Anthony McIntyre ☠ At no time in my political odyssey did I ever consider that commemorating British war dead was a worthwhile republican objective.
It simply never crossed the republican conversational or ideational radar. Had it been suggested during the blanket protest or in prison, its sponsor would at the very least have been whispered about and referred to in terms less than flattering.
The IRA, for its part, would have regarded the suggestion as loathsome, preferring instead to bomb the 1987 commemoration in Enniskillen in what has become known as the Poppy Day massacre. While commemorating British war dead rather than killing those who do so is much less harmful, infinitely more humane, politically it can hardly be regarded as a republican strategic advance, more a step backward.Michelle O'Neill justified her decision last month to lay a wreath at a British war dead commemoration on Remembrance Sunday with the dubious assertion that 'while we may not agree on everything, we must find common ground in respecting each other’s traditions and perspectives.' That is a sure indication of just how much the British state logic has succeeded in having Sinn Fein buy into the internal conflict model so reviled by republicans during the armed struggle.
Even in the context of an internal conflict model, there is no common ground here. O'Neill hails from Tyrone where republican hallowed ground is considered swampland by the British state and political unionism. Not once has a British official or Unionist politician offered to attended the grave of Martin Hurson who died on hunger strike in 1981.
It is obfuscating for O'Neill to claim she is the North's First Minister for all without explaining that the office of First Minister is so restricted in scope, so structurally constructed from a partisan and partitionist blueprint that it generates a situational logic whereby she feels compelled to find common ground with the British and unionism. At the same time, the British and unionism are freed from any structural constraints which might lead them to to find any common ground with her. She will go to their hallowed ground because she feels she has to. They will not come to hers because they feel they do not have to. Many suspect that it is only a matter of time before she, or whoever eventually replaces her, will not visit her own hallowed ground either.
People are entitled to commemorate whoever they choose. Were Michelle O'Neill to attend British war dead commemorations as a private individual, odd as it might seem, there would be insufficient in it to allow a critique to gain much traction. As, however, she attends such commemorations as the leader of a political tendency to pay unreciprocated homage, she is all too easily depicted as the slave that kneels to kiss its chains. Sinn Fein might wish to spin that it is following the strategy of Rudi Dutschke who contemplated a long march through the institutions. But the purpose of that long march is to capture the institutions, not be captured by them.
It simply never crossed the republican conversational or ideational radar. Had it been suggested during the blanket protest or in prison, its sponsor would at the very least have been whispered about and referred to in terms less than flattering.
The IRA, for its part, would have regarded the suggestion as loathsome, preferring instead to bomb the 1987 commemoration in Enniskillen in what has become known as the Poppy Day massacre. While commemorating British war dead rather than killing those who do so is much less harmful, infinitely more humane, politically it can hardly be regarded as a republican strategic advance, more a step backward.Michelle O'Neill justified her decision last month to lay a wreath at a British war dead commemoration on Remembrance Sunday with the dubious assertion that 'while we may not agree on everything, we must find common ground in respecting each other’s traditions and perspectives.' That is a sure indication of just how much the British state logic has succeeded in having Sinn Fein buy into the internal conflict model so reviled by republicans during the armed struggle.
Even in the context of an internal conflict model, there is no common ground here. O'Neill hails from Tyrone where republican hallowed ground is considered swampland by the British state and political unionism. Not once has a British official or Unionist politician offered to attended the grave of Martin Hurson who died on hunger strike in 1981.
It is obfuscating for O'Neill to claim she is the North's First Minister for all without explaining that the office of First Minister is so restricted in scope, so structurally constructed from a partisan and partitionist blueprint that it generates a situational logic whereby she feels compelled to find common ground with the British and unionism. At the same time, the British and unionism are freed from any structural constraints which might lead them to to find any common ground with her. She will go to their hallowed ground because she feels she has to. They will not come to hers because they feel they do not have to. Many suspect that it is only a matter of time before she, or whoever eventually replaces her, will not visit her own hallowed ground either.
People are entitled to commemorate whoever they choose. Were Michelle O'Neill to attend British war dead commemorations as a private individual, odd as it might seem, there would be insufficient in it to allow a critique to gain much traction. As, however, she attends such commemorations as the leader of a political tendency to pay unreciprocated homage, she is all too easily depicted as the slave that kneels to kiss its chains. Sinn Fein might wish to spin that it is following the strategy of Rudi Dutschke who contemplated a long march through the institutions. But the purpose of that long march is to capture the institutions, not be captured by them.
 |
| ⏩Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre. |
The Shinners accept the war is over, Unionists cannot accept the war is over.
ReplyDeleteIn this sense it's easier for a Sinn Fein leader to pay respects ( and I salute her for it) than it would ever be seen ( from the PUL community) to be acceptable for a Unionist leader to say, lay a wreath at a Republican monument.
Unionism seldom misses an opportunity to shoot itself in the foot. The enormous goodwill optics of such a move would strengthen Unionism not weaken it. They are missing an easy political gain here.
what exactly would that move be Steve?
DeleteTo lay a wreath at say the Garden of Remembrance in Parnell Square. But as not a cynical optics exercise, a genuine show of respect. I reckon it would go a long way in the psyche for both sides. A lot more compassion would be a good thing.
ReplyDelete