Northern Protestants

Tim Robbins

Hello!
Just reading Susan McKay's "Northern Protestants". It's not bad. A collection of anecdotes from Northern Protestants. I am just wondering though how skewed and biased it is.

For example, most of the people she interviews are loyalists, involved with the Orange Order and would veer towards the hardline of the spectrum. I would guess at least 3 / 4 of the people she interviews are like this. I would have thought only about 1 / 4 of Northern Protestants were that extreme and hence this book, like every other book on the North is biased and skewed.

Anybody like to comment?

Fratton Fred

I hate the term "Protestant". IMHO, the term "Protestant" is something which has been created to form an anti Catholic alliance in NI.

there is a difference between Presbytarian, Anglican, Methodist etc. I think you will find that most "Protestants" in NI are Presbytarian which is as different to Anglicanism as Catholicism is.

Technically speaking, everyone who is not Catholic or Orthodox is a Protestant.

(Sorry, I didn't mean to have a rant on you thread, I have a couple of anecdotes from a friend who was a reverend in South Belfast for a while. I'll post them up when i remember them fully)

marco murphy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I hate the term "Protestant". IMHO, the term "Protestant" is something which has been created to form an anti Catholic alliance in NI.

there is a difference between Presbytarian, Anglican, Methodist etc. I think you will find that most "Protestants" in NI are Presbytarian which is as different to Anglicanism as Catholicism is.

Technically speaking, everyone who is not Catholic or Orthodox is a Protestant.

(Sorry, I didn't mean to have a rant on you thread, I have a couple of anecdotes from a friend who was a reverend in South Belfast for a while. I'll post them up when i remember them fully)

You are correct. Another generalisation.

irish_bob

presbyterianism would be regarded as more rigid and conservative than anglicanism , those of that denomination would be seen as more anti catholic than anglicans also

this is of course another genralisation

Fratton Fred

irish_bob wrote: »

presbyterianism would be regarded as more rigid and conservative than anglicanism , those of that denomination would be seen as more anti catholic than anglicans also

this is of course another genralisation

True, but one of the anecdotes is this.

A CoI minister who was a colleague of my friend was unfortunate to lose a young son, a innocent victim to an IRA bomb. The minister, being a better man than I, took it upon himself to use his sons tragic death as an opportunity to build bridges, to forgive rather than seek vengance.

He actually worked very hard starting up youth clubs where Catholics and Protestants could mix and worked hard to break down some of the barriers in the local community.

The Bishop told him that all this peace and reconciliation was fine, but not to let it get in the way of the day job :rolleyes:

That is tragic in my mind, what the heck is the Chuch about if its not peace and reconciliation. I believe the guy moved to Canada not longer after that.

Tim Robbins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I hate the term "Protestant". IMHO, the term "Protestant" is something which has been created to form an anti Catholic alliance in NI.

there is a difference between Presbytarian, Anglican, Methodist etc. I think you will find that most "Protestants" in NI are Presbytarian which is as different to Anglicanism as Catholicism is.

Technically speaking, everyone who is not Catholic or Orthodox is a Protestant.

(Sorry, I didn't mean to have a rant on you thread, I have a couple of anecdotes from a friend who was a reverend in South Belfast for a while. I'll post them up when i remember them fully)

Completly agree. It's the most obvious example of the media dumbing it down. The Anglicans are also technically Catholic but not Roman Catholic.

The Presbyterians were also harshly treated by the Anglicans in the Penal laws and were originally regarded as the most liberal Christian sect of all because the didn't even have Bishops and favour a lot of local autonomy and people making their own decisions.

The Free Presbyterians who split from the Presbyterians are hyper conservative. Important to remember this as a lot of the time the media brush the FPs with Ps, as if they were both the same. Patsy McGarry in the Times is always doing it. Right now, I think it's difficult to say if the Presbyterians are less or more liberal than the Anglicans. The Anglicans and Presbyterians in the South differ hugely from those in the North.

Anyway back to the OP. Not sure if anyone else is read this book, it is called "Northern Protestants" which is why I called the thread that.

I think she is simplfying and I am wondering does anyone agree with me?

Personally I would have called the book "Northern Loyalists" as that is all she is mainly interested in.

LordSutch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I would have thought only about 1 / 4 of Northern Protestants were that extreme and hence this book, like every other book on the North is biased and skewed.

Anybody like to comment?

You are correct in your conclusions Tim.

guinnessdrinker

I read the book a year or so ago. It's a good read alright with some interesting interviews.

Some of the things that stood out for me are the fact that some of the younger people interviewed had no problem with a United Ireland happening and how they felt differently about Northern Ireland once they moved away from it. Also one person mentions that there was I think it was a Norman fort near her house but she never knew what it was growing up because nobody spoke about history prior to the plantations. An elderly lady tells a story about something that happened during the War of Independnce that went something like this; the Tans would stop their truck and tell the people on the road to run, if they ran they were shot but if they stood still they were not shot. She explained this by saying something like, "our side were told not to run!"

I think the fact that the author herself is protestant helped her in getting a lot of the interviews. I would recomend it to anyone interested in the subject.

LordSutch

Yeah right, but as the author of this thread has already suggested, maybe it is a good read, but only if you want a biased & skewed view of all Northern Protestants?

Fratton Fred

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

and how they felt differently about Northern Ireland once they moved away from it.

I used to drink in an Irish pub in my younger days with some friends and their Dad(The Rose in Maidenhead). You would quite often hear about a fight in the pub in the local rag and not being able to recall it happening.

Typically, there would be 10 or 12 lads from NI in there, enjoying a lock in from the landlord. Someone would knock over a pint, or a "Rebal" song would come on the jukebox. then the words "Prody" or "Fenian" would get mentioned and all hell would break loose, usually ending up with 4 or 5 of them speding the night in a cell.

The next day the same guys would be in there, propping up the bar the very best of friends.

But yeah, most of them would say the same thing, away from NI none of it seemed to matter anymore, until they wanted a good fight.

guinnessdrinker

ArthurF wrote: »

Yeah right, but as the author of this thread has already suggested, maybe it is a good read, but only if you want a biased & skewed view of all Northern Protestants?

Perhaps, but how much is biased and skewed? Here is a quote from the cover of the book by the late David Ervine; "The problem that I had with this book was that it was true and frightening and painful ... I wish that every Protestant and every unionist would read it."

Also, another quote by him from the inside page; "Essentially a book like this, if it can be widely read - and I hope that it is - [will allow] people to begin to recognise the degrees of denial that we have and the sense of perception that we have of ourselves which is not shared by others"

I for one, respected David Ervine and took notice when he had something to say. It's true that the book may be difficult reading in parts for some unionists but nevertheless it is in my opinion interesting if read with an open mind.

LordSutch

I always looked upon Ervine as the Loyalist version of Adams, and for that reason I respected his counter arguments over the Provo analysis of the troubles. It was the Title of this thread that drew my attention in the first place > Hello! Just reading Susan McKay's "Northern Protestants". It's not bad. A collection of anecdotes from Northern Protestants. I am just wondering though how skewed and biased it is.

For example, most of the people she interviews are loyalists, involved with the Orange Order and would veer towards the hardline of the spectrum. I would guess at least 3 / 4 of the people she interviews are like this. I would have thought only about 1 / 4 of Northern Protestants were that extreme and hence this book, like every other book on the North is biased and skewed.

Anybody like to comment?

I have not read the book myself, but the author of the Thread says that "Most of the people she interviews are Loyalists" and I say thats fair enough (Ervine being one himself) but Loyalists are Loyalists & they do not represent the majority of Protastants or Unionists North or South, so (on that basis) I would expect the book to be biased & skewed, for it does not represent 'Middle Ground Unionism' . . . .

I just wanted to make that point on behalf of 'Non Loyalists'.

guinnessdrinker

I know where you are coming from Arthur. I, like the op have read the book but I disagree with the comment that "most of the people she interviews are loyalists". She interviewed a wide cross section of "Northern Protestants". I don't have the statistics but I would guess that only a quarter of those interviewed were loyalists. The rest included people like ordinary housewifes, business people, students, members of unionist parties and so on.

Yes, some loyalists were also interviewed as were members of the orange order and ex prisoners however, for me it was the opinion of the ordinary people with no ties to loyalisim that interested me the most.

LordSutch

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I hate the term "Protestant". IMHO, the term "Protestant" is something which has been created to form an anti Catholic alliance in NI.

Technically speaking, everyone who is not Catholic or Orthodox is a Protestant.

Technically speaking Protestants are also Catholic, but this is not to be confused with being Roman Catholic

Tim Robbins

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I know where you are coming from Arthur. I, like the op have read the book but I disagree with the comment that "most of the people she interviews are loyalists". She interviewed a wide cross section of "Northern Protestants". I don't have the statistics but I would guess that only a quarter of those interviewed were loyalists. The rest included people like ordinary housewifes, business people, students, members of unionist parties and so on.

Yes, some loyalists were also interviewed as were members of the orange order and ex prisoners however, for me it was the opinion of the ordinary people with no ties to loyalisim that interested me the most.

I am guessing 3/4 she interviews are staunch, loyalist, Free Presbyterian or hardline presbyterian and 1/4 aren't. That's impression I am getting with two chapters to go. She also seems to go to great lengths to illustrate the blase reactions to the Quinn murders in '98. Surely there's filtering going on.

I think it would have been better to split the chapters up by religion e.g. one for Prebyterians, one for C.o.I., one for Free Presbyterian etc. etc. Each chapter explain their background, their Churches position and then give a range of analysis of some of its members.

She also could have also gone through some statistics or empiracle analysis. Anecdotes can be unreliable.

Overheal

was it not originally called Calvinism or do i have my wires crossed?

ArthurF wrote: »

Yeah right, but as the author of this thread has already suggested, maybe it is a good read, but only if you want a biased & skewed view of all Northern Protestants?

kind of like the PULSE website does for its take on Republican Irish? :rolleyes:

Tim Robbins

Overheal wrote: »

was it not originally called Calvinism or do i have my wires crossed?

The Theology is Calvinism.
Basically A French man by the name of John Calvin set up his own reformed Church with his own ideas. A Scottish man by the name of John Knox took it back to Scotland and ran it on Presbyterian principles. Which meant no Bishops and local autonomy. It started off as a very liberal branch of Christianity and then the North came along :-)

Fratton Fred

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The Theology is Calvinism.
Basically A French man by the name of John Calvin set up his own reformed Church with his own ideas. A Scottish man by the name of John Knox took it back to Scotland and ran it on Presbyterian principles. Which meant no Bishops and local autonomy. It started off as a very liberal branch of Christianity and then the North came along :-)

A liberal branch of Christianity that was persecuted and massacred by Catholic mobs.

when you trace the history back, it is easy to see where the hatred of Catholicism originated from, but most "Protestants" have moved on. That seems to be a problem for some though.

Tim Robbins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A liberal branch of Christianity that was persecuted and massacred by Catholic mobs.

when you trace the history back, it is easy to see where the hatred of Catholicism originated from, but most "Protestants" have moved on. That seems to be a problem for some though.

And all Protestants were descrimated by in the state of Republic of Ireland until the removal of the special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution.

One could also argue that the Orange Order hatred of Roman Catholic's was just as bad as the G.A.A.'s outright banning of the RUC or British Army members from playing it's sports and of its own members not being allowed to play Soccer or Rugby.

It's really a futile excercise to see "which side" is more at fault.

Bring on atheism or else lower religious and ethnic extremism please!

turgon

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's really a futile excercise to see "which side" is more at fault.

Too true.

Was in a pub the other weekend, and for some reason this old man started naming off people he thinks should be convicted for war crimes - Margaret Thatcher, John Major etc. So I threw in Gerry Adams (mainly just to see what would happen). Of course I got the age old rant. He couldn't accept than the IRA was also wrong. He was against the Brighton bombings though.

Fratton Fred

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And all Protestants were descrimated by in the state of Republic of Ireland until the removal of the special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution.

One could also argue that the Orange Order hatred of Roman Catholic's was just as bad as the G.A.A.'s outright banning of the RUC or British Army members from playing it's sports and of its own members not being allowed to play Soccer or Rugby.

It's really a futile excercise to see "which side" is more at fault.

Bring on atheism or else lower religious and ethnic extremism please!

I would not try and say which side is right, becuase I don't believe either are. I find it interesting to see why the hatred started in the first place though.

What it appears to boil down to though, is the various monarchys around europe either being pro Rome or anti Rome and the subsequent infighting between them. Rome was always only to happy to poke its oar in as well which didn't help. Unfortunately poor old Joe Soap got caught up in it all and ended up choosing sides which divided communties.

Tim Robbins

turgon wrote: »

Too true.

Was in a pub the other weekend, and for some reason this old man started naming off people he thinks should be convicted for war crimes - Margaret Thatcher, John Major etc. So I threw in Gerry Adams (mainly just to see what would happen). Of course I got the age old rant. He couldn't accept than the IRA was also wrong. He was against the Brighton bombings though.

Brilliant. We are incapable of seeing our own biases. A bloke went crazy with me because I told him I thought Martin Dillon was biased and sensationalist.

Overheal

turgon wrote: »

Too true.

Was in a pub the other weekend, and for some reason this old man started naming off people he thinks should be convicted for war crimes - Margaret Thatcher, John Major etc. So I threw in Gerry Adams (mainly just to see what would happen). Of course I got the age old rant. He couldn't accept than the IRA was also wrong. He was against the Brighton bombings though.

my dad still wont let me say bad stuff about Nixon - because despite the watergate scandal, he stopped the draft. people will stand behind whoever suits them, its simply the way of things.

guinnessdrinker

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am guessing 3/4 she interviews are staunch, loyalist, Free Presbyterian or hardline presbyterian and 1/4 aren't. That's impression I am getting with two chapters to go.

That is not the impression I got from reading the book but we will have to agree to disagree.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think it would have been better to split the chapters up by religion e.g. one for Prebyterians, one for C.o.I., one for Free Presbyterian etc. etc. Each chapter explain their background, their Churches position and then give a range of analysis of some of its members.

Possibly, although it would probably have turned into a different book altogether if done in that way.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

She also could have also gone through some statistics or empiracle analysis. Anecdotes can be unreliable.

I don't think she set out to prove anything by compiling a list of statistics, again, the idea might have been good but it's for another book imo.

Of course anecdotes are unreliable but they make for intersting reading. Sometimes it is a lot more interesting reading about indivdual people's stories and views than it is to look at countless statistics and that is one of the reasons for me that made the book a good read.

Tim Robbins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would not try and say which side is right, becuase I don't believe either are. I find it interesting to see why the hatred started in the first place though.

What it appears to boil down to though, is the various monarchys around europe either being pro Rome or anti Rome and the subsequent infighting between them. Rome was always only to happy to poke its oar in as well which didn't help. Unfortunately poor old Joe Soap got caught up in it all and ended up choosing sides which divided communties.

The tribalism is certainly very obvious. It's easy to see what's wrong with it standing from afar. But I think there must be something appealing to the human condition about it as well. That's the hard part to understand. I think our brain's are hardwired to compete and fight as well as to love and be altruistic. So when you are caught up in it all, there can be something appealing and naturalistic about it.

I think Paisely's DNA enjoys rabble rousing and even if working in IT is much more civil, I think more serotonin is released for him and that type of person in his type of environment.

Tim Robbins

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

That is not the impression I got from reading the book but we will have to agree to disagree.

No problem. The reviews on Amazon seem to split. Presumably based on what people's bias's are.

McArmalite

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And all Protestants were descrimated by in the state of Republic of Ireland until the removal of the special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution.

One could also argue that the Orange Order hatred of Roman Catholic's was just as bad as the G.A.A.'s outright banning of the RUC or British Army members from playing it's sports and of its own members not being allowed to play Soccer or Rugby.

It's really a futile excercise to see "which side" is more at fault.

Bring on atheism or else lower religious and ethnic extremism please!

Totally agree with you there regarding special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution. Dev has a lot to answer for. Though it shouldn't be forgot that the head of state of britian still in written law cannot be a Catholic ( or is it correct, married to one ?? )

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I used to drink in an Irish pub in my younger days with some friends and their Dad(The Rose in Maidenhead). You would quite often hear about a fight in the pub in the local rag and not being able to recall it happening.

Typically, there would be 10 or 12 lads from NI in there, enjoying a lock in from the landlord. Someone would knock over a pint, or a "Rebal" song would come on the jukebox. then the words "Prody" or "Fenian" would get mentioned and all hell would break loose, usually ending up with 4 or 5 of them speding the night in a cell.

The next day the same guys would be in there, propping up the bar the very best of friends.

But yeah, most of them would say the same thing, away from NI none of it seemed to matter anymore, until they wanted a good fight.

Funny enough I remember reading a similair posting by you several months ago where you stated you seen the same thing but it was in a pub in your home town of Portsmouth ?? Your telling porkies Fred, just like a scene out of muck like the Irish RM* where the sterotypical Paddy's are uncouth, illogical , drunk and brawling while a bemused but benign English man tries to make sense of it all. Yeah, right.

I've been to London a few times, brother was a foreman for Laing and had a girlfirend from Crouch End. Drank in Kilburn, Cricklewood, Holloway Rd etc where you'd see Irish men in Celtic, GAA tops etc. Even An Phoblacht was sold in some of the pubs. Their's about as much chance as of a bunch of nationalists having a punch up with some unionists and being buddies the next day having a laugh about it as Palestian's and Isreali's or Georgian's and a Russian's for that matter. It's not the Portsmouth and Southampton rivalry we're talking about.

Drop the sterotypical porkie's Fred.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Irish_R.M.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Totally agree with you there regarding special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution. Dev has a lot to answer for. Though it shouldn't be forgot that the head of state of britian still in written law cannot be a Catholic ( or is it correct, married to one ?? )

is it true the head of the Vatican must be a Catholic? do we win prozes for stating the bleeding obvious.

McArmalite wrote: »

Funny enough I remember reading a similair posting by you several months ago where you stated you seen the same thing but it was in a pub in your home town of Portsmouth ?? Your telling porkies Fred, just like a scene out of muck like the Irish RM* where the sterotypical Paddy's are uncouth, illogical , drunk and brawling while a bemused but benign English man tries to make sense of it all. Yeah, right.

I've been to London a few times, brother was a foreman for Laing and had a girlfirend from Crouch End. Drank in Kilburn, Cricklewood, Holloway Rd etc where you'd see Irish men in Celtic, GAA tops etc. Even An Phoblacht was sold in some of the pubs. Their's about as much chance as of a bunch of nationalists having a punch up with some unionists and being buddies the next day having a laugh about it as Palestian's and Isreali's or Georgian's and a Russian's for that matter. It's not the Portsmouth and Southampton rivalry we're talking about.

Drop the sterotypical porkie's Fred.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Irish_R.M.

Sorry, you seem to be obsessed with my posts so maybe you could run along and find that for me, in fact, come along to the Rose one evening and I'll introduce you to the lads in there. nice decent irishmen who don't try and play the race card. I hate people that do that.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055318541

In fact What's your opinions folks. As I said, those who play the race card undermine the real victims of rascism in society. It could be said to be indulging in a form of racism themselves, and if so, surely their should be a legal form of punishment for those playing the race card ?

Now, do you mind, this was a civil conversation before you came along.

stovelid

I'm currently reading Bear in Mind These Dead actually.

Have to say OP, I read Northern Protestants quite a while ago and (so I'm going on memory here) and I can't say I remember it being biased.

Zambia

I picked up this book and pretty much dropped it like a redback spider. I dont need to read about this as every July I get to see the movie. :mad:

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

is it true the head of the Vatican must be a Catholic? do we win prozes for stating the bleeding obvious.

Just pointing out that it wasn't just the Irish constitution that has institutional secterianism in it. Imagine if the Irish state had in it's constitution that the head of the country must be a Catholic ?? I agreed totally with Tim regarding the discrimination against Protestants regarding the "Special position of the Catholic Church" ( BTW, I'm not a Catholic).

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sorry, you seem to be obsessed with my posts so maybe you could run along and find that for me, in fact, come along to the Rose one evening and I'll introduce you to the lads in there. nice decent irishmen who don't try and play the race card. I hate people that do that.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055318541

Now, do you mind, this was a civil conversation before you came along.

Calm down Fred, just pointing out you posted a porkie :cool:.