A wet and drizzly Saturday night in Belfast. A scenario I’m all too familiar with and one that, if you allowed it, would prevent you from doing or attending anything of note. And with the Shrapnel Podcast doing a live recording, there is no excuse for laziness.
Advertised as sold out, the audience are an eclectic bunch, some of whom look around the room quite a bit. Not in a nosy manner but more along the lines of realising that they’re not the only ones who have such interests and finding relief in that.
The following took to the stage:
🖼 Sam McIlwaine and Gareth Mulvenna (Shrapnel Podcast hosts)
🖼 Davy Adams (former Ulster Democratic Party spokesperson)
🖼 Emma Shaw (founder/CEO of the Phoenix Education Centre)
🖼 Beano Niblock (playwright/author)
Beginning the talk by asking how each member of the panel would define loyalism, Davy is quick to point out that he doesn’t consider himself as either a loyalist or unionist anymore as he no longer has time for tribal loyalties, so his allegiances lie with his family and his community. Beano takes a different approach by saying that he would still consider himself a unionist but more of an orphaned one and that, once upon a time, the term he would have used was working class loyalist, but it doesn’t mean the same to him as it did in 1971.
Emma uses these moments to illustrate her belief that loyalism is a broad church but one that is based on family and service to the community and one that has been maligned over the years not just through a hostile media but also from mainstream unionist politicians who were all too happy to goad loyalists into doing their dirty work. The end result of this, according to Emma, is a belief that young people from loyalist backgrounds are disadvantaged educationally and in the job market.
This leads to Davy declaring that the term ‘loyalist’ was created by unionist politicians to differentiate between ‘respectable’ unionism and loyalism (although Sam emphasises that people have to take responsibility for their own actions), thus anyone who raised their head above the parapet were swiftly disowned and castigated as Lundys. Beano notes that this fractured unionism sends out a variety of mixed messaging (who do you vote for, what do they deliver) which makes it difficult to have a united front and, although Emma defends the right for voters to have choice, Davy and Sam bring up the fact that if there was one PUL party, how would it cater to those (like Sam) who would see themselves as left wing?
From a nationalist perspective, this diverse/fractured (whichever term you want to use) perspective can be frustrating as it means that if you ask three unionists/loyalists about their views, you’ll get three differing views back. Sam correctly identified some social issues that are divisive (same sex marriage, abortion) but you can also add the status of Northern Ireland as well: is it as British as Finchley or is it something else entirely? With nationalism/republicanism, there are of course similar debates, but the key is that the end result is Ireland being free from British rule. As pointed out by Enoch Powell 40 odd years ago, the ambiguous nature of relations between NI and Britain has never been truly resolved by unionists/loyalists and, to some, this uncertainty can seem like goalpost moving at times. So it’s great to see the panel openly discussing some of these angles.
Moving onto culture, Beano points out that many loyalists feel that Gaelic culture is being elevated and imposed upon them. Although Davy responds to this with derision by asking why anyone would feel threatened by Gaelic culture (especially when it was kept alive by Irish Presbyterians), Emma manages to tease out the nuances in the debate by discussing the GAA pitch in East Belfast and how resources have been allocated to it over other initiatives which could help the people of the East improve their lot in life via education or employment. She is keen to stress that she has no problem with people wanting to join the GAA or learn to speak Irish, but the perception that these projects have had a substantial amount of money thrown at them because they tick the boxes of what funders are looking for is one that has annoyed the local community.
I have to admit, this is a very interesting angle that I had not considered before. Anyone who is familiar with the gymnastics and conformity that is required when applying for funding will be all too aware of what is being discussed here. We have also seen how such rigid conformity has led to ridiculous situations where students of Asian descent are being denied places in universities (despite scoring highly in tests) because of diversity quotas.
Sadly, this is true. In 2015, the Belfast Telegraph revealed that:
…seven children from east Belfast had not been able to get a place at a local secondary. They were forced to travel either across the city to Breda Academy, which would mean two different buses, or go outside Belfast to Dundonald or Newtownards.
While there is an argument to be made that offering alternative environments for children to be educated is a good thing, this should be at the behest of the parents and the pupil themselves.
This moved into (what has been described as) the myth that Protestant youth weren’t interested in education, which everyone on the panel greatly dispute. Davy reminisces how education was very much drilled into him from a young age while Emma reveals that, as part of her PhD, she surveyed various primary and post-primary schools in Protestant areas and found that 98% of those she engaged with made it clear that they were very much encouraged by their parents and teachers to succeed in education.
Going to the Q&A section, my question about the possibility of loyalism becoming a populist movement (similar to what we’ve seen in the USA and, to a lesser extent, the south) is greeted with scepticism by Emma, noting that it would take a singular figure to unite the warring elements within unionism/loyalism (i.e. a Trump like figure). Davy describes populism as a threat to democracy (which, although I can see where he’s coming from, I’m not 100% sure I agree with him).
I am glad to say that the discussion on stage tonight was robust, intricate, level-headed, questioning and diverse. Each panellist represented a different strand within loyalism and weren’t afraid to ask each other difficult questions or tease out scenarios where they felt issues of class were far more relevant than loyalism (such as housing, education and employment) a very welcome approach and much more in the spirit of cross-community than a lot of the funding bodies set up to deal with such issues.
Amazing, the things you can find in your city if you venture out on a wet and drizzly Saturday night.
Listen to the Shrapnel Podcast here.
This moved into (what has been described as) the myth that Protestant youth weren’t interested in education, which everyone on the panel greatly dispute. Davy reminisces how education was very much drilled into him from a young age while Emma reveals that, as part of her PhD, she surveyed various primary and post-primary schools in Protestant areas and found that 98% of those she engaged with made it clear that they were very much encouraged by their parents and teachers to succeed in education.
Going to the Q&A section, my question about the possibility of loyalism becoming a populist movement (similar to what we’ve seen in the USA and, to a lesser extent, the south) is greeted with scepticism by Emma, noting that it would take a singular figure to unite the warring elements within unionism/loyalism (i.e. a Trump like figure). Davy describes populism as a threat to democracy (which, although I can see where he’s coming from, I’m not 100% sure I agree with him).
I am glad to say that the discussion on stage tonight was robust, intricate, level-headed, questioning and diverse. Each panellist represented a different strand within loyalism and weren’t afraid to ask each other difficult questions or tease out scenarios where they felt issues of class were far more relevant than loyalism (such as housing, education and employment) a very welcome approach and much more in the spirit of cross-community than a lot of the funding bodies set up to deal with such issues.
Amazing, the things you can find in your city if you venture out on a wet and drizzly Saturday night.
Listen to the Shrapnel Podcast here.
"..perception that thee projects have had a substantial amount of money thrown at them because they tick the boxes of what funders are looking for is one that has annoyed the local community". Did Emma Shaw give her opinion on whether it is just a perception or if there was evidence for this? Sounds like knee-jerk sectarianism followed up by looking for a logical reason to back it up . What boxes other than the usual criteria of demand and need could there possibly be? I understand cross-community projects get a boost but either the Irish language/GAA is cross community or is Gaelic culture being imposed. It can't be both.
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear Davy speak up for Presbyterian support for Irish culture and Sam suggesting people should take ownership of their own actions. Better than all the "it's always someone else's fault" tripe.
These comments reinforce that loyalist is not a monolith and are refreshing. I find much Irish nationalism is dogmatic and blinkered, often intolerant of dissent. People telling others off for liking soccer or elements of British culture. I was told off for liking the Goons and PG Wodehouse yet Bobby Sands loved the poetry of Rudyard Kipling. Nationalism should learn from discussions like these.
Chris Donnelly, the commentator, said one reason for higher Catholic performance in secondary level education is that Catholic schools tend to only let a pupil do what they're good at but state schools tend to allow you to do what you're interested in, despite you not having a flair for it. I don't know about the veracity but it's interesting.
Simon - Chris Donnelly is or has been a head teacher and probably understands the education system better than most. It's an interesting observation.
DeleteAM, Very true. Good rule of thumb to trust the experts.
ReplyDeleteSimon, it is not that I actually agree with Chris Donnelly on this. Still thinking about it. But the area of education is his forte and people speak highly of his commitment to the field. So, worth paying attention to.
DeleteYour comments Simon brought to mind the following: firstly others, other than Sands admired Kipling's work.
ReplyDeleteSomewhere in one of my storage boxes there lays a copy of 'The Rupaiyat Of Omar Kal'vin' loaned to me by the late Pat Ward. Interestingly, inside the cover is a hand-written note "To Paddy from Marian". Pat may have told me that the 'Marian' was Marian Coyle or maybe that's just a false memory that subsequently I've created; Pat and Marian were though for a time part of a unit of full-time operatives who moved through the West of the Provence supporting clandestine part-time units & operatives.
Secondly, I remember my father feeling abhorred by the suggestion of my careers teacher suggesting I transfer from my Grammar School to the Technical College but also remember him oftentimes advising me to remember that the only job a man starts at the top, is digging a hole! I think earlier Nationalists were more greatly driven to succeed and rightly saw education as the most appropriate vehicle to achieve that. On the other hand Unionists from their place of privilege and their perceived security of tenure in the crafts and trades in industry were less inclined towards academic perusal. All that said I think Pearse was right as he articulated in his 1910 Pamphlet 'The Murder Machine', if a child is good at playing the tin-whistle, then encourage him to play the whistle!
Good on PH and good on Chris Donnelly.
the only job a man starts at the top, is digging a hole
DeleteThat's a great spake HJ
Henry JoY,
ReplyDeleteGood art is universal so it's no surprise people love good books from whatever source. Maybe a mixture of the prisoners being more enlightened and the culture of bigotry not creeping in. In those days you had to hunt out Gaelic culture but it's more accessible today.
I think there's merits in both approaches. If someone loves a subject they're more likely to succeed and what people achieve at GCSE often doesn't translate to A-Level. If someone is good at something they tend to enjoy it on some level. I don't think education should be necessarily be focused on league tables. Pearse was ahead of his time on education. A selection of his short-stories have recently been republished in a bilingual version.
As am aside girls tend to do better in an all girls school and boys tend to do better in a co-ed school. This doesn't help the system but can help inform individual choices. A good first step to education would be to scrap selection.
Glad to see you're still on the Quill.
Ancora imparo
ReplyDelete