I was invited to speak because of the role I played in America during the Hunger Strike as illustrated in the recent RTE documentary Noraid: Irish America and the IRA, with a special request to speak about the meaning of the Hunger Strike itself and the contributions made by Rhode Island Noraid members.
I did not choose or agree with the wording on the monument. The people who worked to get the monument are sincere and I believe the wording would have been suggested to them.
When I learned of the inscription I decided it was important to attend and speak about what the Hunger Strikers died for as well as remember ordinary people in Rhode Island and across the United States who worked under my leadership to support them.
I could have backed out and cleared the way for the inscription to be the only narrative the large crowd would ever hear.
My speech can be viewed below as an the flyer I was sent as an invitation.
I did not choose or agree with the wording on the monument. The people who worked to get the monument are sincere and I believe the wording would have been suggested to them.
When I learned of the inscription I decided it was important to attend and speak about what the Hunger Strikers died for as well as remember ordinary people in Rhode Island and across the United States who worked under my leadership to support them.
I could have backed out and cleared the way for the inscription to be the only narrative the large crowd would ever hear.
My speech can be viewed below as an the flyer I was sent as an invitation.
I stand by my decision to stand up and speak out instead of backing out.
↭ Martin Galvin
↭ Martin Galvin
Martin Galvin 2023 Rhode Island Hunger Strike Commemoration speech.
May 5th 2023 marked forty-two years from the day Bobby Sands MP became the first of ten Irish patriots to die on Hunger Strike in an unequal battle, resisting Britain’s attempt to brand them and Ireland’s struggle against British rule as criminals.
The importance Britain placed on this policy of criminalization is clearly illustrated by the brutal measures the British took to achieve their objective.
Following internment on August 9, 1971, the British proclaimed that Irish suspects held without charge, trial or legal rights were mere criminals and not political prisoners. Republicans resisted. Legendary Belfast Irish Republican Army commander Billy McKee led a hunger strike against criminalization.
Ultimately the British conceded the principle, if not the words. Special category status was created. Conditions associated with prisoner-of-war status, such as no criminal uniform, no prison work, association with other political prisoners, were awarded.
It soon became embarrassing for even the most stiff upper-lipped of British ministers to proclaim that there were no Republican political prisoners merely criminals in Long Kesh or Armagh Women’s Prison, only to be asked why were so many Irish prisoners recognized as special category.
Commissions were empaneled and a strategy contrived. British ministers proclaimed a new era of justice and the end of internment. Meanwhile the British planned non-jury Diplock courts and built H-blocks cells. Behind the facade of justice the British devised a new strategy to portray Irish political prisoners as criminals, and use them to criminalize Ireland’s long struggle against British rule.
An artificial date of March 1, 1976 was picked. Those jailed for actions taking place on or before February 28, 1976 would be recognized as special category prisoners, not wear a criminal uniform and instead, granted all of the conditions of political status. Those engaging in the very same actions as part of the same struggle after that date, were to be branded as criminals. They would be made wear criminal uniforms, locked-down in H-blocks cells, and be portrayed as criminals.
The British would use them to tell the world and particularly America, that there was no Irish struggle for freedom just criminals committing crimes.
Kieran Nugent became the first Republican prisoner handed a criminal uniform. He shouted at his British jailers they would have to nail it to his back to force him to wear it. Alone, he tied a blanket around himself and resisted every attempt to bully, beat and break him into accepting the garb of a criminal, and of course paid a terrible psychological and physical price.
Within a short time Hundreds of “Blanketmen” would be held in Long Kesh. The British tried beatings, brutal searches, intimidation and loss of remission to make them wear a criminal uniform and surrender to Britain’s policy of criminalization. This steadily escalating brutality to break the Blanketmen and the women prisoners in Armagh was resisted by an escalating protest campaign by Republican prisoners.
Cardinal O’Fiaich tried to solve the crisis. All attempts at honorable resolution were rejected by the British.
Brendan Hughes and the H-Block Blanketmen appealed for Irish American support, recognizing that America would be a crucial battleground in the fight against British criminalization. Irish Northern Aid assisted by the AOH, Irish County Associations, H-Block Committees, organized publicity tours by Blanketmen like Kieran Nugent, and began demonstrations around the country.
Finally in October 1980, Brendan Hughes led a 53 day Hunger Strike. Instead of moving to resolve the issues at the end of this first Hunger Strike, British Prime Minister Thatcher thought she could double down on repression and break the struggle by breaking the prisoners.
On March 1, 1981 Bobby Sands began a second Hunger Strike.
Ten Irish Republican prisonerS Bobby Sands MP, Francis Hughes, Raymond McCreesh, Patsy O’Hara, Joe McDonnell, Martin Hurson, Kevin Lynch, Kieran Doherty TD, Thomas McElwee and Mickey Devine, would ultimately give their lives on hunger strike rather than betray their struggle by accepting criminalization.
Thatcher was beaten albeit at a terrible price. The world recognized that criminals do not die such deaths for the freedom of their country.
The importance Britain placed on this policy of criminalization is clearly illustrated by the brutal measures the British took to achieve their objective.
Following internment on August 9, 1971, the British proclaimed that Irish suspects held without charge, trial or legal rights were mere criminals and not political prisoners. Republicans resisted. Legendary Belfast Irish Republican Army commander Billy McKee led a hunger strike against criminalization.
Ultimately the British conceded the principle, if not the words. Special category status was created. Conditions associated with prisoner-of-war status, such as no criminal uniform, no prison work, association with other political prisoners, were awarded.
It soon became embarrassing for even the most stiff upper-lipped of British ministers to proclaim that there were no Republican political prisoners merely criminals in Long Kesh or Armagh Women’s Prison, only to be asked why were so many Irish prisoners recognized as special category.
Commissions were empaneled and a strategy contrived. British ministers proclaimed a new era of justice and the end of internment. Meanwhile the British planned non-jury Diplock courts and built H-blocks cells. Behind the facade of justice the British devised a new strategy to portray Irish political prisoners as criminals, and use them to criminalize Ireland’s long struggle against British rule.
An artificial date of March 1, 1976 was picked. Those jailed for actions taking place on or before February 28, 1976 would be recognized as special category prisoners, not wear a criminal uniform and instead, granted all of the conditions of political status. Those engaging in the very same actions as part of the same struggle after that date, were to be branded as criminals. They would be made wear criminal uniforms, locked-down in H-blocks cells, and be portrayed as criminals.
The British would use them to tell the world and particularly America, that there was no Irish struggle for freedom just criminals committing crimes.
Kieran Nugent became the first Republican prisoner handed a criminal uniform. He shouted at his British jailers they would have to nail it to his back to force him to wear it. Alone, he tied a blanket around himself and resisted every attempt to bully, beat and break him into accepting the garb of a criminal, and of course paid a terrible psychological and physical price.
Within a short time Hundreds of “Blanketmen” would be held in Long Kesh. The British tried beatings, brutal searches, intimidation and loss of remission to make them wear a criminal uniform and surrender to Britain’s policy of criminalization. This steadily escalating brutality to break the Blanketmen and the women prisoners in Armagh was resisted by an escalating protest campaign by Republican prisoners.
Cardinal O’Fiaich tried to solve the crisis. All attempts at honorable resolution were rejected by the British.
Brendan Hughes and the H-Block Blanketmen appealed for Irish American support, recognizing that America would be a crucial battleground in the fight against British criminalization. Irish Northern Aid assisted by the AOH, Irish County Associations, H-Block Committees, organized publicity tours by Blanketmen like Kieran Nugent, and began demonstrations around the country.
Finally in October 1980, Brendan Hughes led a 53 day Hunger Strike. Instead of moving to resolve the issues at the end of this first Hunger Strike, British Prime Minister Thatcher thought she could double down on repression and break the struggle by breaking the prisoners.
On March 1, 1981 Bobby Sands began a second Hunger Strike.
Ten Irish Republican prisonerS Bobby Sands MP, Francis Hughes, Raymond McCreesh, Patsy O’Hara, Joe McDonnell, Martin Hurson, Kevin Lynch, Kieran Doherty TD, Thomas McElwee and Mickey Devine, would ultimately give their lives on hunger strike rather than betray their struggle by accepting criminalization.
Thatcher was beaten albeit at a terrible price. The world recognized that criminals do not die such deaths for the freedom of their country.
Irish America was a crucial part of this victory. Throughout the United States there were massive daily protests, Congressional and state action, and news coverage which showed that those dying were patriots and not criminals.
Rhode Island can be proud of its part in supporting the Hunger Strikers. As the National Publicity Director of Irish Northern Aid, responsible to Republicans in Ireland to coordinate all support for the Hunger Strikers in America, I can personally tell you how important Rhode Island was to the overall American campaign.
I can attest to the inspired work Rhode Island contributed behind local leaders like Pete Harris, Al McAloon, Norma Jencks and Tom Kelly and so many others. You held large demonstrations at Robert Emmet Square. Governor Garrahy flew flags at half-mast at the death of Bobby Sands. I was flown up for a special event attended by both the Governor and Mayor of Providence. Rhode Island even arranged a special meeting in Washington for me with Senator Pell to support the Hunger Strikers.
Today some in the north want to celebrate the centenary of partition and Britain’s six county state. British rule in the six counties was set up to serve British interests, and was founded upon sectarian discrimination and repression. The Hunger Strikers suffered and died for freedom from British rule.
Today let us remember these patriots with pride, and also remember proudly the important part Irish America and Rhode played in their victory over criminalization.
Rhode Island can be proud of its part in supporting the Hunger Strikers. As the National Publicity Director of Irish Northern Aid, responsible to Republicans in Ireland to coordinate all support for the Hunger Strikers in America, I can personally tell you how important Rhode Island was to the overall American campaign.
I can attest to the inspired work Rhode Island contributed behind local leaders like Pete Harris, Al McAloon, Norma Jencks and Tom Kelly and so many others. You held large demonstrations at Robert Emmet Square. Governor Garrahy flew flags at half-mast at the death of Bobby Sands. I was flown up for a special event attended by both the Governor and Mayor of Providence. Rhode Island even arranged a special meeting in Washington for me with Senator Pell to support the Hunger Strikers.
Today some in the north want to celebrate the centenary of partition and Britain’s six county state. British rule in the six counties was set up to serve British interests, and was founded upon sectarian discrimination and repression. The Hunger Strikers suffered and died for freedom from British rule.
Today let us remember these patriots with pride, and also remember proudly the important part Irish America and Rhode played in their victory over criminalization.
Remembering
those who gave their lives for a
Free and United Ireland
Welcome to the unveiling and dedication of monument honoring the ten brave Irishmen who sacrificed their lives in defiance of the
British claim that Ireland’s centuries long fight
for Independence was a criminal enterprise!
The R.I.
Famine Memorial Monument Site
Providence
River Greenway
May 21, 2023
1:00 p.m.
Followed by a
Reception at the
Irish
Ceilidhe Club of Rhode Island
50
America St
Cranston,
Rhode Island
 |
| Martin Galvin ⏩is Freedom for all Ireland Chair-Ancient Order of Hibernians Former National Publicity Chair –Irish Northern Aid |
I informed Martin Galvin of the content on the supposed hunger strike commemorative plaque in Providence, Rhode Island, USA BEFORE he went to speak at the “commemoration”. I sent him a copy of my letter to James McGetrick, the director of the “1916” Committee” in Rhode Island in which I had vehemently objected to the wording on the plaque— as insulting to the hunger strikers’ families, but they would not change it. Galvin went to speak at this “commemoration” anyway. He could have withdrawn and kept his honour. . He did not..He could have written a letter in protest of the wording as erroneous, distorted and dishonest. He did not.
ReplyDeleteI was the founder and chairman of the New York H-Block/ Armagh Committee and brought numerous delegations from the USA to the north during those days. I was at 4 of the funerals. The prison struggle changed my life, as it did so many of ours. This plaque is pro-Sinn Féin propaganda and it is a lie. The 10 men who died, like those who were on the first hunger strike, did not suffer and die for electoral politics—each developed many years later. That is a blatant lie and indeed, an insult to their memory.
Dixie Eliot is correct, and he has my profound respect for his beautiful, truthful oration in honour of brave patriot Kevin Lynch. He knows that the memory of these brave republicans is too great to be defiled by opportunistic and revisionist lies.
Martin Galvin comments
DeleteGeorge I think you should reread my comments and speech because you seemed to have misunderstood and misstated what I wrote.
You did send me an email with the wording of the inscription a couple of days before the commemoration.
Although I did not mention you directly I thought I made that point clearly when I commented:
When I learned of the inscription I decided it was important to attend and speak about what the Hunger Strikers died for as well as remember ordinary people in Rhode Island and across the United States who worked under my leadership to support them. I could have backed out and cleared the way for the inscription to be the only narrative the large crowd would ever hear.
I did not and do not agree with the wording. I contacted and stated my feelings about the inscription to committee members.
They were surprised and actually considered my feelings very seriously but said by then it was too late to get the inscription carved into a stone monument changed with only days to go before the unveiling.
You had written them just before my conversation, but they said a threatened one person-boycott, by someone who was not involved in the work to get the Monument, was not taken seriously.
Had you or anyone else living in Rhode Island been attending the meetings and let me know what wording was being discussed I might have been able to use my influence to try and get the wording changed.
At this point I could have backed out.
I could have followed the example of those who announce boycotts but really mean they are reluctant to stand on a platform and speak out when it means challenging
speakers from other perspectives.
How do we tell the truth that the Hunger Strikers died for a united Ireland and to deny the British using them as human props to criminalize Ireland's struggle for freedom, if we do not stand up and deny other speakers an uncontested platform to present a different story as accepted truth?
I thought it was important to make the above speech part of the commemoration.
I believe giving that speech, especially to a huge crowd, most of whom were too young to remember the Hunger Strike but came to learn and honor the Hunger Strikers' legacy was the right thing to do.
It is also important to keep in mind that when we disagree , we try to do so in good faith, accepting that others may have principled reasons for having a different view of what is the right thing to do.
George you probably have not seen the recent RTE Documentary Noraid: Irish America and the IRA, but looking back to my commitment to Republicanism since I joined Noraid 49 years ago, it is wholly wrong for anyone to use words like lost honor or sell-out because I decided it was the right thing to give the above speech honoring the Hunger Strikers more than 2 years ago.
There is rarely only one right way to go about these things. I can see both sides of the argument here. Although I would not have been comfortable speaking at it myself, I can see how others would differ. Pat Sheehan might have championed the GFA in his speech but Martin Galvin did not in his own. The key line in his speech for me was The Hunger Strikers suffered and died for freedom from British rule. That is a long way from suffering and dying for the GFA.
DeleteThe inscription is not so wrong in what it says but in what it leaves out: just how the manipulation, dishonesty and deviousness brought a situation about where the outcome of the struggle was the GFA - the very opposite of what the hunger strikers believed in or what the war was fought to achieve.
Imagine for a second the IRA had said its core demand was a British declaration of intent to hold a border poll so that a majority in the North could decide the future of the North. We would all have responded that we got a border poll in March 1973 and bombed London the very day it was held.
If people are happy with the GFA, fine. But I wish they would desist from pretending that it remotely resembled what the war was waged for.
If the IRA demand was for a border poll the British would have been delighted that it was so limited.
Sad that we have so many dead to commemorate when the outcome was available long before they died.
FIrstly George thank you for your kind words.
ReplyDeleteWe are in total agreement in regards to the revisionist wording on the so called commemorative plaque in Providence, Rhode Island. It is a total insult to the memories of those ten brave men who most certainly did not die to put Sinn Féin on the path of electorism or bring about an updated version of the Sunningdale Agreement which had been renamed the GFA.
They died for Irish Freedom.
Yet electoralism has achieved nothing except a vague promise of a border poll in the so called GFA, or as the Unionists refer to it; The Belfast Agreement. They can't even agree on what it is called because of ingrained sectarianism.
The dice have been loaded firmly in favour of Unionist bigotry yet the nationalist supporters of the GFA would have you believe that it is a stepping-stone to a United Ireland.
A united Ireland which keeps moving further away into the distant future just as surely as the Sinn Féiners keep moving further away from the Republican ideals of Bobby Sands and his nine comrades.
These men, in particular Bobby, are now used for political and financial gain.
That is the purpose of the so called commemorative plaque in Rhode
Island.
I read Martin Galvin's speech three times over and no where in it does he challenge the wording of that plaque. No where does he say that it is wrong and in the interests of historial accuracy it should replaced, otherwise these men would have died for a lie. A downright lie.
I wonder if Martin could tell us why, after all those years of attacking the GFA as a sellout, he is now such a supporter of it, that himself and the other leading member of the AOH who's name now eludes me, insulted John Crawley and his wife Debbie in Derry because he went against their demands not to attack the GFA and did exactly that? Telling John that he and Debbie were not welcome at their breakfast table.
John Crawley is a true Irish soldier who came to Ireland to fight the British crown forces. He risked his life on active service but he could not stomach a breakfast with people who'd attempt to censor him in such an arrogant and insulting manner...
I agree with the thrust of your argument Dixie. However, the leadership of the Provisionals allowed themselves be walked into a trap once they decided to forego abstentionism. They were lured into a trap. Eventually facilitated access to Castlerea in a rouse, a faux operation so they could clearly see that they were caught by the balls. The begining of the end.
DeleteThe GFA, or as some rightly call it, the pacification process, places former Republicans in somewhat of a bind. Accept the GFA and accept that we were screwed, or reject it, and the popular mandate it received, only to become then categorised as anti-democratic.
As Adams & McGuinness, along with the rest of the Provisionals, told the Republicans in '86 pack your bags and go home, get to fuck out of our organisation. We have plans!
But the plans didn't work out for the Provisionals did they?
HJ - you might be unintentionally generous to them.
DeleteI am not convinced the leadership did not know where this was going. In fact I would suggest that where they are at was part of the plan. Once they started out on the path they choose where else would they go?
Where else would they go?
DeleteNowhere, except into the partitionalist nationalist camp, and out of the Republican Movement.
Which is what they did but while retaining the title deeds. From the leadership's point of view if there is a body of people willing to have their eye wiped why not piss down their back and tell them it is raining?
DeleteThey retained tilte deeds to the same extent that Fianna Fáil claimed to. Similar as FG did under Enda Kenny. Kenny had the Wolf Tones play at his victory celebration on becoming leader of the party, had the neck to have a copy of the Proclamation delivered to every National School in the State as part of the centenary celebrations, one to every school in the State and delivered by an officer of the Free State army in full dress uniform!
DeletePretenders, aye squatters the lot of them. You couldn't make this stuff up.
all very true but in a world where possession is 90% ownership . . .
DeleteThat sounds like an Israeli on the West Bank justification or retort.
DeleteBut only to the tone deaf ear I would venture!! The better pitched ear discerns that the Israeli settler cites it as legitimation whereas I cite it as caution, a warning against conceding possession otherwise the old legal maxim of “possession is nine-tenths of the law” kicks in.
DeleteTone deaf pretentious squatters, all on the one road, on the road to God knows where. Somewhere, anywhere, but not the 'Irish Republic'.
Deletewhat is often lacking from this debate - something I have discussed with John Crawley - is the laying out and fleshing out of an Irish Republic. For most people there is no appreciable difference between the type of aberration SF might deliver and the Republic as envisaged by John and yourself. So from their point of view why not buy into the SF faux brand? It will be called a Republic anyway. Bewailing the absence of a Republic is not going to deliver one, whatever it may be. Its the possession/ownership thing again: while SF possess the brand 9/10ths of people might regard them as owners.
DeleteRepublicans are going to be faced with what to do if a border poll ever takes place. It seems to be if they call for a boycott they will be marginalised and made to look like some quaint religious sect. If they vote in favour of constitutional change they might just help get it. It might only be incremental in their view but incrementally is generally how we move in the world. The question then is whether that incremental change weakens the quest for a Republic or strengthens it even if only in the most gradualist of manners. But whatever republicans do, they are best advised to strategise rather than scream.
I wasn't aware I was bewailing or screaming, but hey there you go.
DeleteFor the record again. I no longer identify as a Republican. Rather, I identify as a 'former republican'. The Republic I swore allegiance to has become delegitimised, delegitimised by the expressed will of the people. Collectively, the people have spoken. Any claim to sovereignty over the 32 counties and the territorial waters have been written out of Dev's constitution. The GFA is a recognised international agreement, an international agreement that makes Partitionists out of us all.
We can't be Partitionists and Republicans. Nor can we be anti-partitionist and democrats. Faced with such distinctions, I'm no longer calling myself a republican, I'm a former republican, I'm a democrat, and ergo a reluctant partitionist.
You were definitely not screaming.
DeleteBewailing - that I something I imagine we have all done or do. Why would we not lament what ahs happened to the struggle we gave so much of our lives to?
If Germany sank to the bottom of the sea leaving no country for Germans to belong to the people would still be German. Same with republicanism. Republicans can survive the death of republicanism. I am not a partitionist, reluctant or otherwise. Nor do I consider you one although I would defer to how you wish to define yourself given there would be substance to your belief.
As Galvin gave his long self apologetic analysis in front of a naive crowd and a commemorative plaque that contains a lie which insinuates that the INTENT of the republican hunger strike included Sinn Fein’s secret wish to abandon republican militant resistance for electoral politics, he honored what had been written in bronze for thousands of neophytes to see. He never disowned that lie. What could the reasons be?
ReplyDeleteIf you read the wording on the plaque closely, you will see evidence of the hidden intent of the creators. I believe amid the absence of IRA and INLA identifiers( which I also requested, but which were also rejected). Galvin’s refusal to show any sign of revulsion at these things must be tied to that hidden intent.
Show us the plaque and you will see.
As people grow older evidently their opinions and values may change. A man can change ones mind whether it be right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteI am not advocating for anyone here but personally I think the interpretations and wordings on a plaque should not amount to such an uproar I do not see a great conspiracy here. As wrong as it may be.
I believe that every Avenue must be exhausted (border poll) before any other is taken that risks human life.
We are responsible for our decisions. If we make believe that we are not deciding, “Not to decide is to decide.” As Harvey Cox said.
ReplyDeleteThis is the foundation of a civil society and any justice that survives within it. Otherwise, the crux of the matter doesn’t matter. If we now put up a memorial to the Fenians which stated that their sacrifice evolved into parliamentarianism, we would be lying and defiling the memory of them for us snd our children.
If that doesn’t matter, then then we become cynics and there is meaning at all in any effort.
“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.”
Fulton J. Sheen
Just that it would not be lying. That is what it has all evolved into, much as it evolved into the Treaty, partition and the GFA. It is the evolution into these things that republicans have witnessed and opposed. And republicans continue to bear witness to it today by stating very clearly that this evolution was never the objective of the republican project. In that sense Martin Galvin made a useful contribution by stating in his speech that the hunger strikers died in pursuit of a united Ireland, the clear inference being that they died in the hope of pursuing a British declaration of intent to withdraw from Ireland. That is vastly different from dying for the GFA which was a British declaration of intent to stay in Ireland until such times as a majority in the North voted otherwise - the very same terms they had been in Ireland.
DeleteIt is telling that even today Martin Galvin is being attacked by SF types and smeared as a fellow traveller of the Omagh bombers after he featured in that Noraid documentary.
The problem with the monument is less what it says but the subtext that contextually insinuates something else entirely. We can be biblical and demand of Galvin that he renounce Satan and all of his works until he meets our biblical standards. But that is more likely to see us marginalised as sandwich board men rather than him.
As someone critical of the GFA from the outset and who left the movement over it, I agree with Gowain, this is amplified well beyond what it merits.
My primary long standing disagreement with Martin Galvin is not this but his call for prosecutions of state forces when we know that this can only lead to the prosecution in British no-jury courts, and imprisonment in British jails, of the IRA and INLA volunteers of Bobby Sands generation.
By his appearance and seeming endorsement, Galvin honoured the ONLY monument (that I know of) in the New England section of the United States for these men —which, in common language will mislead, for generations to come, the uninformed reader into believing something that is not true. The words on the monument say, "...and (the deaths of the ten men) also created the conditions for the armed struggle to evolve into participation in electoral politics, leading eventually to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998."
ReplyDeleteIt is a matter of opinion, not fact, what “evolved” but not what was the INTENT of those men when they made their sacrifice? That’s the only thing anyone has a right to place on the plaque. Any additions about future developments—which were out of the volunteers’ hands, and manipulated by those in a wing of Sinn Fein for their own INTENT should not be intertwined into the hunger strike’s purposes in a monument which is meant to be a remembrance and a tool of education. Speaking at its unveiling is legitimizing its false statement unless you publicly disown it. Galvin did not do that. His speech will fade anyway, but the monument will remain, another lasting reminder of how Sinn Fein misled so many, betraying an honorable ideal for which so many suffered and died. That is not the truth, and I stand against it. If you do not believe in truth, that is, indeed, another matter.
"...and (the deaths of the ten men) also created the conditions for the armed struggle to evolve into participation in electoral politics, leading eventually to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998."
DeleteThat is a true statement. It leaves out that the evolution was managed and manipulated. This is what we have always said: that the armed struggle led to the GFA when it should never have led to it. That is why so many of us feel let down by the GFA.
In my view it was better that Martin Galvin said the hunger strikers died for a united Ireland which is a clear rebuttal of any suggestion they died for the GFA. Had he not there is every likelihood that the SF speaker would have felt free to say what was not on the monument - that the intent of the hunger strikers was to bring about the GFA.
In fact the monument could have said had the hunger strikers lived they might have supported the GFA. That might be true but it would be an even more crass manipulation of the public mind.
I believe in truth, just not inflicting my truth on everybody else who holds a different view. Had enough of that from SF. Once that happens we begin to sound like Evangelical Christians always on the look out for somebody we can call a traitor much as they call people sinners.
In fairness haven't heard Seoirse or anyone else on this thread invoke the 'T' word. I'd contend that people ought not collude with those who persist in deliberate distortions of the narrative. In this particular scenario I don't think Martin Galvin obsequiously colluded with the organisers, though I can understand too Seoirse's umbrage with him.
DeleteI don't know if it is the way I write or the way you read, but on either occasion with the reference to screamers (not directed to you) or to traitors (not directed to Seoirse) it is a reflection on where a lot of republican discussion tends to be not where this one happens to be.
DeleteAs I said earlier, I can see both sides of the argument on this one.
My reading skills and your writing abilities are equal insofar as they are perceptually driven. My perceptions, as with yours, are saturated with our values.
Delete(The most memorable, at least to me, of former comrades using the traitor invocation was spoken by the late MMG, subsequent to attacks on members of the Crown Forces. Hence perhaps me being a bit touchy around the word).
I recall the McGuinness statement. Wrote a piece for the Independent (London) in response to it. Who is McGuinness to talk of treachery?
DeleteBut I am thinking more of the 'take it down from the mast' chant. Republicans have frequently been labelling as traitors the Shinners and others. I think a perfectly consistent and logical critique can be made of the SF position about their treachery but as I said earlier throwing 'traitor' about just starts to sound like the Evangelical Christian screaming 'sinner' at all and sundry. We end up sounding as if we are whackjobs and the Shinners reasonable.
Well crafted article for the Independent. Particularly liked your closing comment, "an act of treachery against the truth".
DeleteThose who brand people who dissent from the GFA as enemies of the peace process, and insist on retaining the Republican mantle are themselves enemies of truth.
Thanks for that.
DeleteIt is the process we objected to not the peace.
Nor was the peace process a peaceful process, which we pointed out when they 'peacefully' killed Joe O'Connor.
I have not seen the plaque in person or a photograph but from reading:
ReplyDelete“…and (the deaths of the ten men) also created the conditions for the armed struggle to evolve into participation in electoral politics, leading eventually to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998."
The word that jumps out to me is ‘also’ and as hard as I try I cannot find any inherent lie within the statement, for what is said is what inevitably happened.
It is clear without question what the intent of the 10 Martyrs were as per their very actions, and it is no doubt that their sacrifice shook the earth, change of some sort was undoubtedly inevitable.
Moreover, I would hazard a guess that they may have hoped that their sacrifice might have brought about the conditions that ensured no more innocent people would have to die. On Moore Street Patrick Pearse and comrades came to a similar conclusion upon witnessing the slaughter of Irish women and children.
The prison protests were essentially about the removal of 'Special Category Status'.
DeleteIf special category status had not been removed there would not have been fas. ts to the death undertaken.
Special Category Status was removed as part of the 'criminalisation and Ulsterisation' policies of the then British Labour Party government. The prison protests were an attempt at maintaining the right of an occupied people to resist, and regaining the right of captured combatants to special status. Roy Mason wanted to undermine those legitimate positions. He wanted to criminalise the cause and those who fought against it.
To say that the men who died in Irish and British gaols died in pursuit of anything other than what I have stated is erroneous. Colluding with distortions of a factual narrative are less than objective and potentially deceitful
Hopefully not pedantic but Merlyn Rees rather than Roy Mason removed the status.
DeleteNobody in this discussion is suggesting that the hunger strikers died for anything other than what you have stated. Even the monument does not say that . . . subtext I would suggest is very different.
Bobby and Tom made statements about wanting peace but it is perfectly consistent with republicanism to argue for peace - even to give up war - and not become inheritors of the Treaty tradition.
The GFA is pretty much a refined form of the Treaty.
I just emailed you the image Gowain.
DeleteWe can't say with any degree of certainty what way the hunger strikers had they lived would have viewed the GFA. All that can be said with certainty is that when they died the GFA would have been considered by them to be a huge defeat and the usurpation of republicanism.
The inscription on the monument is correct but the inflection put on it will be pretty much as Seoirse explained it. That does not mean Martin was wrong to speak at it and set the record straight as to what the hunger strikers died for. He could have done it in a much more confrontational way but the important thing is that he did it. There is no one way to do these things. Did he move beyond the 50th step and cross the line to abandonment of the republican cause? Definitely not. In my view there are a hundred steps between any core political position and the opposing political position.
Strategic flexibility requires the ability to move away from the safety rail of principle and explore the terrain where opportunity (as distinct from opportunism) lies. 50 steps is the maximum we can take and even then that is too close to the 51st step for comfort. Take the 51st and you are in the other side's camp. I see little value in me standing howling at everybody who lets go of the safety rail and ventures out. The further they go the more nervous I get but if progress is to be made that is the risk that has to be taken. The political world is not the spotless clean ivory tower. It is a sewer where the shit happens. If we want to stop the shit happening we can't stay out of the sewer.