Elizabeth Platt ([email protected])
Sun, 23 Aug 1998 00:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
On Wed, 01 Jul, 1998, Karine Maucourt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Subject: Re: Re: Northern Ireland
>
> About the message sent by Liz to Nev, i just want to add a few
> suggestions here.
[snip]
> >Take this as an example (I'll not add the writers name)
> >
> >> As long as England has military and political forces of ANY KIND
> >> in Northern Ireland, Ireland will not be united. Ireland not united
> >> will never be at peace.
> >
> >What use is a united Ireland if you have a divided people?
>
> If i good remember, it was another wireling who wrote this (i mean
> not Liz). I understood this remark from Nev that he wanted to point out that
> to unify people is more important that to unify the country, i mean people
> unity must be done first. Obviously i agree with the fact all people must
> have the same rights. I've always considered North-Ireland not to be a real
> democracy because of that. Notice in our constitution here in France (which
> comes from our human rights declaration in about 1793), the first article is
> about the equality of rights for all human being (as it's also the first
> article of the universal human rights declaration). And i think the
> countries which don't respect these rights are not democracies.
>
> BTW, can Liz explain to me how to reunify Ireland before reunifying
> people in North Ireland ? Except to justify possible protestant extremist
> actions, which means violence, pain,...anybody want this in NI.
The system in the North was created upon the concept of separation and
inequality between the two communities, so it would be hard to bring
people together (etc.) without realistically addressing some very
hard-nosed political/social issues, such as sectarianism, discrimination
in employment, police violence, cultural discrimination, etc. And if the
northern state can't deliver a rational, modern democracy within a
reasonable period of time (and I don't mean another 30+ years!), maybe
it's time for the state to be dismantled? On the other hand, I'm aware
that simply erasing a line from the map, or swapping flags, won't
magically erase 70+ years of damage done by institutionalized violence and
inequality. That's why the "peace process", despite it's shortcomings,
has proven so popular--it at least created the possibility of addressing
those hard-nosed issues, while (hopefully) decreasing the level of
violence.
I say "hopefully", because there are obviously fuckwits out there, like
the "Real IRA" (aka "the Surreal IRA" to mainstream Republicans), who
butchered so many people in Omagh last weekend. But they never had any
real base of support in the first place, and now seem to be in a state of
collapse; plus the INLA has just called it quits. Which is why I can't
agree with the governments' knee-jerk resort to "draconian" measures to
crack down on the dissidents--they're looking pretty pathetic right now
anyways, and repression could undermine the peace process. Keeping the
peace process on-track would do them more damage than any new laws that
erode civil and political liberties...
> And i don't
> think taking the example of the black segregation in USA is a good example.
> Because this isn't the same situation and there are less violence in USA
> (and not soldiers in the streets).
Actually, most nationalists I've met in the North do see strong analogies
between their situation and that of African-Americans; don't forget that
the Civil Rights movement in Northern Ireland was directly inspired by
that in the USA! Obviously, there are historical differences between the
two, but the affinity is there. And while the situation in the US never
escalated to open warfare, it won't do to underestimate the extent of the
violence directed against the Civil Rights movement in this country. One
has to wonder how grim the death toll would have become if the federal
government hadn't stepped in to push through reforms?
> And i agree to the fact protestants and
> catholics have to learn to get along (like black and white people in USA),
> it means IMO reunify people and it's exactly what Hume said. I also think
> apologies are just to be taken as symbols. And symbols are need sometimes.
>
Somtimes. I tend to be wary of the "people first" idea, since it often
means letting the government(s) off the hook! While there are some
notable exceptions, most of the "reconciliation" and "cross community"
projects that have flourished in the North over the years have been
dedicated to excusing the powers-that-be, and foisting the blame for the
conflict onto the people themselves. We're supposed to believe that 1.5
million people are mysteriously defective on a political, moral and
spiritual level, but are never told exactly why this is--or why other
Irish/Gaelic/Scottish people in Ireland, Scotland and England aren't also
this way? Could it be that there's something inherently _wrong_ with the
system in the North, that it's not just a matter of people being "bad
Christians" and all that claptrap? And while some folks may get nervous
discussing anything more substantial than "peace 'n' fluffy bunnies", the
fact is, there needs to be both solid debate and _real_ change made in the
near future, or all the sacrifices made in the past will be for naught...
Slan,
Elizabeth Platt
[email protected]
P.S. Obligatory U2 content for any Wire Thought Police out there: bought
myself a spiffy new CD rack today, and put all my U2 CDs in it. So there.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sun Aug 23 1998 - 00:48:47 PDT