yourself in enough knots for one thread (even you)! 

No contradiction whatever.

There were three "legs to the stool" in the struggle for Indian independence. Had any one been missing, including Gandhi's campaign of non-violence, it would have toppled over.

All things considered, it would have been very easy for the mass of the Indian population to have chosen the route of violence, with who-knows-what consequences for their struggle.

But most observers agree that thanks to Gandhi's outstanding leadership of the strategy of peaceful civil disobediance (the "third leg"), Independence was achieved much sooner, and with much less loss of life, than it otherwise might have been.

[Oraisteach]

Well, EG, I tried to quote the relevant section of your post in which you convey an optimistic/unrealistic perspective, so here it is again:  "Had these two extremes not been allowed to prevail, I have no doubt that NI might well have emulated eg of the success of the Black Civil Rights movement . . ."

First, there is an essential flaw in your view, a flaw that betrays a deliberate misrepresentation of unionist thinking at the time.  At no time before the eruption of violence (CRA Derry) did the unionist hierarchy show the slightest interest in according fundamental rights to Nationalists, and why would they when Northern Ireland was established intentionally to exclude those very people.
The implication of your statement is that without extremist pressure unionist leadership would have had a Road to Damascus epiphany and righted the wrongs of half a century.  Would that that were true, but sadly those who hold absolute power are usually loath to relinquish it unless faced with potential or actual threat of violence. 

Second, there was no real or substantial Nationalist extremism until unionist action gave birth to it.  Consider, for example, the actions of one of the enlightened unionists whom you mention, Brian Faulkner, and his equitable brainchild—internment.
As historian J J Lee writes,"The dedication with which Ulster Protestants labored to sustain a sense of racial superiority . . . eloquently expressed the racist cast of their minds."