Civil Rights Movement v Armed Republicanism

silverharp

I know the whole NI issue has probably been done to death in the past on this board but given that SF/IRA have never regretted their campaign, then they obviously feel that they had logical aims and objectives.

When I think of the NI catholic situation in the 1960’s I can’t help thinking about the MLK approach in the US at the same time. To achieve their aims they organised boycotts, and one way or another embarrassed the authorities into change. Flicking back to NI, this seems like the only tactic that should have been used. The idea that a minority of a minority (the IRA) could win seems like madness to me and it has all the appearances of death cult, also did republicans undermine the civil rights movement which in time would have achieved most of its objectives and probably would have achieved shared power by the 1980’s, the unionists would not have had the excuse of not wanting to deal with “terrorists” but would have to maintain a stance that they didn’t “want a catholic about the place” which would have become increasingly untenable.

my_house

more than likely if the Civil Rights movement hadnt faced so much trouble from the NI government at the time, plus the police force and loyalists, then you wouldnt have had an IRA nor the 'troubles' in the 6 counties

my_house

silverharp wrote:

the civil rights movement which in time would have achieved most of its objectives and probably would have achieved shared power by the 1980’s, the unionists would not have had the excuse of not wanting to deal with “terrorists” but would have to maintain a stance that they didn’t “want a catholic about the place” which would have become increasingly untenable.

how can you back this up? can you prove that the CR movement "would have achieved most of its objectives and probably would have achieved shared power by the 1980’s" ?

Things were ****ed up by the early 70s as it was, before the PIRA really got organised. As long as there was a government that hated catholics and a police force to back it, there would have been no peace no matter if the IRA existed or not. To suggest otherwise isnt based in what happened

RedPlanet

The Unionists already had their excuses not to share power with Catholics.
They didn't need an IRA strawmen.

ScottishDanny

I think Bloody Sunday put an end to the Civil Rights campaign. Militant Republicans said "Right we tried it your way, now its our turn". I believe Ivan Cooper (CR leader on the civil rights march that day) has said as much. The British Army have conceded that it was the biggest recuiter for PIRA at the time.

Hobbes

silverharp wrote:

To achieve their aims they organised boycotts, and one way or another embarrassed the authorities into change. Flicking back to NI, this seems like the only tactic that should have been used.

Actually they did do that around that time. Didn't help. In at least one instance just got a load of people shot.

The Derry march in 1968 was a civil rights march that pretty much sparked up the troubles (not the marchers but them being beaten to a pulp on TV).

Bloody Sunday was also civil rights march that ended up recruiting more IRA.

NICRA also organised civil disobedence. As did the DCAC, Nationalist party, SDLP. Also a reported 16,000 households taking part by refusing to pay rents/bills as part of the civil disobedence during that time

So there were people certainly trying it, but it didn't have the level of parallels with South USA, unless they did it 50 years earlier (would of gotten the same response as NI).

the unionists would not have had the excuse of not wanting to deal with “terrorists” but would have to maintain a stance that they didn’t “want a catholic about the place” which would have become increasingly untenable.

I believe not so during those times. Heck there are still a number of unionists that won't deal with catholics. (and visa versa)

ScottishDanny wrote:

I think Bloody Sunday put an end to the Civil Rights campaign.

I believe this so too. IRA got most of its support from then on.

silverharp

my_house wrote:

how can you back this up? can you prove that the CR movement "would have achieved most of its objectives and probably would have achieved shared power by the 1980’s" ?

No, it is a "what if", but if the movement had gathered steam, and gone about things using rent strikes, labour strikes etc. and got the Irish American lobby behind them, then I believe that change would have come about in any case. Once back to direct rule then all the employment rights etc would have happened.
Then it would have been back to trying to get a devolved gov. In the greater scheme of things a devolved gov. wasn't worth the 2000 plus killings. So whether it happened in the 80's or not is a mute point.

I disagree

silverharp wrote:

No, it is a "what if", but if the movement had gathered steam, and gone about things using rent strikes, labour strikes etc. and got the Irish American lobby behind them, then I believe that change would have come about in any case. Once back to direct rule then all the employment rights etc would have happened.
Then it would have been back to trying to get a devolved gov. In the greater scheme of things a devolved gov. wasn't worth the 2000 plus killings. So whether it happened in the 80's or not is a mute point.

Rent strikes would have meant a visit from the B specials and a quick and painful eviction. Labour strikes... Don't make me laugh. Do you think unionists would have missed the toilet scrubber or whatever other job a catholic could get at the time? The British had the chance to force the hand of unionists in the early seventies but chose to maintain the status quo. The military campaign made the British government contemplate withdrawal as can be seen from the recently released state files.

silverharp

So are ye all arguing that in the absence of an armed campaign, NI in the 1990’s would have been more or less the same as the late 60’s, that employment legislation etc would not have moved on, that Britain joining the EEC wouldn’t have forced changes. Seems unlikey to me

bonkey

I'm really amazed how appropriate my sig is to so many threads I've been reading recently.

silverharp wrote:

When I think of the NI catholic situation in the 1960’s I can’t help thinking about the MLK approach in the US at the same time. To achieve their aims they organised boycotts, and one way or another embarrassed the authorities into change.

In fairness though, the history of NI before the 60s and the US before MLK aren't directly comparable. Sure, there's similarities, but there's also significant differences.

So while MLKs strategy certainly worked - to a certain extent at least - there is no specific reason to believe that it should work in all other environments.

If we ignore setting, history, etc. one could just as easily use Tiannamen Square to back an argument that civil protest does not work, or that it only works to an incredibly limited degree and that its not a formula for success.

Rent strikes would have meant a visit from the B specials and a quick and painful eviction. Labour strikes... Don't make me laugh. Do you think unionists would have missed the toilet scrubber or whatever other job a catholic could get at the time?

Whereas blacks in the US weren't ever violently acted against for their protests, nor were they the holders of such menial positions that their presence wouldn't have been missed?

I think not.

The difference was that in one case, one side did not take the resistance to their demands as a reason or an excuse to pick up arms and fight for them, whereas in the other case, they did.

I disagree

silverharp wrote:

So are ye all arguing that in the absence of an armed campaign, NI in the 1990’s would have been more or less the same as the late 60’s, that employment legislation etc would not have moved on, that Britain joining the EEC wouldn’t have forced changes. Seems unlikey to me

Hindsight is such a wonderful thing but I’m sure if you had been there when the RUC were baton charging crowds you could have said ‘that it has only been fifty years of discrimination and violence, maybe the UK and Ireland will join this EEC thing sometime in the future. Until then we will sit back and accept or beatings, discrimination and deaths because the glorious British who since the creation of this state have not lifted a hand to protect or ensure civil liberties.’ The British and Irish governments sat back in their own little worlds for five decades and watch but did nothing. Jack Lynch offered much but reneged on everything.

bonkey wrote:

The difference was that in one case, one side did not take the resistance to their demands as a reason or an excuse to pick up arms and fight for them, whereas in the other case, they did.

The UVF was reactivated in 1966 under Gusty Spence. At the time the IRA was almost non-existent and posed no threat to anyone. The civil rights people attempted to take the political and peaceful path for several years but they were blocked by mobs of unionists, B specials and RUC who rampaged through the streets burning Catholics out of their houses such as what occurred in Bombay St. and other areas. 33,000 civilians escaped across the border to seek sanctuary. The fact is that they tried peaceful means but were shunned by the establishment ‘a Protestant state for a Protestant people’. During the whole time the OIRA took weapons away from the communities which needed protecting so as not to be seen as sectarian in the event that a member of a protestant mob was shot while attempting to murder a Catholic civilian. This brought the Provies into existence and as a matter of fact they didn’t go on the offensive until about 1971. Their duty was to protect civilians at the start and as all IRAs do they went on in the hope of liberating Ireland from foreign rule. If the British or unionists had yielded to the demands of the civil rights people at the time without resorting to ethnic cleansing then the IRA would have had no support and would have just vanished back into their communities.
Before you state that I am an apologist for the IRA I would like to say that I always voted SDLP. My family was split between supporting the SDLP and Sinn Féin and I followed the SDLP part because although I agree somewhat with the objectives of the IRA I dislike what they have done. I saw it as never working and in that respect I was half right. I moved to the south after I got married for personal reasons but if I were to live in the six counties I would probably vote Sinn Féin because I think they are in the strongest position, from a nationalist perspective and I believe they will never support a return to violence that was so prevalent on our streets. If they do then I’ll jump back to opposing such violence.