Agreed Ireland Revisionism

Sean Bresnahan guest writes a piece that examines the thinking behind the 'agreed Ireland' concept that has reemerged in Sinn Fein discourse.

Seanna Walsh stated just the other night on the BBC's 'The View' that the Hunger strikers died for an 'agreed Ireland', the phraseology here being reminiscent of the vagary of language used to coax the republican rank and file down the road that eventually led to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and used to present this Agreement itself as some form of successful outcome to the long war that preceded it.


As someone who was involved in the Blanket Protest and endured all the hardship of H-Block then to the casual observer his would be an authoritative voice here. But the question surely arises did Bobby Sands and his nine comrades really die for this agreed Ireland Seanna speaks of, presumably represented by the negotiated, agreed settlement best known as the Good Friday Agreement, or is this a revisionist attempt by Sinn Fein to paint out the reality that what they do and represent today has little semblance to what they stood for all through the course of the Troubles and indeed at the time of the 1981 Hunger strikes?

In essence we're asking then just what was the Provisional campaign all about and to what extent can the current political process to which its leadership now subscribes in any way be described as a victory for that same campaign? It's fair to say that the republican movement in its most recent guise drew much of its political dynamic and sustenance from the grievances of the northern Catholic community, even though the movement itself was the profession of a higher, historical purpose deriving from the ideal of national liberation? But was the Provisional campaign then about achieving rights denied or were we striving to achieve a wholly different and new republic?

Republicanism has historically been about breaking the political connection with Britain, held to be an occupying colonial power, in order to establish a democratic and radical republic on this island. It has always been considered that the prerequisite of any such a republic would be national liberation and it is to both of these objects that republicans, both historically and in the context of the Provisionals in the most recent stage of the Irish struggle, set about the pursuit of their aims and goals.

The sine qua non for establishing the Republic then has always been held as the expulsion of the foreign, colonial, imperial, monarchistic power. As Tommy McKearney once told me many years ago you can't build from the ground up without demolishing the old building, you can only renovate and refurbish what's already there. In layman's terms the Brits had to go and this was the starting point of all that we hoped to achieve. Although the dynamic was not purely 'Brits Out' a British withdrawal was still held to be the determining, transformative action required for the establishment of true social and economic justice consistent with the ideals of Irish republicanism as historically understood and held to be the guiding principles of the Democratic Republic itself.

The politics of the Provisional movement today stand in complete contradiction to almost everything it represented prior to the ceasefires.The entire thrust of the movement, while yes addressing the socio-economic discrimination ranged against the Catholic community in the north, was about abolishing the partition system and replacing it with the Democratic Republic. It was only in this context that social and economic injustice could be overcome and not by acceptance and reform of the northern state, the latter position long being that of the SDLP who indeed were demonised for this very assertion.

Fundamental to Provisional thinking was the notion that a minority on the island who formed a majority within the occupied state should not be allowed to dictate the constitutional arrangements for all of the country, this was held to be anathema in terms of what the Provisionals were all about and indeed this was one of the defining arguments used to rationalise the war. Calls today for a border poll, a mechanism internal to the six-counties which does not consider the legitimate opinion of all on the island of Ireland, are inconsistent with the republican struggle and indeed Mitchell McLaughlin's canny acknowledgement that Sinn Fein would accept the legitimacy of the result of any such internal border poll demonstrates clearly how far Sinn Fein have moved from their original position. For the Provo's just such a move on republicanism's part was held as heresy, indeed in some quarters it was considered as treachery. Yet Sinn Fein in the cold light of day has now come to accept and to operate a policy that holds a once artificial majority now as legitimate and has at its crux the notion that they can transform the status quo by reforming it. Their presence at the heart of the Northern Ireland administration at Stormont demonstrates that unequivocally.

They have come to accept the legitimacy of the status quo, albeit are formed, 'agreed' version of that status quo, and believe that by recognising it and participating in it, indeed by propping it up, that they can somehow bring about its demise.

It's fair to say that Seanna Walsh and the party he represents are attempting to subvert the historical narrative of the armed struggle to suit their own purposes, tailoring that history to provide some form of positive outcome for the Provisional campaign by placing it in the context of a struggle related primarily to the position and empowerment of the minority Catholic community within the six-counties as opposed to an uprising against and for the ending of the very occupation itself. This revisionism helps disguise the ultimate defeat of the Provisional movement and how it came to accept what amounts to an internal settlement, accommodating themselves to the parliamentary status quo - albeit as we hear it referred to now as an agreed settlement, an agreed Ireland. Agreed Ireland or not it remains the status quo and as such is contrary to republican principles.

In truth now the Sinn Fein party is no longer working to a republican agenda, they are basically constitutional nationalists, an establishment party ultimately no different to SDLP, Fianna Fáil or even Fine Gael, firmly within the constitutional consensus. All this amounts to not only a strategic aberration but more importantly a complete ideological break with the past. Britain has largely achieved its aims in Ireland with this settlement, that this necessitated co-opting their sworn enemy is inconsequential to them. Ireland - north and south - is nothing but that same province of the British empire that it has been for centuries. This was certainly not what those who gave their life's blood in the cause of Ireland set out to achieve, the Hunger strikers did not die for an agreed Ireland in which Britain remains boss and sovereignty remains denied.

All-in-all, while Seanna Walsh and the movement to which he belongs once spearheaded what we can define as the republican struggle, it's fair to say that they do so no longer. The goals they set out to achieve have been abandoned to compromise, to a place within the enemy British system they set out to destroy. There can be no consistency between what Irish republicanism has stood for down through the years and what we witness up at Stormont today - administering British rule can in no way be dressed up as a victory and the attainment of what the Hunger strikers, and yes indeed Seanna Walsh himself, set out to achieve, to what they dedicated their hearts and minds to when they joined the Republican Movement and set about the freedom of their land. As far as I'm concerned that's not up for debate, that history, try as they may, can never be re-written.

Bobby Sands famously declared:

there can never be peace in Ireland until the foreign, oppressive British presence is removed, leaving all the Irish people as a unit to control their own affairs and determine their own destinies as a sovereign people, free in mind and body, separate and distinct physically, culturally and economically. 

We have a long way to go before this man's ideals, aims and objectives can be said to have been achieved, for such things can only be found in the sovereign, democratic, and re-unified republic he fought and died for.

26 comments:

  1. Sean does not seem to have accepted the fact that six men were allowed to die needlessly on hungerstrike in order to promote a political agenda,which even as far back as 81 must have had an internal settlement or sell out as part of the overall package,hence the ditching of the old guard like O,Brádaigh and O,Conaill,the so called internal debates on abstentionism were merely for the optics and an illusion to bring along the grassroots with the notion that they had influence within the movement, all the major decisions that have been taken over the last thirty plus years have been inspired by agents of influence ,the catholic church ,business men ,American wannabes, John Hume and uncle Tom Cobley and all in fact everybody except the Seanna Walshs.from the 80,s the PRM was being remoulded , re branded and regrouped to become the quislings we now see today infesting Stormont,aided and abetted by the touts and other agents such as Donaldson,the PRM has evolved into the PRM PLC and Seanna Walsh has become CEO Political Tours,what a fucking waste of life and liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sean well constructed piece on the transformation of a once selfless struggle into what now can only be perceived as a selfish one which in it's latter yeasr became fuelled by self promotion and greed under the guise of a 32 county condtituional approach!


    'In truth now the Sinn Fein party is no longer working to a republican agenda, they are basically constitutional nationalists, an establishment party ultimately no different to SDLP, Fianna Fáil or even Fine Gael, firmly within the constitutional consensus.'................
    Your following quote could replaced by two words 'SELL OUT'.

    Watching the drama unfold up @ Stormont HQ yesterday, the whole bluster around the PSF's GFA rhetoric was cynically un-masked to theunsuspecting eye as literally amounting to obtaining 'jobs for the boys'. But this very much further from the reality. It is too simplistic to adopt the approach that 40 years of struggle amounted to personal greed and egos. But thanks to the 5th columnist revionists through their indoctrination media platforms, the powers that be have successfully achieved their goal of instilling in the minds of the masses the notion of a 'normalised' society and all it's perceived perks. The 'struggle' for Irish unity has been 'criminalised' not only by cherry picking events from the past but by highlighting the crminal indiscretions of the Republican 'dissidents' of today.
    I was most saddened by the manipulation of Ann Travers in all of this by the unionists and their Whitehall puppets. We have now stooped to using all victims as politcal psawns to maintain the Stormont charade. Jim Allister's pulpit like speech sickened me to the pit of my stomach especially when he mentioned calling the bill, Ann's Law! Surely, if he was genuinely concerned should he not of proposed to call it after her sister Mary that was killed???

    It is not good enough for Sinn Fein to use the SDLP as a scapegoat for this. This all started when they sat in Dundalk and deliberated on which of the OTR's would be deemed 'suitable' in the eyes of their British paymasters to return.

    Martin McGuinness will not take down Stormont over this issue. His interview last night spelled out that they will be using the SDLP as scapegoats and dragging the bill before the European courts will just put the issue on the long finger and in the mean time something new will be concocted to grab our attention...ironically they R hoping that the Sands of time will come to their rescue..

    ReplyDelete
  3. Marty, Seán Bres
    Whole heartedly agree with what you write but it needs to be clarified at all times that the current leadership has been completely compromised and are operating as British agents. Many have been so for many years while others who hold posts within the leadership have recently been compromised and that is why it is hard to stomach never mind fathom, Republicans espousing the tripe preached by Adams and McGuinness et al. It is the tripe of Britain that they are espousing NOT Irish Republicanism and when you accept that you fully understand why it rolls off their tongues so easily. So what do we do about this? Marty this was once yours and my Movement and once theirs but when you cross over to Britain you leave it behind…it’s time to take it back and the current British leadership of SF/MI5 needs to go…..they must be removed…right across the board.
    Seanna is an agent just like the rest and the sooner we all come to realise this, the better and the quicker we can do something about it. The time for sitting back and pointing the finger has long since passed…let’s not try and compete with them, the days of my Irish Republicanism is better than yours are long over……let’s fuck’n remove them and take our Movement back.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Niall,

    the anger is palpable here and understandable. But I think you need to define what is meant by agent. I think the term loses value when it is used to describe them all. I think there is a strong need to differentiate between those consciously working for the other side - people who have been turned and are handled by members of the British state apparatus - and those who push the SF line. It would take a very loose definition of the term for it to be aplied across the board to the latter.

    There are many things that can be hurled the way of Seanna given the perspective he pushes but I doubt very much if the label agent fits.

    It is a term that should be used tightly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In essence we're asking then just what was the Provisional campaign all about and to what extent can the current political process to which its leadership now subscribes in any way be described as a victory......
    In answer, of course it was a victory, at least for certain people who prosecuted the war to some extent and now live, detached from their people as well as reality up on the hill or in Kildare St. it was an economic victory (the way the free-state opinion polls are presently going it may be a political victory too soon)
    I was thinking on this this morning driving past the airport listening to Anthony but thinking, why are RTE not interviewing the leader of Sinn Féin re: the Boston College Tapes?
    I know what I thought in 1980-81 et seq. I haven't changed either but the world round me has and No, what Bobby, Francis, Tommy, Dessie, yourself and all the others fought for will not be realised by their well fed political wing!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great piece Sean.

    Wonder what mick henry has to say about this...

    Sinn Fein Mayor will not remove Royal portraits

    The newly-appointed Sinn Fein Mayor of Belfast has said he will not remove Royal portraits from his parlour at City Hall.

    Mairtin O Muilleoir, who was chosen to replace the DUP’s Gavin Robinson on Monday night, will not follow the actions of his party colleague Niall O’Donnghaile who in 2012 sparked controversy by removing portraits of the Queen mother and Prince Charles from the Mayor’s parlour

    http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/latest/sinn-fein-mayor-will-not-remove-royal-portraits-1-5151777

    ReplyDelete
  7. The central point I was trying to make was that the idea of the Hungerstrikers dying for the type of 'agreed Ireland' represented by what goes on today is pure and utter rubbish, if that's gotten lost in translation then I'll have to be more careful with how I write in future. But when it comes to this sort of thing it's worth remembering that plenty of people will fall for this line hook, line and sinker, that's what concerns me. All I attempted to do was to demonstrate to any of those same people by chance looking in on this site the reality of how the past is being manipulated, I thought the point was clear but obviously I was wrong.

    Marty I don't quite understand how you come to the conclusion that I don't accept the narrative of the 55 hours and the O'Rawe account of the Hungerstrikes we've been discussing lately from what I wrote, for sure it could have been mentioned but that wasn't the context or the argument I was trying to make. It wasn't really intended to be about the Hungerstrikes but more about the revision of the armed struggle to suit the needs of today. For sure I agree with the basis of everything you say but that would be a different type of article entirely than what I set out to achieve. As I say it wasn't so much about the Hungerstrikes, agents of influence, touts, sell-outs and all that but more how these people are getting away with warping the context of the armed struggle, its aims and objectives. Being honest I thought it was something you'd appreciate but I can understand these things get you angry and rightly so.

    Anthony I'd go along with what you've said there, we certainly have to be careful about the language and accusations we use against people - not least for our own credibility. It's fine when you're preaching to the converted but you have to consider those looking on who we're trying to bring round to our analysis and who perhaps don't necessarily know exactly what's being talked about or might not be ready to hear that sort of thing just yet. Some may feel they shouldn't need told but I think they're the type of people we need to be convincing if we're to break the glass ceiling.

    Ultimately I'd agree with menace and Fenian here, nothing will be achieved by this well-fed political wing of the sold out republican army who as Marty says are a total disgrace to everything they once stood for. Like everyone else I just want to try and make sure they don't get away scot free and are challenged on their lies. They will come back to bite them big style - it's just round the corner

    ReplyDelete
  8. Martybroy O Millionaire the Balmoral based socialist successful businessman( Daily Ireland) and bum boy of Gerry Itwasntme will be well at home in the royal bedecked Mayoral suite,afterall Martybroy is as british as Finchley.its a common trait found among that species called carpetbaggers,the lack of any sense of principle or guilt makes fitting in to unionist mode as easy as robbing the Northern bank...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dixie-

    And there was still a loyalist protest outside City hall because Mairtin O
    Muilleoir got the chain of office-no pleasing some people-

    I am sure you never supported Niall
    O'Donnghaile when he removed those royal portraits- Mairtin is just doing it his way-with a picture of the 1916 Proclamation also now in the Mayor's parlour-

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sean Bres,

    all pretty clear to me. Well argued and potent.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "out of the ashes arose the provos" i wish someone would stick half of them back into the flames.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ray McCartney was on TV last week talking about Marian being released when he was asked about the "Charges" she still faced, and he replied that anybody "Charged" should face the "due process", this re-enforces the articles point that PSF have revised the Armed Struggle and what it was about, to actually supporting British Rule in Ireland, PSF actually totally support the no-jury courts when they say people should face the due process in these no-jury courts. Maybe I have it wrong and it is the tone and not the content I didn't understand from what Ray said............

    ReplyDelete
  13. AM
    Those who push and administer British policy in Ireland are consciously working for the British and my use of the term agent is to be applied in the true meaning of the word. There are those within SF/MI5 who have been agents for quite some time and there are those who are new to the game. Together they are all now pushing the British line.
    From an Irish Republican perspective the policies of the leadership of SF/MI5 is so illogical and far from reality that the only conclusion is that there must be ulterior influences and that can only mean one thing – touts, agents, agents of influence, whatever you want to call them. My use of the term is for the leadership, the think tank, the policy makers and those who propagate that line for they are the select few who drive the bus and in my opinion there is only one criteria to be allowed on that bus.
    Why would Seanna be any different? His Republican record or credentials would surely lead him away from giving support to such an anti-republican stance – but the reality is they don’t!

    ReplyDelete
  14. AM
    Those who push and administer British policy in Ireland are consciously working for the British and my use of the term agent is to be applied in the true meaning of the word. There are those within SF/MI5 who have been agents for quite some time and there are those who are new to the game. Together they are all now pushing the British line.
    From an Irish Republican perspective the policies of the leadership of SF/MI5 is so illogical and far from reality that the only conclusion is that there must be ulterior influences and that can only mean one thing – touts, agents, agents of influence, whatever you want to call them. My use of the term is for the leadership, the think tank, the policy makers and those who propagate that line for they are the select few who drive the bus and in my opinion there is only one criteria to be allowed on that bus.
    Why would Seanna be any different? His Republican record or credentials would surely lead him away from giving support to such an anti-republican stance – but the reality is they don’t!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Seán bres,
    Thanks for deigning me an indirect response!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Niall,

    it is a definition that most would not subscribe to because it is too loose. Agent has a very specific meaning in historical context in which we operate and is much tighter than your application.

    Even within the think tank or the upper echelons they are not all agents although a number without doubt are. It is much the same as the Sticks - while we were critical of their leaders like Goulding/Garland et al we do not classify them all as agents.

    The case you bring against Seanna is that he holds to a belief system that we utterly reject. That makes him a few things but hardly an agent. The sobering thought here is that there must be some among the hunger strikers, had they survived, who would have taken the position of Seanna. It doesn't break down along the lines of agent/good guy. It is too easily applied but ignores so much else. We would need to radically alter our definition of agent before we could apply it to them all.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sitting with the British Police daily talking about how to tackle the problem of an active growing irish republicanism base makes you an agent of the British state in book no matter how they dress it up.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Apologies Niall, didn't mean to insult you at all. When I'm writing my comments it's usually on my tae-break or when I get a minute on the QT if the boss-man's not around - so it mightn't all be as thought out and considered as it might be if I wasn't tight for time. Even now I'm in the car on the way home from Belfast. The fact I'm using a phone also makes it more difficult to proof-read back over things. There was a lot to go through but yeah I should have responded to you directly so sincerely sorry for that.

    As far as the line you're pursuing for sure I get what you mean, specially now you've clarified that it's more the leadership your referring to. However I still think such language needs to be used sparingly or we devalue the true meaning of what it is to be a British agent, just my opinion. For sure the Sinn Fein leadership are all working for the British government but as Mackers says the term agent has a different connotation in the Irish context. I've no doubt there are still people within Sinn Fein who like Donaldson and Scap were doubles for British intelligence but we can hardly say this applies to them all. By the same token like yourself I've absolutely no time for any of them, as I said they're a total disgrace. You're dead right they're all in the pay and doing the bidding of the very occupation they set out to remove. What's worse there are plenty falling over themselves to get ahead within the party, to get into British Stormont of course being the highlight, that's all that matters now - republicanism plays second fiddle to that and I've seen it with my own eyes.

    Our job is to make sure they don't get a free run at poisoning another generation with their revisionist bullshit lies that are nothing but an attempt to disguise the absolute sell-out of everything we once stood for. In that respect it's important to maintain a degree of credibility with those we're trying to bring round to our way of thinking and so we must be more clear in the language and definitions we use. We have all the arguments to take these people to the cleaners but if we're too focused on attacking them in an out-and-out manner then we run the risk of putting people off or being discredited as simply Sinn Fein-haters. If we're more careful with our approach it's harder for them to dismiss us in that way.

    Anyway hope you know what I mean, not getting at anybody for calling them names, at the end of the day you can call them whatever you like. I can think of plenty but think we could better serve what we're trying to achieve by being more succinct. Perhaps I'm too soft

    ReplyDelete
  19. AM
    The actions and words of those at the top, illogical where Irish Republicanism is concerned, led me to make that claim and I don’t use it loosely at al. By compromising the leadership the British can dictate the party policy and also dictate who holds what position within that party and hence the long-term lack of change with the upper echelons.
    Seanna may hold a belief system that we reject but it’s not as if he always held that belief system – in fact we once held the same beliefs but he has taken an about turn. My claim of him being an agent is based on what makes someone with his history choose such a path? As for those among the hunger strikers who would have taken a similar path – believe it or not but Raymond McCartney survived (and although as claimed by many to be brain dead) he is a prime example of what you speak off. Do I believe that he also is an agent? My answer to that is yes. His fervent embracement of the completely illogical policies of SF/MI5 coupled with the velocity of his rise within the party scream out that something is amiss. Like Seanna, his history now plays no part or holds no value in his current stance which is a complete contradiction to what he once hungered for and which could through debate be excused by a lack of intelligence although I discount that. The position of agent/good guy is not the simplistic vision that I wanted to convey as there are quite a few bastards within the republican Movement that aren’t good guys but certainly aren’t agents either. I stand over my statement and apply it to the full historical meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Seán Bres,
    Apology accepted!
    We will always counter what SF/MI5 has to say because their position is so illogical. The reason as to why it is so illogical is what concerns me, not countering their untenable argument.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Niall,

    while there is a logic to your argument it still requires stretching the concept of agent too much to make it fit.

    While most critics view Raymond as someone who has abandoned everything he ever believed in they would not subscribe to the agent term because for a person to be an agent in the standard definition there would have to be a turning by the other side followed by an agent handler relationship. We have no evidence of that.

    ReplyDelete
  22. AM,
    The street slang term 'tout' is a blight upon modern day Republicanism. When once it was confined to those who were paid £10's for info on the ground it is now used carte blanche to include Sinn Feiner's, former PIRA, dissidents Republican elements and basically anyone who disagrees with conventional thinking. It's derogatory blanket use these days reminds me of the old slogan 'loose tongues cause lives'.i.e. unsubstantiated allegations.
    But the 'dirt war' was not won by the Brits with just '£10 touts', agents provocateurs, agents of influence and forms of coercion were deployed to great effect.
    This whole mass hysterical suspicion kicked of after the 'J118' allegations and because Martin McGuinness, HIMSELF, has yet to publicly deny them it has been open season with unsubstantiated allegations ever since..

    ReplyDelete
  23. Fenian,

    I think the term has limited use when applied so widely. It reminds me of the old truism what 'when everybody is somebody nobody is anybody.'

    I think McGuinness described the J118 allegation as a load of old hooey.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sorry for the late response but other things have taken precedence. I don’t believe I am stretching the concept that far as I am restricting it to being applied to a few at the top and not therefor invoking it’s wide spread use where I agree if done so it would become valueless and meaningless and so would the value of the person who did so.

    If you are invited to sup at the top table you are of a similar mind otherwise you wouldn't be invited and also to reduce the risk of a future spanner in the works it is very clear just how similar the minds are. When was the last time any member of the top table publicly criticised a policy development? It is unrealistic and unheard off in any political structure for all of the top table to be singing for so long of the same hymn sheet and all in tune together!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    There is no evidence of a turning or an agent handler relationship for the others at the top table, and there never is until the agent is challenged. That is most likely to do with the common theme of not publicly announcing such developments!!! There are many of the top table without the evidence of turning or handler?

    Scappattici and Donaldson only came to light through other developments and for Scappattici many thought ‘agent’ long before his public outing….I don’t know about Donaldson but what I do know is this,
    If more people were to look at what is done and said and take their heads out of their arses, people like Scappattici and Donaldson wouldn’t have run for so long as they had. I’m not stating that where there is doubt we should label first and then challenge but we should be looking away from the attitude of ‘he’s a good spud so no way would he be one’ and challenging more on actions and words….Donaldson and Scappattici have at least accentuated that a person’s past should not be allowed to cloud judgement.
    I do fully understand that you have, as a journalist / not a journalist and writer, a degree of credibility and responsibility to maintain, and cannot publicly be seen to make the statements that I have made without the ability to stand over them with hard evidence otherwise your professional persona would suffer greatly and also, less we forget, as a person, you do have the right to disagree just like anyone else but in my opinion I am able to make such staements as there is more reality to suggest ‘agent’ than evidence to dispel doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Niall,

    I am restricting it to being applied to a few at the top

    But how few is the few at the top? What puts raymond and Seanna at the top? IF they are then there would seem to be quite a wide band supporting many rather than the ‘few’ you refer to. Every MLA or ard chomairle or army council member? Why would the state need that many?
    If you are invited to sup at the top table you are of a similar mind otherwise you wouldn't be invited and also to reduce the risk of a future spanner in the works it is very clear just how similar the minds are.
    Which might tell us more about the anonymous pressure of the group, the yes man factor and the degree of conformity rather than any agent status.
    It is unrealistic and unheard off in any political structure for all of the top table to be singing for so long of the same hymn sheet and all in tune together
    North Korea. It is a standard feature of totalitarian/authoritarian parties. 

And while there is no evidence all we are left with is supposition and suggestion. 

I doubt, being the sceptics we are, that any body on this blog is susceptible to the good spud perspective. Many of the good spuds are pretty rotten. But being rotten and being an agent does not amount to the same thing.
    Being a journalist has nothing to do with my stance. In fact when merited I have said much harsher things than you have said here. But I don’t say what I don’t believe to be true. I can offer a genuinely held belief on certain things and it is my view that a substantial number of them are agents, but not them all.

    And even people who are not journalists but contribute to public commentary remain under obligation not to wrongly accuse in order to make their case.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Niall,

    I believe blanketing everyone in the upper echelons of the Sinn Fein/PIRA movement as alleged 'touts' etc is taking a far too simplistic approach to explaining the failures of 40 years of struggle.

    The reasons we have arrived at this point is much more complex than purely focusing on the role of alleged 'touts & agents of influence (as discussed on a previous thread on TPQ).

    Castro said in 1959;

    "I began the revolution with 82 men. If I had to do it again, I would do it with 10 or 15 and absolute faith. It does not matter how small you are if you have faith and a plan of action."

    The troubles and re-emergence of Republican militancy was thrust upon nationalist/Republicanism as a last resort scenario in the face of British oppression. Was it essentially a knee-jerk reaction to discrimination that existed rather than overwhelming yearn to be re-united with the 26. The integration of the Irish unity strategy was developed in line with events as they happened.

    So when it came to the nitty gritty of the GFA negotiations etc we must ask the question, Did the collective depth of faith & plan of action in achieving a united actually exist?? Or did the 'half way house' of the promise of a pseudo parity of esteem (which the Civil Rights movement would have achieved) provide a convenient get out clause??

    The complexity of the different strands of the Struggle and how they influenced the outcome of the Struggle, Colonial RULE administered by our own people via Stormont), may never be unraveled, but the onus is on our generation to at least try. If not for the sake of future progress but at least for the memories of our Fenian dead and what their dreams and aspirations! Beir Bua!

    ReplyDelete