|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
You are here Home | a long peace? | Nationalist perspective on Unionism Next or Previous « Ian Paisley on A long peace? | Main | Slugger: writers wanted... »
SOS - Save Our Slugger!
Help fund Slugger's new software: Or mail it direct to Slugger! |
October 07, 2003 Nationalist perspective on Unionism Greagoir D laigh has an interesting historical response to A Long Peace?, our pamphlet on the future of Unionism, and finishes with a number of questions about Unionism he has never been able to unravel. Archived Comments (132): Having read this piece i must asked any unionists out there, How come you took home rule in Belfast? howerver were fully against Home rule for the entire island? Posted by: Alan Anderson at October 8, 2003 01:43 PM Presumably because Home Rule for the entire island was perceived to be "Rome Rule", but Home Rule for the Six was a "Protestant Parliament For A Protestant People"? Posted by: Ciarn Irvine at October 8, 2003 01:47 PM Does this not show the hippocracy in the very foundation of Unionist organisations? Id like a unionist to comment on that if possible. In what way do unionists think a Dublin government would serve them any different from any other social minority? Posted by: Alan Anderson at October 8, 2003 02:39 PM You may both be discounting the possibility that there was little else on offer at the time. Posted by: Mick at October 8, 2003 02:59 PM Perhaps not however my question still stands;, In what way do unionists think a Dublin government would serve them any different from any other social minority?
Posted by: Alan Anderson at October 8, 2003 03:06 PM hippocracy (n.) - a system of government preferred by large aquatic mammals who never mean what they say. Posted by: Chewie at October 8, 2003 03:07 PM How appropriate: A bit of tweeking and you have the definition of Unionisim and the basis of the Northern Ireland sub-state. Posted by: Alan Anderson at October 8, 2003 03:12 PM Mick - how about accepting the temporary nature of partition and working the Boundary Commission and Council of Ireland Mk I in good faith to create a viable secular State for the whole island? If they'd done that, after all, then the Irish State in the 1920s would have been an Imperial Dominion inside the Commonwealth with a Lord Lieutenant (or whatever the title is) appointed by the Monarchy and HMG as Head Of State; and whatever guarantees, checks against "Rome Rule", and access to power they insisted on as the price of joining up. Compare and contrast with what will be available whenever Unification finally happens... Unionism's religious sectarianism blinded them to the opportunity and led them down a path which created an oppressive and violent society in the north; and a virtually mono-ethnic society in the south where the Catholic Church had far too much influence. And while the south has eventually overcome the social, economic and religious disadvantages Unionism foisted on it by insisting on Partition, the north remains a deeply dysfunctional and violent society. Unionism has been an unmitigated disaster for the entire island and everyone on it. Ironically, the people who have suffered most from it are the northern Protestant working class!! Posted by: Ciar n Irvine at October 8, 2003 03:33 PM
Once again contibutors refusing to recognise reality--- what protestants wanted (and want) is that which is theirs by right-- freedom from catholic republican Ireland and her murder gangs, The republic particularly in the 20,s and 30,s reduced its protestant numbers to an insignificant rump via murder intimidation and discrimination (my family has very detailed experience of all three)--the government of ROI connived at the importation of arms used by the IRA to kill protestants who had the temerity to serve as poloiceman. All this done without a cheep from the population of the republic. Posted by: barnshee at October 8, 2003 04:04 PM Barnshee: "The republic particularly in the 20,s and 30,s reduced its protestant numbers to an insignificant rump via murder intimidation and discrimination (my family has very detailed experience of all three)--" Give us the details, then. Posted by: Jeremy at October 8, 2003 04:15 PM surely this almost "ethinic clensing" must be documented? Could you point me in the general directions of such? or perhaps its just hearsay, in which case your making quite a poor point. Posted by: Alan Anderson at October 8, 2003 04:22 PM Altnaveigh Sometimes your ignorance is astounding Alan. I must also add that as I wasn't alive in the 1920s I can't really say why I opposed home rule but supported Stormont. I suspect it might have been a fear of what Home Rule was a stepping stone to. Which is to say the kind of state the ROI turned in to. My family are all Protestant working class, and have done very well out of the union thank you. for a start free university education in the 1960s made them all firmly professional. Which wasn't on offer at the time in the ROI Posted by: idunnomeself at October 8, 2003 05:24 PM I can just imagine the arguments 70 years from now... And the one about the RoI having a better Human Rights record than the UK is hysterical. Posted by: Beowulf at October 8, 2003 05:35 PM 'I think there is a greater onus on unionists to justify their creed. Why? Well, putting things simply, nationalists want Irish people to rule themselves; unionists want Irish people to be ruled by somebody else. More precisely they want British people to rule Irish ones.' No, Unionists are British people who want British people to rule them. Nothing odd about that really. It could well be argued the onus is on Nationalists to justify any change to the status quo. Posted by: IJP at October 8, 2003 06:10 PM Alan, You should *know* Unionists did not accept the 1920 settlement. After all, they never accept anything! You should also know Unionists were opposed to any form of home rule for the northeastern six counties. After all, they are opposed to everything! Seriously, my point is that Unionists did *not* get what they wanted in 1920. The idea that somehow NI and devolution was a Unionist idea is false. It was a means for GB to get out of Ireland while respecting the British majority in a large geographical part of it. Posted by: IJP at October 8, 2003 06:15 PM It's very inconvenient that my comments have malfunctioned... "No, Unionists are British people who want British people to rule them. Nothing odd about that really.i> Well, no. This is tricky... If you see Unionists as British, would you see Nationalists as British too? If not, you should change your first statement to: "Unionists are British people who want British people to rule them and their Irish neighbours." For what it's worth, I've never met anybody in Britain who sees the people of Northern Ireland, of either community, as anything but Irish; the British view them as Irish, and have long done so. So that would mean that, if you're right, you should say: "Unionists are British people who want British people who do not regard Unionists as British to rule them."
Posted by: Greg at October 8, 2003 08:34 PM Damn html. I left out the Posted by: Greg at October 8, 2003 08:35 PM I have to ask, are all Nationalists as retarded when it comes to geography? PS. Greg, most people I've met in Britain think the Irish drink a lot and are not very bright. Posted by: Beowulf at October 8, 2003 09:13 PM One general point which is worthy to note is that unionists don't see themselves as being "ruled by someone else" but as being part of a large democracy. It is not that unionists choose to be ruled by someone else, but that unionists do feel that NI is part of the UK family albeit a very small part. Unionists sense of being part of the British family of these islands is very real and quite natural. I read Greg's piece and saw that as the main flaw there --i.e. it did not really consider this unionist way of thinking. By the way, when it comes to these matters of identity there is no real emphatic "rights" or "wrongs". Sometimes the impression I get from reading these discussions is that there is a rivalry which drives people to try to dismiss one of the two as being wrong-headed and in greater need of justification. But I think that there is integrity to both positions. That is why there are people of good character in both traditions. But what is at the core of unionism, as I understand it, from within, as it were, is that unionists have a wide range of influences on their way of life, from Scotland England and Ireland, and therefore they prefer governance structures that unite and bring together these various strands under a coalition or union. Posted by: Howard at October 8, 2003 10:16 PM PS I have generally tried to use a rule here which is not to criticise or heap blame on "nationalism" in any sweeping statement. I do take an interest in analyzing it, or specific aspects of it, but the main point would be not to make sweeping criticisms, indeed I try to take a sympathetic position, trying to understand the fundamental integrity of the nationalist position. I think Mick is right when he says that the most interesting comments about nationalism or unionism are from within, in a non-defensive, non-point-scoring setting. Posted by: Howard at October 8, 2003 10:23 PM Ciaran Posted by: barnshee at October 8, 2003 11:16 PM surely this almost "ethinic clensing" must be documented
Posted by: Shrike at October 9, 2003 12:20 AM Greg, It's really not that complicated. You said: I said: Northern Ireland, and indeed Ireland broadly, has both 'British' and 'Irish' people. So who gets to rule Northern Ireland/Ireland? I think you'll find that's what we've been fighting about! You don't seem capable of accepting that Unionists are primarily 'British'. Many Unionists would not accept/care that you are primarily 'Irish'. So Unionist and Nationalist parties do not seem capable for even accepting the problem, far less solving it. Which is why I'm not a member of and do not vote for any of them! Posted by: IJP at October 9, 2003 12:29 AM Just for the record, I don't think I'm a nationalist; a united Ireland within a united Europe strikes me as the way to go. But that aside, a few points might be worth noting. Shrike, while there was doubtless some intimidation in the border counties, it appears that the Protestant decline in the part of the country was largely due to a falling birth rate and intermarriage with Catholics. You might also want to factor in how many Protestants served in the Great War; your 1911-1926 period does cover the war, after all. I know that YMCA figures show an incredibly high rate of participation amoung young Protestant males. In fact, not merely does the 15 year period you consider include the years of the First World War, it actually includes nine years before partition, so partition can hardly be blamed for the decline in numbers. Partition was also followed by a Civil War, itself hot on the heels of the War of Independence; perhaps Protestants left because they saw their homeland going to hell in a handbasket? IJP, I'm not sure you're getting me on this. "You don't seem capable of accepting that Unionists are primarily 'British'. Many Unionists would not accept/care that you are primarily 'Irish'." My mother is English, my father Irish. I used to live in Ireland, and now I live in England. What am I? I reckon I'm a damn site more British than virtually any Unionist; my mother is British and I live there. How many Unionists can say the same? But anyway, if you look at my last comment, you'll see that I can accept, at least for the sake of argument that Unionists are British; however, even if I do, you'll find that the vast majority of people in Britain won't accept your claim. To them you're as Irish as George Bush is American. Beowulf, when you say "most people I've met in Britain think the Irish drink a lot and are not very bright" you are spot on. They think this of everyone in Ireland, no matter what political or religious creed. Do Unionists really want to be ruled by people who think so little of them? And finally, Howard, as usual your comments are among the most thoughtful on this site. I should stress that my initial posting was not intended to criticise unionism as it was to express my puzzlement about some aspects of it. I was interested by your claim that Unionists feel themselves validly to be part of a UK family. I suppose what I find odd is how this appears to have so little historical basis. In the late 18thC you have Orange Lodges issuing declarations that "as Orangemen we consider the extinction of our separate Legislature as the extinction of the Irish Nation" and demanding that Ireland's (relative) independence be maintained. It really looks like democratic reform and demographics led them to look on the Union purely as a practical device to ensure Catholics did not outnumber them; how could Catholics ever outnumber Protestants in a United Kingdom of GB and Ireland? This is simply sensible, pragmatic politics. Tory politicians played on this and Ulster's politicians became the leading spokesmen of the Union, on what might well be argued were understandable religious grounds... In the end Ireland wound up as, effectively, two gerrymandered home rule districts, each with an inbuilt majority. Now this wasn't what Unionists had wanted; the Union as they had seen it was gone, but they don't seem to have complained. Why not? Why didn't they have Stormont voted out of existence and power returned to Westminister at the first possible opportunity? Was Unionism, in fact, a misnomer? I guess what I'm most curious about is when Ulster's Protestants really started to see themselves as British rather than Irish. Does anybody know? Posted by: Greg at October 9, 2003 02:08 AM I would say fundamentally there are no hierarchies of Britishness here and that being English or Scottish or Welsh does not make one "more British" than being NI as all are part of the UK and it is being "of the UK" that is what allows you to be British (if you want to be). In particular, being seen as British by an Englishman does not make you any more Britsh. NI is only a small part of the UK, and as such ignorance about NI is quite common. Nonetheless it is typically regognised to be "of the UK" by your average Englishman. He will call an NI person Irish, perhaps, though I have generally found that if I say I am Irish, they will presume I am from the Irish Republic, so I always say I am Northern Irish if I want to avoid this inference, as a clear disctinction between these is made with the English. Neither do I see any trade-off between British and Irish. I am both, for instance. This is a concept that is pretty natural to me. Its not like Englishness and Scottishness, where there might be something of a frade-off (although I am not even sure there) because Britishness is a multi-national identity, that allows you to combine it with another nationality, e.g. Irish, Scottish, English, Welsh, or indeed a range of other things like Indian and so on, provided you are "of the UK". I am unaware of when NI protestants started "feeling British" but I would say that it was no later than the Victorian era, with all its wealth that you can feel as you walk around any NI city or town, and when the social and economic trends in (what is now) NI were very similar to the rest of the UK. (But protestants were Irish alongside that). Studies have shown that it was in the period from the 1960s on that unionists stopped describing themselves using the term Irish, usually it is said that the troubles hastened this. (However that is before my time so I can't say from introspection). Posted by: Howard at October 9, 2003 08:02 AM Gregg - on your point about devolution, this is something that unionists have not held a single view on. Some would prefer more integration, others less. It sounds like the OO were devolutionist in the late 18th c but of course one suspects that the great period of industrial wealth of the late 19th C was formative in NI attitudes today. I would not see it as being an entirely inconsistent position to be simultaneously in favour of (i) preferring to remain part of the UK, (ii) preferring to avoid any form of home-rule from Dublin on an all-Ireland basis, but (iii) being prepared to accept home-rule on an NI basis. Posted by: Howard at October 9, 2003 08:11 AM There was a lot of participation by (what is now) NI protestants in British military efforts in the late 19th C as well as the 20th century. Like most NI unionists, members of my family were prepared to go off and die for the British cause in the 19th century and onwards -- suggesting a high degree of attachment to Brisihness. Yet it is only more recently that unionists typically stopped calling themselves Irish - a mid/late 20th century thing. Posted by: Howard at October 9, 2003 08:17 AM Howard, from what I understand a commissioned officer could expect to do quite well in life once ones duty was performed. There were plenty of Irish Catholic soldiers who fought in, say, the Boer war in the British army as privates without prospects - were they motivated by dedication to the principle of British Empire? Frank O'Connor made some interesting observations about this in short storys which featured his father. Posted by: Big Mike at October 9, 2003 09:15 AM Dunno Big Mike: certainly my own family experience is that you went in as an ordinary person, and left once the war is over, doing no better in life afterwards, those that were not killed. Posted by: Howard at October 9, 2003 09:30 AM So calling oneself British and(Northern)Irish is much like one calling themself Irish and European? Would this be correct? Posted by: Alan Anderson at October 9, 2003 09:59 AM Alan: yes one could look at it that way. Indeed I call myself Northern Irish, Irish, British, and European without believing there is any contradiction. Posted by: Howard at October 9, 2003 10:04 AM I wouldn't see a contradiction either, but I see my technical nationality as British. In my family it's only recently (a generation or so) that the 'Irishness' has been dropped, or rather sidelined. And that's simply down to being terrorised by the Irish (Republican Army). Posted by: Beowulf at October 9, 2003 11:12 AM As usual, agree with Howard 100%. Greg: No, you are not more British than most Unionists. You may be more English, but that is different. I am half-English, though I live in NI, and I view myself as much more in tune with GB than most 'Unionists' in NI. But that doesn't make me 'more British'. 'Was Unionism, in fact, a misnomer?' *Is* Unionism, in fact, a misnomer? Now, you might actually be on to something there. Is Unionism, in most of its current incarnations, more a form of (British) nationalism? Posted by: IJP at October 9, 2003 01:05 PM Amazing how many Irish nationalists have such a one-dimensional understanding of identity. Posted by: willowfield at October 9, 2003 01:18 PM "Is Unionism, in most of its current incarnations, more a form of (British) nationalism?" It seems to me that many Unionsts are actually retreating from the British identity to the more distinct and, dare I say it, "mono-ethnic" Ulster-Scots identity, possibly caused by a perceived betrayal by London and the fact that a PR battle between the UK and Ireland is always going to be won by Ireland whereas a PR battle between Scots and Irish is seen as more easily contested. willowfield, I would say that it is Irish Unionists who have the issue comprehending identity, rather than Irish Nationalists, dealing as they do with a complex dual identity one half of which some Unionists deny completely. Posted by: Big Mike at October 9, 2003 02:41 PM Willowfield, Posted by: Michael at October 9, 2003 06:51 PM Funny also how the whole point of Irish Nationalism is to stop the English running any part of Ireland, yet so many retreat to jibes about how the English view us all as 'Irish', as if that proves anything! Those who don't resort to such patent nonsense actually make very good sense, an example of which is Big Mike above, who is 120% correct about what is behind most (tho not all!) of the 'Ulster-Scots' movement. Posted by: IJP at October 9, 2003 08:25 PM Big Mike: Spot on like I say. There's something in what Beowulf says, that Unionists removed the 'Irish' aspect of their identity because of the 'Irish' Republican Army. However, I believe that is just a surrender. Unionists should fight for their Irishness, to clarify it's not all about being 'Gaelic and free'. Ciarn's already admitted it makes arguing with them from a Nationalist perspective much harder! This is where the political side of 'Ulster Scots' is dangerous - for Unionism. It's why most thinking Unionists reject it. There is an Ulster-Scots culture, even though it's largely unlabelled (think piping, the way we speak, even golf and soccer). It is true that it is unrepresented in the bilateral clash of 'Irish' and 'English/British'. It is not true, however, that the Scottish dimension is exclusively the domain of Protestants and Unionists, nor is it true that there is an identifiable 'Ulster-Scots Community' that is now so often talked about. The Scottish strand touches us all - yes, perhaps more in the northeast than the southwest, but we all say 'wee' and 'ay'! This latest farcical idea - that Ulster Scots are all descended from the Cruthin who 'were here first' - is just the absolute pits and a clear sign of a total lack of vision among Unionists! As Chewie has said in an earlier thread, it matters not who was here in AD 3, but rather who is here in AD 2003! Posted by: IJP at October 9, 2003 08:35 PM When I say Unionists should 'fight for their Irishness', I don't mean literally of course. One right out of the 'don't turn football into a political football' camp! Posted by: IJP at October 9, 2003 08:36 PM There has been a change in attitude to Scots. The Ulster Scots way of speaking was for long thought of as rather primitive and vulgar -- indeed I remember I was encouraged by my parents and school masters not to use it (implicitly, one might appear a 'simpleton'). It is good to see this snobbish attitude changing and perhaps, therefore, we perhaps ought to remember that Ulster Scots speakers have been subjected to enough condesenscion before embarking on more of the same. That said, I can't say I know of any unionist who one would describe as having retreateed from a British identity to an Ulster Scots identity.
Some years ago one used to hear some people claiming that 'unionists don't have a culture'. I think what they meant was that unionists don't have an organic, home-grown culture of their own. (It may be that some in the Ulster Scots movement is a reaction to this). However, the claim is trivially unimportant, as obviously it's impossible not to have a culture, and NI culture today (not just unionist) tends to be synthetic (as opposed to organic), drawing together and combining a range of influences as set out in the foregoing paragraph. Posted by: Howard at October 9, 2003 09:20 PM Howard, That strikes me as a fair assessment of what *should* happen. Sadly, it's not always what *is* happening! I *do* know of Unionists who go as far as to use the terms 'Unionist' and 'Ulster Scots' interchangeably! These are the same types who refuse to accept Scots is a single language and it makes sense to develop it as such, because they reckon that would be incoherent with a distinct 'Ulster-Scots' identity. But that's another (boring) story! Of course, there are also Unionists who think like you above - thankfully! And then, I hasten to add, there are non-Unionists who think like you above too! Posted by: IJP at October 9, 2003 09:30 PM That latter point is similar to the ridiculous notion that Americans don't have a culture. The reality is that their culture is so dominant (in the sense of widespread), we don't notice it as 'distinct'. 'British' culture can suffer from this also. Posted by: IJP at October 9, 2003 09:31 PM IJP: perhaps such people exist but I don't think they would be representative of many. I'm afraid that the 'Ulster Scots' movement is not accorded that much attention or credibility by your typical man in the cul-de-sac, regardless of political persuasion. As far as I can see, recent attempts to promote it are thought (at best) harmless sentimentality or (at worst) a rather expensive and not very funny joke. It isn't really in the mainstream consciousness of NI people, other than the well known and rather enjoyable and delightful poems by Burns. Posted by: Howard at October 9, 2003 09:53 PM In response to several queries as to Unionists opposition to Irish Home Rule and also the request for evidence of the `ethnic cleansing` of Protestants from the South. It is all documented and I can provide more if necessary. The reasoning behind the opposition was indeed Home Rule = Rome Rule as Carson was an Irish Unionist and against partition. Moreover, Bury suggests, with quite good supporting evidence, that the Eamon de Valera Prime Minister of the Irish Free State / Irish Republic 1930 "Justifying the sacking of a properly appointed librarian in Mayo, because, though highly qualified, she was a Protestant, de Valera argued in June 1930: "I say the people of Mayo in a county where I think 98% of the population is Catholic are justified in insisting on a Catholic librarian." He went on to widen the issue indeed, and asserted: "a Protestant doctor ought not to be appointed as a dispensary doctor in a mainly Catholic area."
"Ireland is a Catholic country, perhaps the only one left and laws are not "Is it any wonder that the Protestant people of the North would feel
Three quotes from an excellent Irish historical article about the so called "Defenders" http://www.iol.ie/~fagann/1798/dfender3.htm "and burning the homes of the peaceable Protestant inhabitants of the counties of Louth, Monaghan, Cavan and Meath, and even in the county of Dublin, making public declarations that they will not suffer any Protestant to reside within these counties, or in the kingdom" and "In May Defenders descended upon a fair in County Cavan declaring that "they would destroy every Scotsman or Presbyterian they should find". Defenderism represented many things to many men, among them Catholic sectarianism. The experience of John Tuite ᖑCaptain Fearnought of Meath illustrates the consequent United Irish dilemma. Tuite was sworn to both acts in 1795, that is he took first the Defender and then the United Irish oaths, but the Defender oath pledged him to quell the nation of heresy as well as to dethrone all kings, and plant the tree of liberty. The second part of the oath indicates how interaction with the United Irishmen accelerated and strengthened the politicising impact of French principles; the first part shows how much more the secular radical gospel had still to do. Putting the best gloss possible on a coalition fraught with internal tensions, Emmet later asserted that the United Irishmen had infused Defenderism with tolerance and republicanism. Presumably Tuites trial report had escaped his notice. Posted by: Alan at October 9, 2003 11:51 PM That might be a bit more convincing were it not for the egregious error of saying that Garret was "Prime Minister" in 1977! And Noel Browne's problems with hierarchy hardly make him an unbiased source! The fact that he spent his whole life as a hero to the Irish people, despite the hierarchy's opposition to his brainchild, might in fact count against your claims. By the way, your evidence is purely anecdotal. Statistics would be nice, as well as historical analysis by somebody who has written in last twenty years! Posted by: Greg at October 10, 2003 12:44 AM I always thought Noel Browne was a Protestant! Can anyone confirm? Posted by: Ciarn Irvine at October 10, 2003 12:25 PM Michael Thanks for confirming my observation. Posted by: willowfield at October 10, 2003 02:07 PM Have some comments been removed from here? Posted by: Greg at October 10, 2003 03:17 PM Noel Browne - RC originally Believer in the divine gospel of discontent. Posted by: Jeremy at October 10, 2003 03:49 PM Alan Let us take it as read that bad things happened during the Civil War and the War of Independence. Let us accept that bad things happened to Protestants though I doubt anything as bad as the mass expulsion of Roman Catholics (and Protestants, mainly socialists, who wouldnᖒt go along with the attempted pogrom) from Harland and Wolf and other events in the North at that time. Be that as it may few could doubt that fear and trepidation and the reasonable expectation of attack were common. Let us accept that DeValeras statement on the Mayo Librarianship issue was a disgrace. Let us also accept that the ban on divorce in 1927 and the ban on contraception in 1935 were as well. It is my contention that a conservative southern state attempted an ideological control over the primarily Roman Catholic population. It is not the case, as Bury alleges, that Protestants had to batten down the hatches. If anything Protestants did well out of the economic policy pursued by Fianna Fail governments from the 1930s to the 1960s. Laws requiring Irish companies to be in beneficial Irish ownership meant that British companies setting up subsidiaries had to find Irish people to sit on Boards of directors. The offer was taken up in the main by the Protestant business class (class is probably the wrong word), who had family and other links to Britain. The policy on import substitution, requiring high tariffs on imported goods, had the effect of preserving many Protestant owned business that might otherwise have gone to the wall or been bought up by larger foreign competitors. Of course, this policy had the effective creating a small business (and inefficient business) economy by the late 1950s. Some bitter unionists declaim these persons saying they were bought off. But then figuring out where your next slice of bread is going to come from has a lot to do with a persons outlook. Isnt much of the basis for unionist support for the Empire and heavy industry and latterly for the welfare state and employment in the public sector given as a reason (by unionists) for unionist support for the union? Mr Bury just has a sectarian idea that Protestants should be unionists. Where can he have gotten that idea? Many Protestants joined Fianna Fail (many were already in Fine Gael). Some became TDs and some were appointed to the Senate. Preserving three senate seats for Trinity graduates had the effect of strengthening a Protestant ethos and indeed liberalism (Mary Robinson) in the Irish parliament. Protestants did not have a hang up about the Irish state and were enthusiastic promoters of the Irish language and other aspect of Irish culture. I am sure they found the oppressive RC atmosphere a trial, but then so did increasingly the majority of their fellow citizens. Since the RC atmosphere was not aimed at Protestants (a clear distinction from the paranoid attitude toward Roman Catholics in the North) there was never a major problem of them and us. Mr Robin Bury, the guy you quote is in fact in a minority among southern Protestants. He wants Ireland to rejoin the commonwealth and (as far as I am aware) is a member of the Orange Order he certainly did his best to organise an Orange march in Dublin a few years ago (the OO pulled out at the last minute after the CofI told them No they could not use the CofI church and it appeared that there would be protests). He does his best to popularise the cause of sectarianising southern politics, but so far it has been a failure. Burys argument is typical: in effect, no one has said they agree with me, which means they are too afraid to. In fact many Protestants have spoken out, but to disagree vociferously with Mr Burys movement. Mr Burys argument has the virtue of becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you tell people that you will be attacked for saying certain things, then those who might believe it will be too terrified to open their mouths. In addition, the vast but silent and imaginary ranks of supporters of Mr Bury will swell, subject tot no verifiable empirical test. It is a neat trick. I have come across, and have heard speak, prominent individuals who espouse the cause of unionism in the South. Their big problem is that it is not a very popular cause (in the sense of few people support it), so they tend to sublimate it (maybe this is what Mr Bury means) and to promote (for example) visits by members of the British Royal Family (and on the occasion of which there is never any shortage of fawning natives ready tug the forelock of old, like a habit that had never gone out of fashion). Now to Noel Browne: he wrote that in 1984 (good year for it), a year after the referendum making abortion unconstitutional. There was a panic among liberals who thought that there was a resurgent Roman Catholic right ready to re-take back all the gains won in the 1970s. It didnt happen and the referendum had the effect in a few short years of making abortion constitutional (in certain circumstances). Public attitudes became totally transformed, with tolerance for the reasons why someone might want to avail of abortion winning the day (by a mile). The moral 'coup' (which is what it was) and immediate success represented by the 1983 abortion referendum has been turned into the biggest unmitigated disaster for the conservative religious right in Ireland for years. And, here is the rub, to win the referendum, the socalled pro-life proponents made liberal use of Protestant fundamentalist unionists in the North to bolster the case for winning the referendum. Rather foolishly in my view, those opposing the referendum attempted to suggest that people should vote No because a Yes would put off northern Protestants. Result, a deluge of northern Protestants descended to make common cause with the conservative Roman Catholic right (it was a real case of Protestant and Catholic unite). In many ways partition suits both conservative Roman Catholicism and Conservative Protestantism it creates zones of monopoly influence (except that both projects are in crisis). Noel Browne was wrong on that one. As for what the Pope said in 1977 about not changing any laws. Who listens to him? Laws have been changed wholesale. The Popes influence is diminishing because he says all the wrong things as afar s the majority of people are concerned when they survey their own lives. It does not mean that they are no longer Roman Catholics. It just means that they do not obey the rules and have no intention of doing so. Posted by: Jeremy at October 10, 2003 05:34 PM Jeremy For information, what is the current law regarding divorce in the Republic? (How does it compare to UK, for example?) Also, I assume the contraception ban was not in the constitution. Was it an act of parliament - or some sort of regulation? When was it overturned and what is the law now? Regarding censorship, when did that go, and how? Thanks. Posted by: willowfield at October 10, 2003 05:44 PM Willowfield Divorce is available after five years (including two years separation). It is 'no-fault'. I would have to look up the exact details (and I will). There is a state funded mediation service and family courts that sit in camera there is criticism of the latter because it makes it difficult to asses the consistency of decisions and the development of precedent. This may change soon. Contraception was banned by an act of parliament in 1935. Divorce had been banned by law and was subsequently made unconstitutional (in 1937, now rescinded). Contraception became legal for private use as a result of a Supreme Court decision in 1973. A Mrs McGee argued that her doctor had told informed her that any future pregnancy would put her life in danger. The Court decided that the constitutional protection of marriage (this is separate from the ban on divorce) meant that Mrs McGee and Husband would be prevented form living a full married life (if you know what I mean, I think you do). Therefore she and her husband had a right to use of contraception. There then arose an anomaly contraception for use in married life was legal, but its sale was still illegal. You could import contraceptives for personal and private use (most of it is!) but not for sale (whether it was for public or private use). In 1974 the then Fine Gael/Labour government attempted to bring in a law allowing limited contraception use much to the disgust of the highly conservative Minister for Justice (Patrick Cooney) who had to pilot it through Leinster House, while metaphorically holding his nose. The bill was full of references to fornication and other archaic terminology. The bill fell because the Taoiseach (Liam Cosgrave) and the Minster for Education voted against it (to the astonishment of their colleagues). Meanwhile, thousands of women were getting the pill prescribed (as a period regulator there was a lot of irregularity during those years). Family planning clinics were set up and did a roaring trade. A campaigning group called the Contraception Action Programme (CAP!)opened a shop selling condoms (Condoms Unlimited) and sold them openly in markets, all in open defiance of the law. Bemused members of the Garda were occasionally dispatched to take names nothing happened. The cross border trade in contraception ended 햖 customs on the southern side was completely uninterested in the practice. It was just a giant exercise in hypocrisy and moral piety that fell apart. In the late 1970s Charles Haughey (yes him) as Minster for Health successfully brought in a bill that allowed the use of contraception and the sale of condoms for bona fide family planning purposes. No, this did not mean it was illegal to use them as balloons. It meant that they were only available by prescription to married couples (believe it or not?). Haughey originated the phrase in defence of his measure that it was an Irish solution to an Irish problem. By 1984 the law was changed again and condoms became available for sale in shops and thorough vending machines. Censorship was onerous up until the mid 1960s most Irish authors had the distinction of being banned in Ireland. The censorship acts (in film and literature) were liberalised in the 1960s by the late Brian Lenihan (a sort of Fianna Fail version of Jim Rodgers, or rather a combination of Jim Rodgers and the Rev William McCrea). They were further relaxed in the 1970s. Now the situation is more or less the same as in Britain, I would think. There was a ban on information with regard to contraception that lasted a bit longer and a short-lived ban on abortion information in the 1980s the later information ban was overturned by referendum (as part of the liberalisation of attitudes to abortion, alongside an unhindered right to travel outside the state for an abortion). Posted by: Jeremy at October 10, 2003 06:40 PM Thanks for the comments everyone. I certainly intended no offence as both the North and South have moved on enormously in the last decade. I was merely providing evidence to the fact that the South was a Catholic state whilst the North was a Protestant State, which is no longer the case either side of the border. A few more point are the special place the RC church had in the Irish constitution, particularly with regards the Ne Temere Decree and the Fetard on Sea incident Quote "It was in Fethard on Sea where the entire Protestant community was boycotted and many were forced out or had their businesses ruined because one mixed marriage couple refused to have their daughter attend the local Roman Catholic primary school. Instead they sent her to the local Protestant school.
And the Republic's politicians have the effrontery to call Ulstermen bigotted ! In May 1957 the Roman Catholic Parish Priest in Fethard on Sea in the Republic ordered the Roman Catholic majority to boycott any contact with the local Protestant minority. These christian men felt that the boycott would force Shiela Cloney who had fled to Scotland with her daughters to return the children. The Roman Catholic church demanded that the children be returned and raised as Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholic Bishop either actually ordered the boycott or encouraged it. Another, albeit biased article The story in last month's 'Standard' of the intimadation of Protestants in Southern Ireland after Partition which led to the exodus of 150,000 Protestants and loyalists in the years immediately following the withdrawal of the British in 1922 has led to a number of readers contacting the Standard. The readers, who wish to remain anonymous, are descendants of the Irish Protestants and welcomed the Standard reporting one of the great largely unpublished pogroms of the history of this island. Southern Irish Protestants were the real losers in the so-called Treaty of 1921 between the British Government of Lloyd George and the IRA delegation led by Michael Collins. The IRA and its supporters in Sinn Fein got an Irish republic in all but name called the Irish free state - it became the republic officially in 1949 - and Lloyd George was able to extricate the British largely from Ireland and its complexities. Northern Ireland did get its Parilment in Belfast, but with limited powers and percious little guarantee for its own existence, a fact which was to become all too obvious in 1972. But at least there was the guarantee of religious freedom for the one million Protestants in Northern Ireland, and the British subjects, both Protestant and Roman Catholic who favoured the link with the rest of the United Kingdom had their hopes realised. But the poor isolated Protestants of the 26 counties were condemned to the 'mercy' of the ruthless republicanism and the British and World press largely ignored their plight. Their suffering was intense and barbaric, and nowhere more so than in 'rebel' Cork where dozens were taken out and shot on the roadside. Only recently that excellant writer Peter Hart took the lid off the planned murder and intimadation of Cork Protestants in his book 'The IRA in Cork and its enemies'. In particular, Protestants in the Orange and loyalist stronghold of Bandon received special attention. The Allin Institute where the Orange Lodges had met was taken over by IRA gunmen of the anti-treaty faction. Before partition, the Orange Order had flourishing lodges in Cork as well as most southern counties. All, but the remanants in Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal, as well as some in Dublin and Lietrim were driven out of existence. They ceased to exist simply because their members were no longer there - forced to take the ship to England, the train to Belfast, or whatever other form of transport they could get their hands on. In many cases they simply walked or ran to the safety of Northern Ireland. One lady contacted the 'Standard' to say that her mother carried her as a small child along the hedgerows in Cavan to cross into Northern Ireland. "She was desperately afraid that I might make a sound and we would be betrayed. She never forgot the terrible experience", she said. That woman said her mother had never been a bitter person and had steadfastly refused to become bitter. "She was a dedicated Christian and taught her children to be the same. But she never trusted republicans after that and said they could never be expected to respect the rights of Unionists and Loyalists to promote their culture and ideas". Another reader told the 'Standard' his father had arrived in Portadown as a young boy along with his parents and brothers and sisters in Cavan. "They stayed in Portadown for a year. It was the first big Protestant town on their way from Cavan and they were well received. They had not been able to bring any clothes apart from those they were wearing. "Thanks to the kindness of Portadown Protestants they got a small house and furniture and clothing. They attended school in the Park Road area for a year, but my grandfather obtained work in Belfast and the family moved to the city," he said. The man said the family had settled in the city and had done well. "Some members emigrated to Canada, but most stayed in East Belfast and joined the Orange Order. My father was not a bitter man, and was more bewildered than anything else by the treatment the family received. "They had been well thought of in Cavan, were on good terms with their Roman Catholic neighbours. But they never made any secret of their loyalty and membership of the Orange Order. This was the only reason the family could think of for their explusion", he said. Suffering A descendant of another of another Southern Irish family, which moved to the Banbridge area, said few people realised the extent of the suffering of the Protestants from the South. "That was the sad thing about it", he said. The intimadation and threats were bad enough, but it was the fact that their plight was largely ignored. The press at the time reported the reprisals carried out against Roman Catholics in Belfast, and no reasonable person would have objected to that. "But the equally reprehensible persecution of Southern Irish Protestants did not get reported. First of all they had been betrayed by the British Government which promised it would never give in to the IRA". "Then, the new Ulster Parliament was formed, but it was restricted to six counties and that left thousands of Protestants to their fate at the hands of republicans. And finally, when when the British Army left the South the Protestants had no protection and those considered to be loyal to the Crown were forced out of their homes. Many were murdered, but the majority were forced out of their homes and lost all their possessions. Many went to Northern Ireland and did well when the got settled in - a real asset to the country. But many others went to Canada, and some to London, although they were largely ignored. No-one wanted to know about the Southern Irish Protestants. They were nobody's children and their fate was forgotten about in no time at all. There was no such word as ethic cleansing at that time, but that is what it amounted to" he said. Only a handful of those Irish refugees of the 1920s are now alive, and their children and grandchildren are now citizens of Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK, or of Canada and Australia. Like the Huguenots, another great people expelled for their Protestantism from France, they are now simply statistics in history books. The one-third of the Protestant population who stayed in the Irish Free State were allowed to stay on as long as they maintained a very low profile. They had to keep their heads below the parapet and their Unionism and Orangeism was derided and destroyed. Yet, this was a proud people. The Southern Irish Protestants had produced great people like Henry Grattan, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, Edmund Burke, and many others, but it did not save them from intolerance and persecution. Things may have improved to the extent that Protestantism today enjoys freedom which did not exist even as recently as the 1950s when Fethard-on-Sea and its boycott, as well as attacks on open-air evangelists proved. But it is only lately that the soldiers of the Great War who fought for Britian are acknowledged as worthy of admiration, and there is still little toleration of anything that smacks of British. The pressure exerted to prevent a small Orange ceremony in Dublin last year, and the decision to postpone the Queen's visit to the South show that in spite of the 'Cetlic Tiger' and the claims of a more 'liberal' society, there is still precious little evidence of parity of esteem or recognition of the rights of Protestants in the Irish Republic who have any leaning towards Unionism and Orangeism. Posted by: Alan at October 10, 2003 07:50 PM Re the comments about Mr Bury....I believe both Ruth Dudley Edwards and Conor Cruise O Brien, both RC (atleast by birth) are involved with the reform movement. Posted by: Alan at October 10, 2003 08:06 PM I am reading John Cooney's "John Charles McQuaid - Ruler of Catholic Ireland" at present. It would appear that most politicians in the nascent Free State (and Republic) were spineless toadies in the face of the Catholic Hierarchy. When they strayed off-message, as Dr Noel Browne did, they were dealt a firm blow of the crozier, and could expect no support from their supine colleagues. It is no wonder thousands of Protestants left the South during JCMcQ's tenure. Going back to a theme in earlier postings, I believe that there are two distinct "tribes" (sorry, I can't think of a better word at 11.30pm) in Ireland at present: the Gaelic-Irish and the British-Irish. Posted by: Gerry O'Sullivan at October 10, 2003 11:36 PM I will be up early Saturday morning to see fifteen Irishmen, Gaelic and British alike, open their campaign in the Rugby World Cup. Lads - we can work together. Come on you Irish!! Posted by: Gerry O'Sullivan at October 10, 2003 11:41 PM Two distinct tribes... sort of. I mean just about any identity is perceived. And I'm quite happy with the idea some are 'Gaelic-Irish' and some are 'British-Irish'. That sort of realization is the first step, I believe, in any genuine attempt to unify the island as a single state. However, I would add that many people do not (feel they) fit into one or other of those camps neatly. Indeed, there are additional strands (such as feelings of Scottishness or Europeanness) that come into it. I certainly would regard myself as British and Irish, but I wouldn't like to think that excludes *any* 'Gaelic-ness'! Posted by: IJP at October 11, 2003 02:15 AM Gerry, I absolutely. I fully support the All-Ireland rugby team. With regards culture and identity. I recently read an article on The Blanket by Billy Mitchell where he identiified four distinct groups - the Gaelic Irish, the Anglo Irish, the Ulster-Scots (Scots-Irish) and the more recent ethnic minorities that hav arrived here. He argues that all of them are capable of being Irish and also British without any contradiction and that each has had an influence on the other. The article can be read here:- Also two further articles of interest:- Cork Unionism during the period 1919-23 The experience of Unionists in County Donegal during the period 1919-22 Cheers Posted by: Alan at October 11, 2003 10:18 AM What about the New Irish - the Chinese, the Africans, the Indians. They are griwing and growing, clearly they will not want a 'two tribes' idea. What about the inter-married, and those who feel no exclusive connection to one or other tribe. The term 'the two communities' sounds very early 1990s to me. It may have served a purpose at the time, but I think its rapidly getting dated, for the reason given in the foregoing paragraph. Posted by: Howard at October 11, 2003 10:20 AM Alan The Ne Temere Decree was cruel in its effect and intent in every circumstance, but an especially vicious act in the context of the circumstances facing Protestants in the South of Ireland. I believe I have written so in another thread. In precise and practical terms, this was not a misdemeanour of the state, it was an act of the Roman Catholic Church dating from the early part of the 20th Century that affected personal relations between Roman Catholic and Protestant men and women in every society, including within the North of Ireland. For those intending to marry it must have put tremendous strain on family relations in that it forced the intrusion of a church into the heart of married life, a church alien to the traditions and outlook of one of the partners to that marriage. What is the situation today? In my experience it is largely an empty gesture, a relic of an institution totally out of touch with the outlook and lives of the majority of people. Even Robin Burys account of his own marriage in Untold Stories is as follows: "At that time, the Catholic Church insisted on people in mixed religion marriages getting married not only in a Catholic Church, but at a side altar therein, preferably early in the morning when no one was around to witness the ceremony. Prods, after all could not get into heaven. I had to take the Ne Temere decree. The kindly Dublin priest told me it was a gentlemans agreement and I replied that it was one to which my wife and I would not be paying too much attention. He did not seem to care as long as I signed the document promising to bring up all our children as Catholics. I need not have worried about breaking what was disputably a legal agreement, as Geraldine insisted that our three children be brought up in the Church of Ireland." Quite frankly, I would expect a roaman Cathoic partner today not to put up with this humiliation, to go ahead with a Protestant marriage ceremony and to dispense with the RC version. It is my impression that the only reason the RC ceremony is pursued is to satisfy older parents and relations - I know of one circumstance like this, where the priest ecncountered was a fool and left a very sour taste with the nominally RC partner. What I find troubling is the attempt to appropriate difficulties facing Protestants in the South to unionism, when the actual Protestants have no intention of volunteering themselves for the cause of David Trimble, Ian Paisley and their colleagues. One of the problems with your material is the unsourced and uncheckable nature of the testimonies produced. Doing a search I find that many are taken from The Orange Standard, where, again, there are no sources. It is all quite evocative, darting among the hedgerows of Cavan, etc, but without names, dates, context, etc. I am struck by the fact that the same limited source material surfaces again and again. It appears that the well has gone dry. It may be that assiduous research will unearth properly researched material. No one has anything to fear from truth and honesty. What I think is missing is a recognition that an organic transformation took place in southern society in which its population (Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, atheist, whatever) revolted against the stultifying piety and control imposed by a conservative state. There never was a pogrom against Protestants. Terminology should be precise. There is also an information trail missing in relation the extent of emigration in the 1920s. Those who were on the republican side emigrated in their droves, because they were in a society that refused to give them employment, in which they were harassed. The victorious side, represented by Cumann Na Ngaedhal (now Fine Gael) was vindictive in its pursuit of those who were on the losing republican side. Many of those who left were radical and non-sectarian in their outlook. It was in these first years of the state that the process of substituting a conservative Roman Catholic ideology for republican ideas began in earnest. Republican ideas were subversive of the state and the only ideology to hand was one that reinforced the conservatism of the state and kept the population in check. It was appropriated to nationalism and the phraseology of Irish and Catholic began in earnest. This ideology was aimed at controlling the population as a whole, in particular at controlling the Roman Catholics. An organic revolt began in earnest tin the 1960s, not because it was unfair to Protestants, but because it was unfair to everyone, it masked injustice, it held up social progress, it was particularly discriminatory towards women. This is not a story about the treatment of Protestants in the republic, because no treatment was aimed at Protestants by the state (which in its official capacity attempted to ensure that there was a Protestant representation at the heart of the state and in which Protestants made a contribution out of line with their numbers). I could say more, but enough for now. Posted by: Jeremy at October 11, 2003 12:25 PM Jeremy, The Cork Unionism and Donegal articles provide bibliographies and the quotes or Eamonn de valera and Noel Browne are in the public domain. I was merely providing some form of evidence as requested. If you read the cork article you will find that the Dublin government did indeed call the incidents in Cork a `pogrom`, against Unionists / Loyalists both Protestant and Catholic. I also see many mentions of huge amounts of material and records in the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland and the National Library of Ireland, aswell as various local newspapers archives. Leaving that aside I would agree with your comments with regards Dr Paisley but not necessarily Mr Trimble. Most I would assume would be common sense `unionists` who identify with the mainstream parties of Labour and the Conservatives ( and the UUP ) in a non-sectarian form of unionism. I would point you in the direction of the Trinity College Dublin Young Unionists Website http://www.csc.tcd.ie/~unionist/ It is worth noting that the UUP (linked to the Conservative Party) and Alliance Party (Liberal Democrats) are the only parties in NI that really have both Protestant and Catholic members. John Gorman being a prime example. Posted by: Alan at October 11, 2003 01:18 PM Alan What Cork and Donegal articles? What bibliography? Where are they? After wading through all the material I am none the wiser. I am not questioning the DeValera and Browne comments - I actually heard Noel Browne make the statement at a public meeting (and thought it a result of a political 'panic attack'). I am familiar with DeValera's sectarian statement on the mayo library position I read it first in TH Whytes Church and State in Modern Ireland in the 1970s. It is the stuff from the Orange Standard and from Frank I am referring to as I said there is no problem with evidence that is checkable, that is from verifiable historical sources. For example the statement from Frank contains the following: Never forget that the Republic's 1937 constitution gives a special status to the Roman Catholic religion. Fine, except that it was removed by referendum in 1973 (overwhelmingly, by over 90%of those voting). I have pointed out in another thread that the Roman Catholic bishops opposed the form of the original insertion because DeValera insisted on mentioning the position of Protestant denominations, the Jewish Community and the Quakers. (While mentioning DeValera, he was also opposed to leaving the Commonwealth and had no part in the declaration of the republic in 1949 (he was in opposition). DeValeras view was that the state was already a republic in everything but name, but that a declaration of a republic should await the formation of a United Ireland.) There is also a problem if you have a problem with opposition to the Orange Order, an avowedly sectarian organisation that puts an equal sign between Protestant and unionist. Nothing prevented the Orange Order marching in Dawson Street in Dublin a few years ago, apart from its own inability to deal with criticism. There was a motion passed at Dublin Corporation (proposed originally by Sinn Fein councillors, I believe), which asserted their right to march, and also said that the order should speak directly to the residents of the Ormeau and Garvaghy Road. The Church of Ireland on Dawson Street refused the Order access to their church because they had no wish to be associated with a sectarian political organisation that claimed to speak for Protestants. The Order couldnt take the heat and, like the bully who is challenged, slunk away claiming to be hurt at being so unappreciated. The Order laughably suggested that the republic was not pluralist because citizens (including many Protestant citizens) pointed out the nature of the sectarianism inherent in the Order. Besides the Orange Order instructs its members to prevent the intermarriage of Protestants and Roman Catholics, and says its members must have a Protestant spouse (and parents even). There is no political equivalent of this organisation on the nationalist/republican side. It is bizarre that someone commenting on the iniquities of the Ne Temere decree could comment favourably on this moral and political equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan. Complaining about the decline in orangeism is part of the syndrome I mentioned earlier: the tradition is not celebrated allegedly because its adherents are afraid. Their problem really is that Orangeism would be derided as sectarian eccentricity in the South, but most likely ignored. If the Orange Order could manage the minimal courtesy of addressing the relatives of the Garvaghy and Ormeau Roads directly in a meeting, they would solve a lot of their problems. But they are too stupid, too bigoted, and too proud to sit down with their neighbours who they consider to be non-persons. This is the type of behaviour that disgusts their co-religionists in the South. Anyway, how come there is a big Orange march in Donegal every year, which passes off without incident? I looked at the TCD Young Unionist site highly eccentric (claims that Irish people are leading the British way of life [!!??] because they read some British newspapers and watch British television). The site leads off with a quote from Terence ONeill they guy who was dumped by hardliner Chichester Clarke, who was dumped by hardliner Faulkner, who was dumped.. and so on ad infinitum (actually, to be accurate - if also in dubious taste - Faulkner was eventually dumped by his horse). Posted by: Jeremy at October 11, 2003 05:39 PM an orange march in the arsehole of nowhere in donegal (already somwhat remote) is hardly an issue --and passing off peacefully ?? well the Rankin family who were assulted on more than one occassion on their return from it to east donegal might disagree (assults not pursued by the garda as "no evidence" available )They no longer attend. Posted by: barnshee at October 11, 2003 05:59 PM "Besides the Orange Order instructs its members to prevent the intermarriage of Protestants and Roman Catholics," Not quite true....the pledge nowadays says that the member must uphold the Protestant faith and must not marry a non-protestant, which includes atheists....plus loads of stuff like keeping family values, refraining from foul language and uncharitable and unchristian acts against all others, including others of different faiths. Are you sure the CoI refused the parade? The parade at Rossnowlagh in Donegal is definitely a shining example of tolerance and respect. I actually attended this parade for the first time this year, the atmosphere was carnival like and the Gardai were polite and friendly. "moral and political equivalent of the Klu Klux Klan." Certainly they have ALOT of modernisation to do but equating them to the KKK is a nonsense. The KKK skulk anonymously peddling their hate. The OO exists in all english speaking countries and several african countries. Mohawk LOL 99 has been in existence for well over 100 years in Canada. Your knowledge of Orangeism is somewhat lacking. May I suggest you visit Orangenet www.orangenet.org Here are the links to the Cork article again:- Cork Unionism during the period 1919-23 The experience of Unionists in County Donegal during the period 1919-22 Also, fair enough about the removal of the church from the constitution in `73. It still does not change the fact that it was there. The whole point of my posts were that someone asked for evidence "Rome Rule" which Unionists used to justify partition. This material is of course all historical and not really refelctive of the present day Republic which is generally a very pleasant place indeed. Posted by: Alan at October 11, 2003 06:19 PM Alan: is it true that the Republic used to censor books and publications that the RC church disapproved of, or is that just a myth? Posted by: Howard at October 11, 2003 06:37 PM I understand that the correct terminology is simply 'The Church' Howard. : ] Posted by: Udarkhearse at October 11, 2003 06:51 PM Howard Here is one for you: in UCD the Head Librarian used to classify Protestant books under heresies she disappeared off the scene in the 1960s. Books were banned for their sexual content in the main using the loosest possible definition of the term sexual. I am not aware of Censorship Board concern over Protestant literature. See the Orange order material I contributed in relation to McNarry. Posted by: Jeremy at October 11, 2003 06:53 PM Many thanks J for that historical snippit. I understand that TCD, being a copyright library, retained all UK pornographic publications during the period of censorship, and it was possible to access these, upon proof of a scholarly reason. Posted by: Howard at October 11, 2003 07:39 PM Alan To answer your question: no dispute about it. The C of I refused permission for the use of their church on Dawson Street to the Orange Order. I will continue the Orange Order discussion on the McNarry out of Orange Order page. There must be two Orange Orders - the one in your head and the one experienced each year by nationalists. Posted by: Jeremy at October 12, 2003 11:52 AM Hi Jeremey, Actually I agree with you, there are two Orange Orders. The one you see on the tv up around Belfast and then the more rural, social and amicable one. In rural Tyrone the 12th parades work on an a rotational basis, usually with 7 or so venues. This completely dissolves the tension and other cultural events like lambeg drumming, piper competition and rural church`s serving tea and sandwhich`s. Posted by: Alan at October 12, 2003 12:50 PM Alan Is is interesting to have someone who knows about the OO and cares about it. I wonder if you could take ome time out to sketch out your thoughts for the direction you think that the OO should take in the future? In particular it would be great if you could address issues such as: (i) dialogue with residents groups; (ii) outreach to people outside the OO; (iii) depoliticization inclidung separation from the UUP; (iv) reinventing the July 12th celebrations to make them more attractive to a wider range of people. It would also be interesting to know if there is any likelihood of or apetite for such reforms -- i.e. are you optimistic or gloomy for your organization? Posted by: Howard at October 12, 2003 01:15 PM
Or maybe not so strange at all. Posted by: Wing Nut at October 12, 2003 10:02 PM Alan and Howard The Orange Order the tolerant and the intolerant? Here is why I have difficulty with the above classification. If you are prepared to join an organisation that not only states that you must be a member of a Protestant denomination, but that you partner must also be Protestant and that parents must be also, that is showing contempt for the religion of your neighbours and a contempt for the possibility of living a happy life with a member of the other religion. It is just bigoted there is no other word for it. We have had a long discussion of the Ne Temere decree, the edict of a church. This is an edict of a political organisation that deliberately mixes up political affiliation with religious affiliation. We have also been addressing on these pages the attitudes that motivate unionism and the attitudes that motivate unionist paramilitaries. There is a close association between the contemptuous attitudes of the Orange Order towards Roman Catholicism and the murderous attitudes of the sectarian attackers who target their neighbours purely on account of their religion and assumed politics. Generally the marching season and the season of heightened sectarian attacks go together. If you say that there are those in rural areas who are not part of the attacks and the heightened tension, then why dont they speak out? Why dont they admit that here is a cancer at the heart of orangism, just as there is a cancer at the heart of unionism called bigotry and attempt publicly to root it out? (Frankly, though I even find it absurd to write that an organisation whose basis is in bigotry could root out bigotry.) The long association of or orangism with unionism is part of the inability of unionist civil society to grow and to develop, to have the capacity to debate with itself and with others. Authoritarianism is far stronger within unionism than it ever was within nationalist politics. That is why (Howard), I find your comments on the democratic pretensions of orangism way off the mark. The capacity to read the bible in the vernacular and the instigation of public debate (the creation of a reasoning public) are associated. But modern society outgrew the limitations of a literal interpretation of the Bible as a basis for civic development centuries ago. If that were not the case science would have been stultified and we would have no notion of evolutionary development, the age of the earth and the age of the cosmos (to name just a couple of examples). And if you think about it, that is precisely part of the problem with unionist politics. It is rooted in introspection, in literal parsing of ancient religious texts and seeing their earthly representatives (clergy and a monarch) as having a combined role in political and religious development. By definition, anyone who is not part of that religion is seen as suspect. It is why unionist politics is sectarian, why it is in a straightjacket (or why it was referred to as dysfunctional). Since unionism is incapable of liberating itself from this straightjacket, that is why change has had to come in from outside. Posted by: Jeremy at October 12, 2003 11:14 PM
Posted by: Abi D Jeremy Thanks for the information. Quite a remarkable history. Divorce is available after five years (including two years separation). It is 'no-fault'. I would have to look up the exact details (and I will). There is a state funded mediation service and family courts that sit in camera – there is criticism of the latter because it makes it difficult to asses the consistency of decisions and the development of precedent. This may change soon. How does this compare to the UK? On what grounds can divorce be granted, for example? Five years seems excessive. Here is why I have difficulty with the above classification. If you are prepared to join an organisation that not only states that you must be a member of a Protestant denomination, but that you partner must also be Protestant and that parents must be also, that is showing contempt for the religion of your neighbours and a contempt for the possibility of living a happy life with a member of the other religion. It is just bigoted – there is no other word for it. We have had a long discussion of the Ne Temere decree, the edict of a church. People are entitled to hold such views and follow such rules if they freely choose. It is not necessarily bigoted. Is a Jew who seeks only to marry a Jew, bigoted? It is only bigoted if they seek to impose their views on others. Posted by: willowfield at October 13, 2003 11:23 AM Alan The UUP is not linked to the Conservative Party. Posted by: willowfield at October 13, 2003 11:24 AM Willowfield Divorce I agree that five years is excessive The law states that a marriage may be dissolved where In other words, there is no fault attached to either party, no proof is required, apart from evidence of separation and a declaration (by either or both) that reconciliation is not possible. The Constituional provisions are regulated by the FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT 1996 Orange Order People are obviously freely entitled to hold bigoted views and they are freely entitled to set up an organisation to promote those bigoted views. The rest of the populations is free to point out the bigotry and to capmaign against the spread of its influence. Posted by: Jeremy at October 13, 2003 12:05 PM Last sentence should be (typo): The rest of the population is free to point out the bigotry and to campaign against the spread of its influence. Posted by: Jeremy at October 13, 2003 12:09 PM Jeremy Thanks for the further information in respect of divorce. There is a difference of degree between an individual decision only to marry a co-religionist and an organisation making it a condition of membership (alongside the ludicrous provision relating to parents also being of that religion - and indeed that they also were married). Indeed, but it remains entirely a free choice whether an individual decides to join such an organisation. He or she is entirely at liberty not to join, or to leave if he or she wishes to marry a non-Protestant, or someone whose parents were not Protestants. Posted by: willowfield at October 13, 2003 12:23 PM The Roman Catholic Church believes that I, as a member of a Protestant denomination, am not properly a member of the Christian Church. Its policy is also to require its members to send its children to segregated schools. I understand that it encourages (and used to require) its members to use their influence to ensure that the children of mixed marriages are brought up as RC. Is the RC Church bigoted? Posted by: willowfield at October 13, 2003 12:26 PM Wilowfield I have already commented extensively on the iniquities of the Ne Temere decree. See my comment, October 11, 2003 12:25 PM, above (and my next message following) I would say that all churches are bigoted or sectarian in their own defence. The Church of Ireland still holds to a declaration that the Pope is an Anti-Christ (a provision dispensed with by the Church of England). The Pope recently brought forth a declaration that Protestant churches were not churches in the proper sense. All sectarian gibberish if you ask me. The Orange Order on the other hand, is a quasi-religious organisation. In fact it is a political organisation that uses religious prejudice to promote a particular view of nationality. It actively promotes preventing intermarriage between Protestants and Roman Catholics far more vigorously than the Roman Catholic Church. It brings all these prejudices into the political domain, particularly in its membership of the Ulster Unionist Party and in its interminable marches every summer. I dont know why we are even debating this no objective observer of the Orange Order, its rules and activities, has come to any other conclusion other than that it is bigoted and sectarian. Niall Posted by: Jeremy at October 13, 2003 01:01 PM If, by your definition, all churches are bigoted and sectarian, then you are merely being consistent in applying the same description to the Orange Order. Fine. How does it "actively promote" the "prevention of intermarriage", by the way? Posted by: willowfield at October 13, 2003 01:09 PM How does it "actively promote" the "prevention of intermarriage", by the way? Errrr.....if an organisation is as large as the OO, with a significant proportion of Protestant males involved in the Order; and those members are debarred from marrying Catholics (BTW, it *is* just Catholics, isn't it? No problem with marrying Jews, Hindus or Muslims?); and all members must have two Protestant parents then surely (and this is so blindingly obvious I'm sincerely shocked you are even trying to evade it) then the OO acts as a serious disencentive for any young Protestant fella raised in the Order thinking of "playing away from home", dunnit? After all, if he goes and marries a Fenian then not only will he himself have to leave the Order; but his children (even if raised Protestant) will never be able to join. Thus, the OO acts as a powerful cultural brake on any notions of intermingling that might cross a young Prod buck's mind... Posted by: Ciarn Irvine at October 13, 2003 01:33 PM That's not "actively promoting". It's passive discouragement. Posted by: willowfield at October 13, 2003 01:52 PM It is just as effective whatever terminology is utilised. Posted by: Big Mike at October 13, 2003 01:53 PM "passive"??? Given the central presence in the community of the OO the effect of it's rules (and rantings) are anything but "passive"! And don't give me the guff about how the OO isn't all that important really, I grew up in a mostly-Protestant village across the road from the Orange Hall... Funny how you are willing to go on and on and on at great length about all the alleged sins of the GAA, yet seem incapable of countenancing even a mild critique of the OO , its place in society and effect on popular attitudes! Posted by: Ciar n Irvine at October 13, 2003 01:56 PM *Note to self: revisit rules on "its" Vs. "it's"* Posted by: Ciarn Irvine at October 13, 2003 01:58 PM Following on from Ciar n Here is an explanation for my irregular prose. The OO calls on its members to prevent inter-marriage generally between Protestants and Roman Catholics (as well as obviously banning it within its own ranks - which is bad enough). The OO therefore promotes the prevention of intermarriage. According to Alan much earlier, he claims that it is no longer merely Roman Catholics who are barred as marriage partners. The ban is now extended to everyone who is not a Protestant. I am presuming that active promotion of prevention of intermarriage generally among Protestants and Roman Catholics is still in the rules for membership document. Perhaps Alan could advise. Posted by: Jeremy at October 13, 2003 02:01 PM The OO therefore promotes the prevention of intermarriage. Yes, but "actively"? It may be written down that Orangemen are supposed to prevent inter-marriage, but I am unaware of any activities undertaken by Orangemen to this effect. I think Ciarn's "cultural brake" is the best description yet of this situation. Posted by: willowfield at October 13, 2003 02:47 PM Willowfield As the only way to "prevent" something is to do it actively, I am assuming that Orangemen obey their own rules. If they didn't, why then they would be Roman Catholics. That couldn't be right! The Orange Order has its foot firmly and actively on the "cultural brake" that Ciaran mentioned. Posted by: Jeremy at October 13, 2003 04:03 PM I disagree that you can only actively prevent something. Jewish parents, for example, with strong attitudes towards mixed marriages, may passively prevent their son or daughter marrying a non-Jew, simply because their son or daughter does not wish to offend or cause upset. But the parents did not actively do anything. Anyway, the point I was making was in relation to your suggestion that Orangemen are actively preventing inter-marriage in general, and not just among those who are members of the Order. I see no evidence of any such activity. As I already said, I agree regarding the cultural brake. Posted by: willowfield at October 13, 2003 04:28 PM "If you are prepared to join an organisation that not only states that you must be a member of a Protestant denomination, but that you partner must also be Protestant and that parents must be " ???? What The whole purpose of the OO is the continuation and a celebration of the reformed faith particularly in hostile catholic ireland -clearly the "RULES" try to ensure this-membership of the OO is not compulsory if prods don't like the rules don't join. It seems clear to me that an institution dedicated to one religious grouping is unlike to try to attract others ,exactly what is wrong with a religious grouping seeting out "RULES" for membership? Posted by: barnshee at October 13, 2003 04:37 PM i know I'm back tracking a bit here, but the OO thing about marriage is based on '2 uneven oxen not being yoked together' or what ever that version is. (quite common in Christain born again theology) So an OO member shouldnt marry a Catholic, a Jew, a Hindu, a Mormon, a non-born again member of the Protestant tribe from NI. In fact they should *only* marry a born again Christain girl from a reformed denomination. just to put it in context! Posted by: idunnomeself at October 13, 2003 05:14 PM I assumed that the Alan commenting on the OO from October 9, 2003 11:51 PM. is Alan Anderson? However, I see that the e-mail address has changed to wysiwyg@ukonline.co.uk There are obviously too many of us opinionated ones about the place. Posted by: Alan at October 13, 2003 05:47 PM Ok a few points. The UUP has had various connection with the Conservatives over the years including official links. The OO is a fraternal Protestant order, which is unfortunately highly politicised in NI but not the rest of the world. The OO is a voluntary organisation and as such people can and do leave at will. Marriage must be to a person of the Reformed faith, which excludes all other faiths including atheists. My cousin who was Church of Ireland married a Presbyterian. She wanted to be married in the Presbyterian Kirk and in order to do so he had to change to Presbyterianism...... If you are a certain religion and marry someone of another religion then do you truly have faith in your own religion? Surely it would be seen as your christian duty to try and convert the said partner before marriage? If not thenh are you truly of your chosen religion at all? This is common sense since it is a religious fraternity based on the principles of the Reformation and as such in Protestant theology the unscriptual doctrines of the RC church from which the Reformation was born by the likes of Calvin, Knox and Luther many of whom were practising Roman Catholic clergy. Unless you are going to be an atheist marriage to other denominations will cause theological `discussion`...for example mixed marriage in the RC church is still somewhat `taboo`. a muslim man in England recently killed his daughter because she was dating a christian asian man. As I have said previously I believe the OO needs to drop all political elements. This in fact was the basis of the formation of the Independent Orange Order 100 years ago. T Newsletter Posted by: Alan 2 at October 14, 2003 09:09 PM idunnomeself That is quite the most insane explanation I have read for quite some time. Do you take it seriously? I am struck by the total inability of unionists to call a unionist sectarian spade a spade. Oftentimes a poker faced explanation for orange sectarianism is given as the nature of the Roman Catholic religion. In other words, instead of a critique of unionist sectarianism, we get an apologia or rationalisation that justifies it in effect. Posted by: Jeremy at October 16, 2003 05:52 PM It depends entirely on your definition of sectarianism. Almost everyone engages in a form of sectarianism. Is it a coincidence that the chinese guy I work with is married to a chinese lady? Or the catholic people are married to catholics and the Protestants to Protestants and the Portugese people that come into the shop have Portugese girlfriends / wifes? It is only when discrimination and religious / cultural intolerance occurs that it becomes a problem. If people wish to engage in non-threatening sectarianism it is a matter of choice just as many factors come into choosing a partner. It is when the sectarianism is applied with hate towards others that it should be unacceptable. Posted by: Alan 2 at October 16, 2003 06:57 PM Alan 2 It depends entirely on your definition of sectarianism. If you have a definition that includes everything that differentiates one group from another, that is not a definition of sectarianism, it is merely a description of group differentiation. We are addressing the form that religious sectarianism takes in the North of Ireland due to the activities and preponderance of the Orange Order. I am sure that it is a comfort to Orange Order ideologues to think that they are merely doing what everyone does, except in amore organised way. This is just a (stupid but understandable) rationalisation for sectarian behaviour. Almost everyone engages in a form of sectarianism. No they do not. However, almost everyone in membership of the Orange Order engages in a form of sectarianism, merely by virtue of acceding to the sectarian rules of membership. Learning ABC An individual decision by someone to marry a co-religionist, or a person of the same nationality or ethnic or racial group is not necessarily sectarian. It seems so banal to have to point this out. A decision by a political organisation (the Orange Order) that masquerades as a religious organisation to insert in its rules of membership that its members may not be married to a person of another religion (used to be just RCs but hey, lets be global in our sectarianism), that their parents may not be of another religion (just goes to show that the most important choice in life is the choice of ones parents) and that members should seek to prevent marriages among Protestants generally and Roman Catholics IS DEFINITELY SECTARIAN. (I wrote that in big letters just in case anyone had difficulty understanding.) The other Orange Order rules about never darkening the door of an RC church (avoiding the fatal errors and doctrines of the Church of Rome) and against RCs enjoying a dance or playing games on Sunday are equally offensive and, yes, sectarian. And, by the way, the decision only to support the sovereign BEING PROTESTANT (the OOs caps this time) is also sectarian. Posted by: Jeremy at October 17, 2003 03:50 PM Dictionary.com give sectarian ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sk-tr-n) Posted by: Howard at October 17, 2003 04:05 PM Alan 2 The UUP has had various connection with the Conservatives over the years including official links. Yeah, I know, but you said the parties were currently linked. They're not. Jeremy Have you discovered any examples yet of Orangemen "actively preventing" inter-marriage among people outside the Orange Order? Posted by: willowfield at October 17, 2003 04:20 PM Howard Couldn't have put it better myself. The orange Order is a sect organised for the purpose of promoting religious sectarianism in politics. Posted by: Jeremy at October 17, 2003 04:26 PM Malachi O'Doherty is interesting in his invocation of Cardinal Tomas O'Fiaich, who he suggests: "...defined the mechanics of sectarianism in Northern Ireland for many when he said that Protestants were more sectarian in religion and Catholics were more sectarian in politics." Posted by: Mick at October 17, 2003 04:30 PM Alan2, interesting lift from the newsletter re the grand Master of the I LOL: "While nationalist Lord Mayor Martin Morgan hosted the event, Grand Master George Dawson said the ancient tribe had no time for politics. "We are essentially an organisation to defend Protestantism and have no affiliation with unionism,'' he said. "We are also very happy to engage with those who are not part of our institution but who are willing to learn more about us,'' Mr Dawson added. He said the Independent Loyal Orange Institution was formed in 1903 by those who opposed the Orange Order being used for party political ends by unscrupulous politicians."
Posted by: Larneman at October 17, 2003 04:31 PM Jeremy Have you discovered any examples yet of Orangemen "actively preventing" inter-marriage among people outside the Orange Order? Posted by: willowfield at October 17, 2003 04:43 PM Willowfield It says it in the rules. How much more do you want? Since it is also excluded by membership of the OO (do you set this aside as a mere detail?) this is pretty active prevention of inter-marriage. I am doing my best to address the man and not the ball, the principle and not the person, etc, etc, (Mick's rules), but really, there comes a point........ How much more are we required to labour this issue? Posted by: Jeremy at October 17, 2003 05:02 PM "I am doing my best to address the man and not the ball" That is a very candid admission. Posted by: Howard at October 17, 2003 05:03 PM Mick "[Cardinal Tomas O'Fiaich]...defined the mechanics of sectarianism in Northern Ireland for many when he said that Protestants were more sectarian in religion and Catholics were more sectarian in politics." The meaning of the above is that nationalists are little concerned about the religion of a candidate for office. They are interested in his/her politics. Unionists operate on the basis largely of religious sectarianism - they are interested in the religion of the candidate as a major consideration because unionism is conceived as a means of protecting and promoting Protestantism. Leading nationalists have been Protestants (Ivan Cooper, the late John Turnley) and there are no elected clerics. Unionists elect an assortment of clerics. The UUP cannot allow an RC priest to do the prayers at Ulster Unionist Council meetings (a strange practice for a political party I know, but only a Protestant can do it, with all the OO members in the room). I heard O Fiaich make the statement on radio and his explanation for it. Posted by: Jeremy at October 17, 2003 05:17 PM |
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.sluggerotoole.com/nav-commenters.gif)