Des Dalton doesn't think much of recent commentary on an award winning book on the Northern conflict. 

Danny Morrison recently used his blog to platform a review by his “friend” Irish - American writer Timothy O’Grady of Patrick Radden Keefe’s book Say Nothing. The book review was merely a front to launch yet another attack on Dr Anthony McIntyre.

The perverse obsession that senior and former senior members of Provisional Sinn Féin have with Anthony McIntyre is almost inexplicable. Inexplicable when one considers that since at least 1986 there have been a raft of former senior members of the Provisional Movement who have been willing to put their head above the parapet and challenge the various political somersaults performed by what, for the sake of convenience, I will call the Gerry Adams leadership.

Many of these people were serious players within the Republican Movement at both political and military level, in some cases both. Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, Dolours Price, Brendan Hughes, Richard O’Rawe, Tommy McKearney etc. Consequently, what they had to say carried considerable weight. While to a greater or lesser extent many of these people faced a backlash from the Adams camp – one has only to read Richard O’Rawe’s book Afterlives to get a glimpse of the high personal price he paid for exposing the truth of the 1981 hunger strikes – none have faced the same level of sustained attack, physical threat, and character assassination as that endured by Anthony McIntyre over the course of two decades. 

I say it is almost inexplicable because there is an obvious reason that McIntyre has been the primary target of their malevolent spleen for so long. It is that he has consistently challenged Provisional Sinn Féin’s historical narrative of the 1969 to 1997 war. A narrative carefully constructed over many years by Adams and his close acolytes. Not only did he challenge that narrative but crucially he set out to ensure that the voices of those republican activists who had fought the war would have their narrative preserved and placed on the historical record through his work on the Boston College Project.

The story of the conflict as told by the veterans interviewed by Anthony McIntyre challenged the narrative advanced by Gerry Adams and those close to him. For Provisional Sinn Féin this was the ultimate heresy. And Anthony McIntyre’s punishment for committing this mortal sin was to have calumny cast on his good name, his professional integrity impugned, to be cast into the outer darkness. Thus, all who took it upon themselves to question the historical orthodoxy handed down by the “Great Leader” would be duly warned as to the fate that awaited them.

Danny Morrison introduces the book review by launching a disingenuous attack on the integrity of Anthony McIntyre and the other researchers involved in the Boston College Project. Danny Morrison knows only too well that nobody was “encouraged to incriminate themselves” by taking part in the collection of what was a legitimate and academically sound attempt to gather an oral history of the 1969-97 conflict. If the architects and researchers of the Boston College interviews are guilty of anything it is that they accepted in good faith the narrative peddled by Danny Morrison’s erstwhile political masters that “the war was over” and there was now a new political dispensation for all, including former combatants.

Unfortunately, the British Government had other ideas. Their war certainly was not over as they have shown with their relentless pursuit of veteran republican activists over the intervening years. The much-lauded release of prisoners was of course under licence, licences which could be revoked at the pleasure of the British “Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.” For those serving life sentences their release remains on permanent license. The message to the troops was clear:

Stick to the political programme of Adams and his “Kitchen Cabinet” and you will not be touched, we may even get you a job. Step outside and deign to question the “tablets of stone” or “Good Friday Agreement”, to stick with the biblical and religious imagery so beloved of the “peace processors”, then you would find yourself out in the cold. Or in some cases back behind bars. 

Unlike the release of prisoners following previous IRA campaigns since 1921, this one had strings attached. All with the connivance of those who claimed to be the leaders of republicanism. Unlike other theatres of conflict such as South Africa where similar projects have been launched to collect the testimony of former combatants, here the fundamental causes of the conflict have not been resolved.

Timothy O’Grady for whatever reason takes it upon himself, under the guise of a book review, to launch what is but the latest in a long line of such attacks on Anthony McIntyre and the Boston College Project. Not for the first time the basis of this latest attack is both spurious and laced with a particularly nasty and snide attempt to smear Anthony McIntyre. He has two primary criticisms of the project, the first of which is that the interviewees were chosen solely because of their opposition to the so-called ‘Peace Process.’

Unlike Timothy O’Grady I will not attempt to second guess the criteria used to select either Republican or Loyalist interviewees. What I will say is that as a criticism it does not stack up. If indeed Anthony McIntyre and the other researchers did select Republican interviewees on that basis it does not delegitimise the integrity of the project. In the Post-Civil War period, the nascent Free State were determined to not only remove Republicans from all aspects of public life, but also to erase their narrative from any account of the 1916-23 period. In the 1930s and ‘40s Ernie O’Malley sought to counter this by conducting interviews with IRA veterans from across Ireland, the vast majority of whom opposed the 1921 Treaty. Similarly, in the immediate aftermath of the 1998 Belfast Agreement the voices of those republicans opposed to it were marginalised. The likelihood is that their narrative would be similarly ignored or at best given token representation when it came to the recording of the post-1969 conflict. 

The winners after all get to write the history. If like Ernie O’Malley, Anthony McIntyre and his colleagues sought to ensure that these veterans, who represented an authentic traditional Irish Republican viewpoint, would have their voices preserved on the historical record, then that was a perfectly legitimate criteria to use in the selection of interviewees. Rather than being subjects of attack and misrepresentation, he and his colleagues should be lauded for their efforts.

Such conflicts over historical narrative and whose story gets told are not unique to Ireland. In The aftermath of the World War II the French Government established two committees, later merged in 1952 to form The Committee on the History of the Second Word War (Comité d’histoire de la deuxième guerre mondiale; CH2GM), which between 1945 and 1947 collected over 2,000 testimonies of French Resistance veterans. Even in a context where the common enemy had been decisively defeated and French sovereignty fully restored there was still conflict about contesting narratives of the resistance. Veterans of the Communist Resistance protested that their accounts were being marginalised and only given token recognition in the official Gaullist account of the war.

Timothy O’Grady’s second main criticism turns on the fact that no British soldiers or members of the RUC were interviewed. From this he deduces that the entire project presents the conflict as one motivated by sectarianism rather than a war of national liberation. He presents no evidence to back up such a sweeping judgement. Not content with smearing the project and the content of the interviews with the taint of sectarianism he makes a snide attempt to lay the same charge at Anthony McIntyre’s door. Character assassination and smear is a long-standing weapon of choice for Provisional Sinn Féin when dealing with people who challenge them. Frankly, it is sad to see Timothy O’Grady, whose previous work, notably Curious Journey (a series of interviews with veterans of the 1916-23) I would have admired, tarnish his reputation by employing such base methods rather than engaging in robust and honest critical analysis.

Provisional Sinn Féin is grappling with its own contradictions, which gives the battle over memory and whose story gets to be told an added potency. On the one hand it wants to hold on to its traditional Republican base as well denying legitimacy to those Republicans who do not support them. This involves paying lip service to their Republican past, doing the rounds of commemorations with the customary speeches to the faithful. But here is the crux. These events can often cause offence to other constituencies that they are trying to cultivate, including actual and potential partners in government, such as the DUP in the Six Counties and Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in the 26 Counties. As they attempt to walk this tightrope a pattern has emerged. Firstly, a relatively low profile PSF public representative issues a seemingly hard-line Republican statement or tweet linking their party with a historical revolutionary event such as the Kilmichael ambush. This pleases the base but also invites a backlash from the mainstream media and the wider political establishment on both sides of the border. There then follows a torrent of condemnation of the said statement. Soon after a grovelling apology and retraction of the offending statement is made by the suitably chastised PSF representative.

Speaking out of both sides of their mouths is of course a skill they long ago perfected but it is becoming an increasingly more difficult trick for them to pull off. Their strength has always been that they have managed to fool enough people into believing that they are anti-establishment when in fact they are an integral part of the establishment north and south. An example of this sleight of hand was seen in the fallout from the PSNI attack on those gathered to remember victims of the 1992 loyalist attack on Sean Graham’s Book makers on the Ormeau Road. Provisional Sinn Féin rushed to the media to voice their protestations about the actions of the PSNI. They behaved as if they were a party of protest representing the oppressed minority when in fact they sit on the policing boards and are part of the Stormont Executive which sets policing policy.

History may not repeat itself but can often rhyme. Just prior to coming to power in the Free State in 1932 Fianna Fáil faced a similar dilemma. How to retain a republican base while preparing themselves for government. This too involved control of the narrative and ownership of the revolutionary 1916-23 period. Like Provisional Sinn Féin today, this was to confirm their republican credentials while also denying legitimacy to any challengers. Fianna Fáil kept an iron like grip on the commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the 1916 Rising in 1966. Expect Provisional Sinn Féin to do likewise with this year’s 40th Anniversary of the 1981 Hunger Strikes, as seminal an event in their carefully crafted historical narrative as 1916 was to Fianna Fáil’s foundation myth.

Those who know Anthony McIntyre know that the recurring sniping and attacks do not worry him in the slightest and nor should they. He is somebody who is highly regarded by leading academics and journalists, evidenced by the fact so many of them were willing to sign a public letter in his defence at the height of the whole Boston College Tapes debacle. Indeed, Dr Anthony McIntyre could by now have easily occupied a lucrative academic post if he had so chosen. Instead, he turned his back on academia such was his anger at Boston College’s failure to honour its promise to secure the tapes.

Anthony McIntyre’s crime is that he declared that the Emperor has no clothes and sought to give a voice to those who refused to swallow the big lie.  

Des Dalton is a long time republican activist.

Nailing The Big Lie ➖ The Fight For Republican Memory

Des Dalton doesn't think much of recent commentary on an award winning book on the Northern conflict. 

Danny Morrison recently used his blog to platform a review by his “friend” Irish - American writer Timothy O’Grady of Patrick Radden Keefe’s book Say Nothing. The book review was merely a front to launch yet another attack on Dr Anthony McIntyre.

The perverse obsession that senior and former senior members of Provisional Sinn Féin have with Anthony McIntyre is almost inexplicable. Inexplicable when one considers that since at least 1986 there have been a raft of former senior members of the Provisional Movement who have been willing to put their head above the parapet and challenge the various political somersaults performed by what, for the sake of convenience, I will call the Gerry Adams leadership.

Many of these people were serious players within the Republican Movement at both political and military level, in some cases both. Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, Dolours Price, Brendan Hughes, Richard O’Rawe, Tommy McKearney etc. Consequently, what they had to say carried considerable weight. While to a greater or lesser extent many of these people faced a backlash from the Adams camp – one has only to read Richard O’Rawe’s book Afterlives to get a glimpse of the high personal price he paid for exposing the truth of the 1981 hunger strikes – none have faced the same level of sustained attack, physical threat, and character assassination as that endured by Anthony McIntyre over the course of two decades. 

I say it is almost inexplicable because there is an obvious reason that McIntyre has been the primary target of their malevolent spleen for so long. It is that he has consistently challenged Provisional Sinn Féin’s historical narrative of the 1969 to 1997 war. A narrative carefully constructed over many years by Adams and his close acolytes. Not only did he challenge that narrative but crucially he set out to ensure that the voices of those republican activists who had fought the war would have their narrative preserved and placed on the historical record through his work on the Boston College Project.

The story of the conflict as told by the veterans interviewed by Anthony McIntyre challenged the narrative advanced by Gerry Adams and those close to him. For Provisional Sinn Féin this was the ultimate heresy. And Anthony McIntyre’s punishment for committing this mortal sin was to have calumny cast on his good name, his professional integrity impugned, to be cast into the outer darkness. Thus, all who took it upon themselves to question the historical orthodoxy handed down by the “Great Leader” would be duly warned as to the fate that awaited them.

Danny Morrison introduces the book review by launching a disingenuous attack on the integrity of Anthony McIntyre and the other researchers involved in the Boston College Project. Danny Morrison knows only too well that nobody was “encouraged to incriminate themselves” by taking part in the collection of what was a legitimate and academically sound attempt to gather an oral history of the 1969-97 conflict. If the architects and researchers of the Boston College interviews are guilty of anything it is that they accepted in good faith the narrative peddled by Danny Morrison’s erstwhile political masters that “the war was over” and there was now a new political dispensation for all, including former combatants.

Unfortunately, the British Government had other ideas. Their war certainly was not over as they have shown with their relentless pursuit of veteran republican activists over the intervening years. The much-lauded release of prisoners was of course under licence, licences which could be revoked at the pleasure of the British “Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.” For those serving life sentences their release remains on permanent license. The message to the troops was clear:

Stick to the political programme of Adams and his “Kitchen Cabinet” and you will not be touched, we may even get you a job. Step outside and deign to question the “tablets of stone” or “Good Friday Agreement”, to stick with the biblical and religious imagery so beloved of the “peace processors”, then you would find yourself out in the cold. Or in some cases back behind bars. 

Unlike the release of prisoners following previous IRA campaigns since 1921, this one had strings attached. All with the connivance of those who claimed to be the leaders of republicanism. Unlike other theatres of conflict such as South Africa where similar projects have been launched to collect the testimony of former combatants, here the fundamental causes of the conflict have not been resolved.

Timothy O’Grady for whatever reason takes it upon himself, under the guise of a book review, to launch what is but the latest in a long line of such attacks on Anthony McIntyre and the Boston College Project. Not for the first time the basis of this latest attack is both spurious and laced with a particularly nasty and snide attempt to smear Anthony McIntyre. He has two primary criticisms of the project, the first of which is that the interviewees were chosen solely because of their opposition to the so-called ‘Peace Process.’

Unlike Timothy O’Grady I will not attempt to second guess the criteria used to select either Republican or Loyalist interviewees. What I will say is that as a criticism it does not stack up. If indeed Anthony McIntyre and the other researchers did select Republican interviewees on that basis it does not delegitimise the integrity of the project. In the Post-Civil War period, the nascent Free State were determined to not only remove Republicans from all aspects of public life, but also to erase their narrative from any account of the 1916-23 period. In the 1930s and ‘40s Ernie O’Malley sought to counter this by conducting interviews with IRA veterans from across Ireland, the vast majority of whom opposed the 1921 Treaty. Similarly, in the immediate aftermath of the 1998 Belfast Agreement the voices of those republicans opposed to it were marginalised. The likelihood is that their narrative would be similarly ignored or at best given token representation when it came to the recording of the post-1969 conflict. 

The winners after all get to write the history. If like Ernie O’Malley, Anthony McIntyre and his colleagues sought to ensure that these veterans, who represented an authentic traditional Irish Republican viewpoint, would have their voices preserved on the historical record, then that was a perfectly legitimate criteria to use in the selection of interviewees. Rather than being subjects of attack and misrepresentation, he and his colleagues should be lauded for their efforts.

Such conflicts over historical narrative and whose story gets told are not unique to Ireland. In The aftermath of the World War II the French Government established two committees, later merged in 1952 to form The Committee on the History of the Second Word War (Comité d’histoire de la deuxième guerre mondiale; CH2GM), which between 1945 and 1947 collected over 2,000 testimonies of French Resistance veterans. Even in a context where the common enemy had been decisively defeated and French sovereignty fully restored there was still conflict about contesting narratives of the resistance. Veterans of the Communist Resistance protested that their accounts were being marginalised and only given token recognition in the official Gaullist account of the war.

Timothy O’Grady’s second main criticism turns on the fact that no British soldiers or members of the RUC were interviewed. From this he deduces that the entire project presents the conflict as one motivated by sectarianism rather than a war of national liberation. He presents no evidence to back up such a sweeping judgement. Not content with smearing the project and the content of the interviews with the taint of sectarianism he makes a snide attempt to lay the same charge at Anthony McIntyre’s door. Character assassination and smear is a long-standing weapon of choice for Provisional Sinn Féin when dealing with people who challenge them. Frankly, it is sad to see Timothy O’Grady, whose previous work, notably Curious Journey (a series of interviews with veterans of the 1916-23) I would have admired, tarnish his reputation by employing such base methods rather than engaging in robust and honest critical analysis.

Provisional Sinn Féin is grappling with its own contradictions, which gives the battle over memory and whose story gets to be told an added potency. On the one hand it wants to hold on to its traditional Republican base as well denying legitimacy to those Republicans who do not support them. This involves paying lip service to their Republican past, doing the rounds of commemorations with the customary speeches to the faithful. But here is the crux. These events can often cause offence to other constituencies that they are trying to cultivate, including actual and potential partners in government, such as the DUP in the Six Counties and Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in the 26 Counties. As they attempt to walk this tightrope a pattern has emerged. Firstly, a relatively low profile PSF public representative issues a seemingly hard-line Republican statement or tweet linking their party with a historical revolutionary event such as the Kilmichael ambush. This pleases the base but also invites a backlash from the mainstream media and the wider political establishment on both sides of the border. There then follows a torrent of condemnation of the said statement. Soon after a grovelling apology and retraction of the offending statement is made by the suitably chastised PSF representative.

Speaking out of both sides of their mouths is of course a skill they long ago perfected but it is becoming an increasingly more difficult trick for them to pull off. Their strength has always been that they have managed to fool enough people into believing that they are anti-establishment when in fact they are an integral part of the establishment north and south. An example of this sleight of hand was seen in the fallout from the PSNI attack on those gathered to remember victims of the 1992 loyalist attack on Sean Graham’s Book makers on the Ormeau Road. Provisional Sinn Féin rushed to the media to voice their protestations about the actions of the PSNI. They behaved as if they were a party of protest representing the oppressed minority when in fact they sit on the policing boards and are part of the Stormont Executive which sets policing policy.

History may not repeat itself but can often rhyme. Just prior to coming to power in the Free State in 1932 Fianna Fáil faced a similar dilemma. How to retain a republican base while preparing themselves for government. This too involved control of the narrative and ownership of the revolutionary 1916-23 period. Like Provisional Sinn Féin today, this was to confirm their republican credentials while also denying legitimacy to any challengers. Fianna Fáil kept an iron like grip on the commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the 1916 Rising in 1966. Expect Provisional Sinn Féin to do likewise with this year’s 40th Anniversary of the 1981 Hunger Strikes, as seminal an event in their carefully crafted historical narrative as 1916 was to Fianna Fáil’s foundation myth.

Those who know Anthony McIntyre know that the recurring sniping and attacks do not worry him in the slightest and nor should they. He is somebody who is highly regarded by leading academics and journalists, evidenced by the fact so many of them were willing to sign a public letter in his defence at the height of the whole Boston College Tapes debacle. Indeed, Dr Anthony McIntyre could by now have easily occupied a lucrative academic post if he had so chosen. Instead, he turned his back on academia such was his anger at Boston College’s failure to honour its promise to secure the tapes.

Anthony McIntyre’s crime is that he declared that the Emperor has no clothes and sought to give a voice to those who refused to swallow the big lie.  

Des Dalton is a long time republican activist.

17 comments:

  1. Des - informative piece.

    I confessed to a friend to feeling uncomfortable with it because of the praise. I am not talking about the type of sycophantic homily say, Jim Gibney, would make towards the great leader. Far from it, but merely as a minor chord in the overall melody. I am wholly at ease with criticism and calumny, having been on the receiving end of it for so long. As I often say, it doesn't matter who fires it or how harshly it is screamed, I remain oblivious without even trying.

    I am not in a position to judge the weight of the case you make simply because I did nothing more than skim read the piece by Timothy O'Grady. Not that I was hostile to him, rather that what Danny Morrison might say, write, or recommend is of no curiosity value to me. On the odd occasion that I would glance his way it is for no other reason than to see what he is lying about. And for Morrison to handicap O'Grady before he even got out of the traps by describing him as a friend was a typical Morrison Faux Pas. If people like Danny Morrison or Denis Donaldson were to describe me as a friend it would leave a pretty bad taste in the mouth. Morrison's relationship to friends was pretty much summed up in The Spy by Jorge Luis Borges, "I betrayed those who believed me their friend." And his pivotal role in the deaths of six hunger strikers - they too were his unfortunate friends - which saw the light of day as a result of the Boston College project, is something that has infuriated him for almost two decades. This explains his need to clutch at any straw even though there is no recovering the lost ground.

    I told another friend who asked me if I had read the O'Grady work that I would at some point, but failed to. The curiosity was simply not there. When I pick up easily avoidable errors or fabrications in a skim read, I tend to move on to whatever is next in line. And I don't blame O'Grady for that as such. Most probably something Morrison lied to him about and he failed to follow up on it. He perhaps does not know the working assumption applied to Morrison by Irish journalists: anything he might say is possibly true but probably not. Therefore, until independent verification comes forth, regard it as untrue.

    A third friend who had read the piece (one out of the three thought it was a strong piece of writing, the others rubbished it) actually sent me this which I guess compromises O'Grady's critique.

    "As for the ethical aspects you mention, I felt loyalty and responsibility to them and not to the people they spoke about. It could be said that that’s nicely convenient for me, or that I was risking hurting others by believing them, but I did believe them and saw myself as the vehicle through which they could make what felt like to me to be important, even necessary testimonies."
    https://www.arkint.org/tim-ogrady-qa

    There we go.

    ReplyDelete
  2. First of all thanks Anthony for carrying my piece. I understand totally your discomfort, I don't think any of us are comfortable with praise. Ha maybe it is an Irish thing. I also know, as I pointed out, that you pay no heed to the utterances of somebody like Danny Morrison. I think that is a perfectly sensible attitude to take. At this point it must be like water off a duck's back anything that comes from them quarter.

    Nevertheless I felt the need to write this piece as I do think you have rendered significant service to the recording and preserving of an authentic republican account of the post 1969 period. I think your point re the 1981 hunger strikes is absolutely spot on. If it had not been for the Boston College Project the facts surrounding the deaths of the last six hunger strikers would have been brushed under the carpet, possibly never to emerge. For that alone you are worthy of huge respect and gratitude. However it also earns for you from Mt Morrison and his master, "The Great Bearded One" their eternal hatred. 1981 after all plays a pivotal role in the whole myth they have constructed. That you would elicit such hostility from these people is in many ways a badge of honour.

    There were other points that I felt were needed to be placed on the record and thanks again for giving me the space to do so. As I said in the article, they are struggling with their own contradictions. PSF have shed any ideological baggage that would prevent them sharing power with the other two parties. When it comes to entering coalition with FF or FG they will struggle with their 'republican consciences' but ultimately win as they usually do and go into go into government. No surprise there.

    They like to portray themselves as defending republican memory in the face of big bad Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. The reality is something far different. They are trying to maintain their place in the republican story by rewriting that story to suit their narrative. That is the real battle over history and remembering that that is going on during this so-called 'Decade of Centenaries.'

    Regarding Timothy O'Grady, I take your point that he may have been simply repeating what he was told. However I think the lesson for people like Timothy O'Grady is that you must check your facts before publishing. For a writer of his experience that is inexplicable, or maybe not when you consider who his friend is. Maybe he needs to be more discerning in his choice of friends.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Des,

    not sure why praise makes us uncomfortable. We can take the criticism much easier unlike the narcissists who want to silence us.

    Smearing from Morrison can have no effect other than to reinforce my view that I am doing something right. If he was to praise me or call me his friend, I would react like I had scabies and immediately shower.

    As for the hunger strike, they could have avoided the opprobrium had they come out in response to Richard and say they made a huge error in their calculations. But because the instinct was to smear and unleash the Rottweilers and whisper weasels, the opportunity was missed and people became even more suspicious of their explanation. Now the worm has turned and is burrowing even deeper into their narrative. I believe there is more to come.

    What happened to the six men who died was the equivalent of Ballyseedy. And while we can forget and forgive most things and resume friendships that were harmed as a result of the political fall out, those who authored the deaths of the six men are beyond any of that.

    O'Grady made a bad judgement call but it was his to make. That's the sort of thing which damages the writer rather than the person being written about. I am reluctant to judge him by his choice of friend and in time he might just come to realise the total untrustworthiness of the guy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ha indeed, they wallow in the praise and it feeds their hubris.
    I remember Richard O'Rawe giving a powerful presentation to a seminar held in Wynns Hotel in 2011. It was searing in its emotional intensity. One of the things that stood out for me was his assertion that while Margaret Thatcher could be blamed for the deaths of the first four hunger strikers the deaths of the other six lay squarely with the Adams committee. It shook me to the core when he put it in those terms. The Ballyseedy analogy is an apt one.

    I hope O'Grady does see through eventually, although in the meantime he is damaging his reputation. A pity, as I admired his previous work on 'Curious Journey'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard nailed it and was so forensic in taking their narrative apart. I was in the Green room of the BBC when Blanketmen first featured in the Sunday Times. It was a topic of discussion and a journalist said to me that he didn't know if it was an accurate account but he was persuaded not by Richard's assertions but by Morrison's denials. He played it so badly from the get go, that I am sure when he reflects on it at 4 in the morning, he probably thinks he should have addressed it in a radically different manner.

      I didn't read Curious Journey and I remain neutral about it regardless of the author having a go at me. If I read it or don't read the work, it will not be as a result of the current matter. And if I reviewed it I would do so on its merits, not on whether or not, the author approves of me. The main problem was outlined by John McGuffin before he died - there are so many good books to read and still there are bastards writing more! Always found that funny. But I agree - O'Grady can only damage his own reputation if he becomes a shill for Morrison. He is quite entitled not to like Say Nothing but he at least has to be accurate in the criticisms he makes of it or in discussions around it.

      Delete
  5. The GFA prisoner release scheme is often used by certain quarters as evidence of either successful or unsuccessful of republican 'negotiations' I.e 'we got our POW's released' or 'the POW's were released on license(under Brit terms)'.
    In my opinion, the prison leadership at the time failed to see the bargaining strength they held(RM and by default all sides involved in the GFA) needed the POW's on board in order to sell the GFA. The fact that the prison leadership didn't dig it's heels in and demand all their prisoners be released suggests that 'early release' was all that mattered I.e they ignored the fine print. For eg I reckon there were some surprised POW's, on the day of their release, obliged to sign a form promising not to involve themselves in 'illegal activity'. Allthewhile a dozen or so prisoners(because they didn't qualify)were languishing in their cells as their comrades bade farewell. All the above a sure pointer as to whom were the 'best negotiators'.

    ReplyDelete
  6. MickO, that is a good point. It is an area that has not received the attention it should. The release of the prisoners was used to bring the base along. Wheeling the 'Balcombe St' men at the 'Special Ard Fheis' was sending the message out that our prisoners are coming home once this Agreement is secured. As you say the fine print was ignored.
    Another issue and one that is little aired is how those former prisoners have been treated since. Many cannot secure jobs because they have a "criminal conviction" and it is even affecting their children's ability to secure visas to travel to the United States for example.

    Anthony, I agree totally re Richard. His book dismantled their tissue of lies and the spin doctor in chief could not spin them out of this one. As you say his initial reaction just dug the hole even deeper for them.
    Ha that is my reaction to books too. I love that John McGuffin quote, it is the plaintive cry of all book lovers.
    So many to read and so little time. And I keep adding to the pile, convincing myself I will eventually read them all. Well, I have to tell myself that.
    I remember Ruairi O Bradaigh saying to me once that he looked at his books and thought if he had about six months solitary confinement he would make his way through some of the books he wanted to read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Des - Richard was meticulous in putting his case together. It has withstood every test of fire thus far and they have tried to burn it at the stake quite a few times. When they are faced with an implacable and immovable object that refuses to be censored and silenced they crash on the rock.

      Ruairi was right when he said "some" of the books. A great alternative is the podcast. I listen to them every day.

      Delete
  7. Great article, raising many valid points, Blanket men and Afterlives whilst brilliantly put together by Richard o Rawe were heartbraking to read. As a 15 year old in late 1980/81 we marched all over Ireland attending rallies in Support of the Hunger Strikers and their families.All the while never knowing what treachery was taking place behind closed doors. Carries article 55 hours gave such an in depth account on the dark days leading up to Joe Mc Donnells death ,where there was an offer on the table that was enough to end the fast ,but got rejected by the so called Kitchen cabinet ,and shamefully ended the negotiations and six great men went on to die. Every year SF are to the fore in the Hunger Strike commemorations but surely now people must be aware of what really transpired. Its beyond words.

    ReplyDelete
  8. How can Danny Morrison say.."it is driven by the idea that Adams betrayed the armed struggle by negotiating the Good Friday Agreement and then jettisoned those who participated in it when it was convenient to do so."........

    Dunno, I never signed up to the conflict but my understanding is Adam's betrayed the Provisionals and anyone who was surplus to requirements or didn't tow the party line got side-lined.

    "Sinn Féin is not a top-down organization. It moves collectively. "

    So SF works different to every other 'democratically' elected party on these islands and afar. Really...........

    "I know nothing of Gerry Adams’ involvement in the IRA,"

    I don't believe that line for one bit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Frankie - I skim read it so can't remember Morrison saying that but I presume it is in his intro to the O'Grady piece.
    What Morrison says is of no consequence to serious discussion.

    I recall O'Grady's comment that he knows nothing of Adams' involvement in the IRA. If we take him at his word, then he has no place writing about these matters. Any observer of the Northern conflict who does not know about the role of Adams really should be studying something else. Think of an observer of US politics claiming he knew nothing of Trump's lying. There comes a point when a writer stops being taken seriously.
    SF, not a top down organisation! He has obviously never been in it.
    If the rest of the piece is like that, O'Grady is going to take a hit to his reputation. Why be a shill for any cause, group or individual?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anthony as you are well aware of the old saying, an empty vessel makes the most noise. Adams, the rat in the hat and their quisling $inn £anny cronies should have learnt from Mark Twain , "always tell the truth, that way you won't have to remember what you have said," something those wasters never seem to manage. The kids in the street are laughing at the new emperors. And no amount of distraction and prevarication will cover their nakedness. Best regards Anthony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marty - great to have you back in the comments section. I think it always happens with revolutionaries. Being human they are seduced by the lure of power and privilege. I feel Orwell had it right that nine times out of ten they are social climbers with bombs. Many of them are quite wealthy today. Why they couldn't have obtained their achievements the way the SDLP did and saved every body a lot of bother will never be explained by them. The SDLP never killed anybody to get where they are today.

      Delete
  11. Simply explained Anthony most of them would not have amounted to anything much certainly not in the financial extent that we see them living today Big Houses in Andy Town holiday homes cushy White collared well paid community jobs, as this is as Des has already said comes with the caveat that all of that lifestyle is on loan. They sold their souls as the old song said for pieces of gold and legs of hairy bacon. And they may prance around like the new nouveau rich. They have shown themselves and the world that running a glorified county council which norn iorn is they alongside their cronies in the DUP are only in power through a sectarian head count. Useful as tits on a bull. Stay safe a chara,

    ReplyDelete
  12. I wasn't aware of the offer on the table, before the last 6 Hunger Strikers died. Obviously they weren't told about this offer. So callous. What kind of people would orchestrate this sort of skullduggery.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just as a side note, when cast a quick look over to South Africa these days and see who's in charge, it's a man that was invited to help break the deadlock in the political talks in Belfast in 2000, over how power sharing would work. Cyril Ramaphosa and ex Finnish prime minister Marty Ahtisari helped mediate between the Unionists and Republicans. I thought at the time - this is pretty remarkable, get 2 neutrals in to help.
    Anyhow, my point is that Mr Ramaphosa is now running South Africa into the ground. A once proud and world famous country is now a basket case. Thanks to Cyril Ramaphosa and his acolytes.
    No idea back in 2000 what his true political affiliations were but it's become clear that he's a Marxist. His political outlook is no different to Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Trotsky, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot(Cambodia), General Suharto(Indonesia). All these men were Communist dictators who murdered millions of innocent people. The African National Congress is a Communist organization, and by extension so is Cyril Ramaphosa a proponent of this despicable marxist system.
    I would just like to add that there has been a sustained and lethal campaign of murder and torture against thousands of White farmers in South Africa. This has been ongoing since Nelson Mandela took office in 1994. It was happening on a relatively small scale up to 2005 but has increased massively since then. It's estimated that there has been over 60,000 farm attacks in total since 1994, with most coming in the past 10 years.
    It's an absolute outrage. The attackers have been given sophisticated equipment including heavy backpacks with electronic jamming equipment(these disable mobile phone signals),so rendering the White farmers completely helpless. It's an absolute outrage what's been going on in South Africa. It looks like these criminal attackers are being assisted by the SA Police. Torture and rape is routine before the occupants are left for dead or murdered, which is normally the case.
    I believe Ramaphosa knows exactly what's going on but he will not acknowledge these horrific Farm invasions. They think the land belongs to them. Well they're wrong because White farmers(Boers) began emigrating to the Cape,from the Netherlands in 1652, and they settled and made their futures there. The Boer farmers are as much South African as the Bantu, Zulu or Koi San ethnic tribes.
    These attacks have hardly been reported in the western media outlets. Same with the South African mainstream media.
    I realise I have deviated from the main subject with this comment but, nevertheless, it's important information that needs to be more widely known about.
    So I earnestly hope my post gets approved by the moderator on here. Not the end of the world if it doesn't however.
    Erin go Braigh

    ReplyDelete
  14. Despite its shortcomings, the ANC is a democratically elected government unlike the list of tyrants listed by BrianBoru74 (news to me that Suharto was a Communist) and Ramaphosa is not a doctrinaire Marxist-Leninist.

    Indeed in the eyes of its detractors to its left; the ANC has not made much progress in levelling up the economic and social inequalities that are the legacy of apartheid.

    I do not know enough about the attacks on white farmers which I condemn but I suspect lack of progress in land reform post-apartheid may be a factor.

    ReplyDelete