United Ireland first and Civil Rights second - wrong way round?

Bog Butter

Burntollet bridge 4th January 1969
Bloody Sunday 30th January 1972

The outcome of the above events show that there was no mechanism within the state of Northern Ireland for which Catholics could air their grievences. There is no doubt the law had to be broken.

I don't think the PIRA truely served the Nationalist community. There aim was to bring about a united Ireland and in doing so bring about civil rights. But shouldn't the aim have been to bring about civil rights first?

brianthebard

Well the civil rights movement did arrive ahead of the rise in paramilitary activity. I've always believed that the civils rights activists of the late 60s should have been allowed continue without the IRA becoming involved, as soon as they did the British and indeed the international community could write off the big issues on the grounds of terrorism. But whether that was a choice open to the catholic community as a whole in NI at the time is open to interpretation.

Also, just to get a mod warning in here now, I'll be keeping an eye on this thread. I prefer reasoned discussion over emotional or insulting rhetoric, ok peeps? Great.

Fratton Fred

I guess the PIRA would argue that a united Ireland would mean defacto human rights for Catholics, so in their eyes they were joined.

What should have happened, rather than bringing bombs to the streets of London, they should have brought peaceful demonstrations. The British public and media only react to marches in London, not Derry, it is too far away and too easy to ignore. Catholic rights demonstrations on the scale of the CND marches, anti Aparthied £arches and the poll tax marches would have been a much swifter way of bringing about reform.

Imho of course.

walrusgumble

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess the PIRA would argue that a united Ireland would mean defacto human rights for Catholics, so in their eyes they were joined.

What should have happened, rather than bringing bombs to the streets of London, they should have brought peaceful demonstrations. The British public and media only react to marches in London, not Derry, it is too far away and too easy to ignore. Catholic rights demonstrations on the scale of the CND marches, anti Aparthied £arches and the poll tax marches would have been a much swifter way of bringing about reform.

Imho of course.

It would have being nice if that happened

By no means wishing to sound disrepectful

but the IRA's attitude towards the English (and former British government's position on Ireland) was that they only way they learned was through the bullet and the bomb. Considering the No Black No Irish signs hanging out in some establishments around England since the end of WW2, would the people of London pay much heed even if there were protests there, in light of huge Irish presence in the city?

Apparently the bombs were not intended to kill Londoners, just to destory the business districts (of course, no doubt you or Londeners - may of our relations btw, were safe in the knowledge of this)

I know the point you are making (make the people aware not the politicans), but its not like there was a lack of media coverage of these events for the ordinary english person to see on tv, bar tv reports won't give you the full story and balance.

Fratton Fred

walrusgumble wrote: »

It would have being nice if that happened

By no means wishing to sound disrepectful

but the IRA's attitude towards the English (and former British government's position on Ireland) was that they only way they learned was through the bullet and the bomb. Considering the No Black No Irish signs hanging out in some establishments around England since the end of WW2, would the people of London pay much heed even if there were protests there, in light of huge Irish presence in the city?

Apparently the bombs were not intended to kill Londoners, just to destory the business districts (of course, no doubt you or Londeners - may of our relations btw, were safe in the knowledge of this)

I know the point you are making (make the people aware not the politicans), but its not like there was a lack of media coverage of these events for the ordinary english person to see on tv, bar tv reports won't give you the full story and balance.

surely you aren't labelling an entire population based on a few signs seen in West Midlands boarding houses are you?

believe me, people in England were not aware what was going on. The first i heard about names of Catholics being put on bonfires was when i moved to Ireland and many English people were surprised to hear it when i tell them.

What the IRA did was to create a "Them and Us" attitude amongst English people, the IRA were our enemies (brilliantly demonstrated everytime they threw a bomb into a restaurant) so their enemies were obviously our friends, no?

No one in England cared about unionism, or whether or not NI remained within the UK, but no one wanted the IRA to win and, by association, the nationalist cause was thus tainted.

I can understand why, after the events in 1972, so many young people picked up a gun, but if the point of human rights had been pushed peacefully rather than through bloodshed, I think that at the very least the human rights issues would have been addressed earlier.

there is though, the possibility that the IRA did not want the nationalist community to have peace and harmony in NI, a disaffected and marginalised youth are ideal recruits for extremism so surely it was in their best interests that the RUC etc were victimising catholics, no?

meathstevie

Folks, correct me if you think I'm wrong but wasn't it mainly due to the actions of the then Stormont government and the way they deployed or allowed the then RUC to deploy that a number of people on the nationalist side decided they also were capable of using violence for a political end ?

If I remember correctly the initial actions of the IRA and after a parting of the ways the PIRA were mainly defensive ?

Let's face it, the then British government felt compelled to deploy the army on the streets of Derry and Belfast to pacify the place. And that wasn't only because of rioting nationalists and republicans. Let's not forget that the first policeman killed in the troubles was killed by so called loyalists.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess the PIRA would argue that a united Ireland would mean defacto human rights for Catholics, so in their eyes they were joined.

What should have happened, rather than bringing bombs to the streets of London, they should have brought peaceful demonstrations. The British public and media only react to marches in London, not Derry, it is too far away and too easy to ignore. Catholic rights demonstrations on the scale of the CND marches, anti Aparthied £arches and the poll tax marches would have been a much swifter way of bringing about reform.

Imho of course.

I've heard it said during the troubles that the way to get the british left active on campaigning for british withdrawal from the occupied counties was to say that the north was a country in south east Asia and that the American army was in occupation of it. The brits would be out in their droves then ofcourse :rolleyes:.

" What should have happened, rather than bringing bombs to the streets of London, they should have brought peaceful demonstrations. " They did try their best with peaceful deomonstrations, it was called the Civil Rights movement but were attacked and beaten and murdered by the RUC, brit army and unionists mobs. The first death of the troubles was on 14 July 1969 when 67 year old Francis McCloskey was murdered by the RUC after been beaten merciless with batons during a Civl Rights march in Dungiven. The very last Civil Rights march was on Bloody Sunday in 1972.

The IRA was been led by a bunch of bar stool Stalinists who later went on to call themselves the Offical IRA and Sinn Fein the Workers party. These half wits had left the IRA almost weaponless to defend the nationalist community. IRA - I Ran Away was daubed on the walls.

As we know, the brits arrived in Belfast in August 1969. As you can see from the Cain website, they first started shooting civilians in October 1969. The first brit to be killed by the IRA was on 6 February 1971. The first operation carried out in England was 8 March 1973 with the a bomb outside Scotland Yard ( Gerry Kelly who is now the deputy first minister in Stormont was one of the unit that did it ). So the brit public had 4 years to get off it's behind and protest about the murders and injustice been inflicted on the nationalists of the six counties, but no, as you rightly point out they were more concerned with South Africa etc instead of their own murdering bastards in Ireland.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1969.html

Fratton Fred

Nice rant. The IRA obviously spent a fortune arming their death squads to bring murder and mayhem to the mainland, but how much did they dedicate to the civil rights movement? How much money did the IRA actually dedicate to defendinf the Nationalist community rather than flying people around the world so smuggle arms and murder Brits?

I may be wrong, but I don't recall a single civil rights march in London, but I do remember plenty of bombs.

Maybe if they had concentrated on civil rights there would be a few less dead bodies. That is, of course, presuming the IRA were interested in civil rights.

walrusgumble

McArmalite wrote: »

I've heard it said during the troubles that the way to get the british left active on campaigning for british withdrawal from the occupied counties was to say that the north was a country in south east Asia and that the American army was in occupation of it. The brits would be out in their droves then ofcourse :rolleyes:.

" What should have happened, rather than bringing bombs to the streets of London, they should have brought peaceful demonstrations. " They did try their best with peaceful deomonstrations, it was called the Civil Rights movement but were attacked and beaten and murdered by the RUC, brit army and unionists mobs. The first death of the troubles was on 14 July 1969 when 67 year old Francis McCloskey was murdered by the RUC after been beaten merciless with batons during a Civl Rights march in Dungiven. The very last Civil Rights march was on Bloody Sunday in 1972.

The IRA was been led by a bunch of bar stool Stalinists who later went on to call themselves the Offical IRA and Sinn Fein the Workers party. These half wits had left the IRA almost weaponless to defend the nationalist community. IRA - I Ran Away was daubed on the walls.

As we know, the brits arrived in Belfast in August 1969. As you can see from the Cain website, they first started shooting civilians in October 1969. The first brit to be killed by the IRA was on 6 February 1971. The first operation carried out in England was 8 March 1973 with the a bomb outside Scotland Yard ( Gerry Kelly who is now the deputy first minister in Stormont was one of the unit that did it ). So the brit public had 4 years to get off it's behind and protest about the murders and injustice been inflicted on the nationalists of the six counties, but no, as you rightly point out they were more concerned with South Africa etc instead of their own murdering bastards in Ireland.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1969.html

"barstool stalinists"? , barstool?

And what did you ever do for the Republican cause?

Didn't Gerry Adams in the end follow and repeat/implement some of the things Officals had being calling for (and later O'Braidigh/O'Connell)

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

surely you aren't labelling an entire population based on a few signs seen in West Midlands boarding houses are you?

Their was a lot more of it going on than just a few boarding houses in the West Midlands. But sure your just british, you just love yourselves, you can never admit the truth.

believe me, people in England were not aware what was going on. The first i heard about names of Catholics being put on bonfires was when i moved to Ireland and many English people were surprised to hear it when i tell them.

What the IRA did was to create a "Them and Us" attitude amongst English people, the IRA were our enemies (brilliantly demonstrated everytime they threw a bomb into a restaurant) so their enemies were obviously our friends, no?

No one in England cared about unionism, or whether or not NI remained within the UK, but no one wanted the IRA to win and, by association, the nationalist cause was thus tainted.

I can understand why, after the events in 1972, so many young people picked up a gun, but if the point of human rights had been pushed peacefully rather than through bloodshed, I think that at the very least the human rights issues would have been addressed earlier.

The brit public didn't care what ' their boys ' got up to in Ireland, not until our boys started killing their boys and went over there stiffing the brits in Birminhgham, Guildford etc. Reap as you sow

there is though, the possibility that the IRA did not want the nationalist community to have peace and harmony in NI, a disaffected and marginalised youth are ideal recruits for extremism so surely it was in their best interests that the RUC etc were victimising catholics, no?

The Provos were the marginalised youth, the vast majority of them were in their late teens/ early twenties. Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Gerry Kelly etc are the proof of it.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Their was a lot more of it going on than just a few boarding houses in the West Midlands. But sure your just british, you just love yourselves, you can never admit the truth.


The brit public didn't care what ' their boys ' got up to in Ireland, not until our boys started killing their boys and went over there stiffing the brits in Birminhgham, Guildford etc. Reap as you sow


The Provos were the marginalised youth, the vast majority of them were in their late teens/ early twenties. Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Gerry Kelly etc are the proof of it.

Do you never feel ashamed about the way you glorify violence, or is it your way of compensating for your own inadequacies?

The marginalised youth are what my point is. Without them, the godfathers would have no mugs to go out and kill innocent people, or take a bullet on their behalf (ie the hunger strikers, loughgall "martyrs" etc). So oppression of the nationalist community was in their best interests surely?

McArmalite

walrusgumble wrote: »

"barstool stalinists"? , barstool?

And what did you ever do for the Republican cause?

I've been involed in God knows how many marches, postering, leafletting etc down the years. I've mentioned it once or twice before, end of story. Unlike the Stickies ( Offical IRA/SF the Workers Party ) who ended up supporting partition, probably selling weapons to the loyalists and looking for drinking money from just about every disreputable regeime you can think of - Communist East Germany, Ceauşescu's Romania, even North Korea.

Didn't Gerry Adams in the end follow and repeat/implement some of the things Officals had being calling for (and later O'Braidigh/O'Connell)

Agreed, I was against the GFA and campaigned against it. You can discuss it with one of the SFer's, I'm not interested.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Do you never feel ashamed about the way you glorify violence, or is it your way of compensating for your own inadequacies?

The marginalised youth are what my point is. Without them, the godfathers would have no mugs to go out and kill innocent people, or take a bullet on their behalf (ie the hunger strikers, loughgall "martyrs" etc). So oppression of the nationalist community was in their best interests surely?

As stated, the Provos were the marginalised youth, the vast majority of them were in their late teens/ early twenties, british injustice did all the marginalising.

But since you mentioned " godfathers would have.....mugs to go out and kill innocent people, or take a bullet on their behalf " Would you not think you should be directing that at the Jeremy Kyle type guests who make up the british Army and take an oath to Mrs Windsor promising to a stop a bullet for the british banksters of the "City" of London?

brianthebard

People need to calm down and drop the personal attacks of this thread will be locked, and bans/infractions given if needed. mod.

Fred, for your points to be taken seriously you will have to acknowledge that a civil rights movement did occur in the North prior to the resurgence of the IRA at the start of the 1970s. So far I haven't seen that in your arguments. B.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

People need to calm down and drop the personal attacks of this thread will be locked, and bans/infractions given if needed. mod.

Fred, for your points to be taken seriously you will have to acknowledge that a civil rights movement did occur in the North prior to the resurgence of the IRA at the start of the 1970s. So far I haven't seen that in your arguments. B.

I could make it a bit more obvious I suppose, but that is what I thought I inferred in post number 3.

People in London don't see civil rights marches in Derry, they only notice them when they are marching around Marble Arch. Therefore, if the IRA were so worried about civil rights, why did they not pay for the civil rights movement to come to London? they could march all they like in Armagh, or Belfast, they needed to come to london.

Easier though, to claim the Brits aren't interested and are all scum and radicalise your disaffected youth, just like the Muslim extremists are doing now. painting false pictures of the Brits makes it easier for people to feel less guilty about killing them.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I could make it a bit more obvious I suppose, but that is what I thought I inferred in post number 3.

People in London don't see civil rights marches in Derry, they only notice them when they are marching around Marble Arch. Therefore, if the IRA were so worried about civil rights, why did they not pay for the civil rights movement to come to London? they could march all they like in Armagh, or Belfast, they needed to come to london.

tbh I don't believe the idea that the protest marches would have to be moved to London before being seen or recognised is valid. I can't think of any similar situation where this would be required, or where one could pass judgement on a movement as having failed for this reason. The problem of Catholics lacking equal rights was an issue of the North, and should have been dealt with there. That is after all why there is now a devolved Government.
As for whether the IRA were worried about marches, I think its clear that the IRA grew up in the 70s as a result of the perceived failure of the civil rights campaign in the face of British army violence. To suggest anything else is a bit of a strawman really.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

tbh I don't believe the idea that the protest marches would have to be moved to London before being seen or recognised is valid. I can't think of any similar situation where this would be required, or where one could pass judgement on a movement as having failed for this reason. The problem of Catholics lacking equal rights was an issue of the North, and should have been dealt with there. That is after all why there is now a devolved Government.
As for whether the IRA were worried about marches, I think its clear that the IRA grew up in the 70s as a result of the perceived failure of the civil rights campaign in the face of British army violence. To suggest anything else is a bit of a strawman really.

martin McGuinness was commander in chief of the IRA's londonderry brigade was he not and he was in that role at the time of the Bloody Sunday massacre?

Bloody Sunday strenghtened the IRA, it did not create it.

there is a government in the UK, at Westminster. If there is part of the community who is being oppressed, then that is the place to raise it. you could argue that if SF were worried about civil rights as well, they would have swallowed their pride and represented their people in Parliament where it would be debated normally.

But, as I said earlier, marginalised youth benefitted the IRA so i would question if they were actually interested in improving the life of the average nationalist when disaffected young men were their recruiting ground.

what is strawman about that?

R.Dub.Fusilier

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Easier though, to claim the Brits aren't interested and are all scum and radicalise your disaffected youth, just like the Muslim extremists are doing now. painting false pictures of the Brits makes it easier for people to feel less guilty about killing them.

i am by no means anti the british people i am against what english and later british have done to our country. if you can have a honest look at what they have done to destroy the irish people you might be able to understand how and why McArmalite , no offence intended McA, and the nationalist people of the six counties think . you dont have to agree with but at least you will know.

i support a united ireland but i cant say i agree with the killing of civilians be they british or irish.

Fratton Fred

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

i am by no means anti the british people i am against what english and later british have done to our country. if you can have a honest look at what they have done to destroy the irish people you might be able to understand how and why McArmalite , no offence intended McA, and the nationalist people of the six counties think . you dont have to agree with but at least you will know.

i support a united ireland but i cant say i agree with the killing of civilians be they british or irish.

I don't deny that at all. A Muslim would use the same arguement against the West, that for centuries we have destroyed their countries and lives.

The Muslim extremists tale of woe has been hijacked by extremists though, mainly for their own purposes. Just like the cause of the Irish people.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is a government in the UK, at Westminster. If there is part of the community who is being oppressed, then that is the place to raise it. you could argue that if SF were worried about civil rights as well, they would have swallowed their pride and represented their people in Parliament where it would be debated normally.

It was on an invention called a TV, the whole world knew it. With the brits it's always the victims fault, whether it be Ireland or India etc. They just LOVE themselves, " we couldn't be in any way to balme, the british sense of fairplay " etc

A similair situation occured in America with the Civil Rights marches in Alabahma etc.Did the American civil rights movemet have to start marching in New York, San Francisco etc for public sympathy to demand immediate change ? Ofcourse not. But as I said, the brits just LOVE themselves, it's always the victims fault with them, " Our boys can do no wrong, the british sense of fairplay " etc

what is strawman about that?

Why ask a question when you know the answer better yourself ?

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is a government in the UK, at Westminster. If there is part of the community who is being oppressed, then that is the place to raise it. you could argue that if SF were worried about civil rights as well, they would have swallowed their pride and represented their people in Parliament where it would be debated normally.

The issue was raised via a number of ways at Westminster. There was absolutely no way that anyone in England should have remained ignorant of what was going on in Ireland. There was a large Irish Civil Rights demonstration in Trafalgar Square in London in the summer 1968. I have a large photo of the event that shows a huge assembly of people with a outsized banner hanging up on the main podium in the square reading "DEMAND DEMOCRACY IN NORTHERN IRELAND" - all in caps.

In addition later in the new year after the Burntollet Ambush a group from the DCAC organised a trip to London via a charter plane and marched to Westminster Hall and 10 Downing St and handed in a letter of protest at conditions in Northern Ireland. About 200 people travelled on the plane and many others were outside Downing Street for that protest.

I have to say - as MacArmalite is saying, getting the British press to cover these events was really difficult. I was an undergrad at an English Univ two years later and hardly anyone there knew about the situation in Northern Ireland. But they sure as hell knew how to lead protests to the US Embassy against Vietnam.

R.Dub.Fusilier

MarchDub wrote: »

The issue was raised via a number of ways at Westminster. There was absolutely no way that anyone in England should have remained ignorant of what was going on in Ireland. There was a large Irish Civil Rights demonstration in Trafalgar Square in London in the summer 1968. I have a large photo of the event that shows a huge assembly of people with a outsized banner hanging up on the main podium in the square reading "DEMAND DEMOCRACY IN NORTHERN IRELAND" - all in caps.

In addition later in the new year after the Burntollet Ambush a group from the DCAC organised a trip to London via a charter plane and marched to Westminster Hall and 10 Downing St and handed in a letter of protest at conditions in Northern Ireland. About 200 people travelled on the plane and many others were outside Downing Street for that protest.

I have to say - as MacArmalite is saying, getting the British press to cover these events was really difficult. I was an undergrad at an English Univ two years later and hardly anyone there knew about the situation in Northern Ireland. But they sure as hell knew how to lead protests to the US Embassy against Vietnam.

hear hear.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

It was on an invention called a TV, the whole world knew it. With the brits it's always the victims fault, whether it be Ireland or India etc. They just LOVE themselves, " we couldn't be in any way to balme, the british sense of fairplay " etc

A similair situation occured in America with the Civil Rights marches in Alabahma etc.Did the American civil rights movemet have to start marching in New York, San Francisco etc for public sympathy to demand immediate change ? Ofcourse not. But as I said, the brits just LOVE themselves, it's always the victims fault with them, " Our boys can do no wrong, the british sense of fairplay " etc

we love ourselves.

that's why we all run around wearling "Kiss Me I'm English" t shirts, or being convinced we are the wealthiest, most popular nation in the world, when in reality, we continuously **** up our own country through incompetance, greed and nepotism.

yep, that's the Englsih sure enough:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

The issue was raised via a number of ways at Westminster. There was absolutely no way that anyone in England should have remained ignorant of what was going on in Ireland. There was a large Irish Civil Rights demonstration in Trafalgar Square in London in the summer 1968. I have a large photo of the event that shows a huge assembly of people with a outsized banner hanging up on the main podium in the square reading "DEMAND DEMOCRACY IN NORTHERN IRELAND" - all in caps.

In addition later in the new year after the Burntollet Ambush a group from the DCAC organised a trip to London via a charter plane and marched to Westminster Hall and 10 Downing St and handed in a letter of protest at conditions in Northern Ireland. About 200 people travelled on the plane and many others were outside Downing Street for that protest.

I have to say - as MacArmalite is saying, getting the British press to cover these events was really difficult. I was an undergrad at an English Univ two years later and hardly anyone there knew about the situation in Northern Ireland. But they sure as hell knew how to lead protests to the US Embassy against Vietnam.

but you've just confirmed my point. you went to Uni and no one knew what was really going on. The only real outrage i can recall, was the holy cross dispute, which received a lot of media coverage here and showed a lot of people in their true light.

edited to remove unpleasantness. mod.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

but you've just confirmed my point. you went to Uni and no one knew what was really going on.

That's not what McArmalite is saying, McArmalite is just off on another one of his pathetic trolls/rants about how much the Brits love themselves.

I knew because I was from Ireland but was amazed to find out that the British people were clueless. The British press had failed to inform the public of what was actually going on in Ireland - and was also going on in Britain amongst Irish civil rights protesters. And there were civil rights protests in London so no excuse about this being far away and out of our range. I think that McA is saying that they should have known had they used the press coverage that the rest of the world was using and used the TV footage that was patently available to them.

I was in NY in late 1970 with my parents on a visit there and there was no one there who was ignorant of events in Ireland. In fact US TV was full of scenes of Irish civil right marchers being met with violence. I also remember meeting French students who came to Britain a few years later and who were equally well informed. It was the British who were apparently censoring events in their own media regarding Ireland. At the time it felt like they just did not want to deal with it and did not want to address the issue of serious Catholic Irish discontent with life within the UK. Maybe they thought they didn't have to and the army would sort it all out. Big mistake.

It all came home to roost. The Civil Rights marches and the entire movement should have been better taken care of and listened to instead of being met with the violence [often with police compliance] of the hooligans who called themselves...loyalists or unionists or whatever.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

IAt the time it felt like they just did not want to deal with it and did not want to address the issue of serious Catholic Irish discontent with life within the UK.

I think that may be one possible reason why there was a certain level of disbelief in England about the civil rights violations, because the Catholics in the rest of the UK were not and are not discriminated against. I remember a friend of mine mentioning that he was a catholic, and my wife being absolutely amazed. she didn't realise we had Catholics in England, as far as she was concerned, everyone was a Protestant and Catholics were pretty much banned.

I'm not too sure i would put too much belief in the US news coverage, they reported every murder of a nationalist in Ireland, but never reported any ITA attrocities. I have met a lot of Americans that never realised the IRA were a terrorist organisation.

they also thought that Britain still controlled all of Ireland as well:D

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think that may be one possible reason why there was a certain level of disbelief in England about the civil rights violations, because the Catholics in the rest of the UK were not and are not discriminated against.

Not so fast- English history has been based on Whig history for over 200 years and has purposely left out the history of discrimination against English Catholicism. I do concede that all that is changing in British historiography and knowledge about the historic hidden lives of English Catholics is being revealed. But that takes us way off topic...

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not too sure i would put too much belief in the US news coverage, they reported every murder of a nationalist in Ireland, but never reported any ITA attrocities.

I am referring back to the pre-IRA time of the early civil rights marches and the violence that they encountered. The demise of these early civil rights marches and why they failed was not properly reported on in the UK media whereas they were throughout the rest of the world. This led to much world sympathy for the nationalist point of view but complete ignorance of events by the British public. Being in England at the time felt like being in a parallel universe.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I have met a lot of Americans that never realised the IRA were a terrorist organisation.

And let's not get started on "state terrorism"...violence is violence and I hate it all.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

they also thought that Britain still controlled all of Ireland as well:D

Two years ago coming through Heathrow I met with a English airport official who apparently thought the same. Kept directing me to "domestic flights" for a flight to Dublin. "In your dreams" I told him.

Edited note - can't get that stupid grin off the topic line...fixed-btb

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Not so fast- English history has been based on Whig history for over 200 years and has purposely left out the history of discrimination against English Catholicism. I do concede that all that is changing in British historiography and knowledge about the historic hidden lives of English Catholics is being revealed. But that takes us way off topic...

the history is taught and is well known, but it is just that. we are talking 1970 here, not 1770.

MarchDub wrote: »

Two years ago coming through Heathrow I met with a English airport official who apparently thought the same. Kept directing me to "domestic flights" for a flight to Dublin. "In your dreams" I told him.

Irish flights do go from domestic departures though. it's more a convenience thing than it is an aspiration though

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the history is taught and is well known, but it is just that. we are talking 1970 here, not 1770.

In 1970 the average British student had been fed on a diet of beneficial imperialism in the guise of the "mother of democracies". I know. I had to listen to it too. This frame of mind impacted on the reaction to events in NI. [But I do know that much of that has now changed in British universities.]

So to take this back to some of your original points. The situation with the British parliament and the British press during the years of the early civil rights movement in NI was an absolute disgrace. Little interest, sympathy or basic comprehension was given to those who turned out in huge numbers to protest against discrimination at all levels of life in NI. These early civil rights marches were family events with mothers and fathers walking with their children. The most horrific part was the violence against the marchers. Many people forget that the violence began on the loyalist/unionist side against was what originally planned on being peaceful demonstrations based on the MLKing style in the US. In my opinion the violence didn't have to happen. Central government failure was largely responsible for it when it did.

NI was part of the UK, the world was abuzz with the horrors of it all and Westminster just didn't want to know.

getz

the catholic v protestant problems did not start the IRA terrorist organised violence ,the IRA just used that as a excuse to get the backing of the catholic community,once in,they made sure that any peaceful outcome in the north couldent happen,even to the stage of useing violence against other catholics who dident think the same as them,where i live in england the northern irish ferry docks from larne,thousands of northern irish live in this area[fleetwood/blackpool/] two doors away from me i have a northern irish catholic living with her mother who is 89 years old,[the mother] was driven out of belfast by the boys,they told her her house was going to be burned to the ground,why ?because her crime was to take a cup of tea to a young british soldier who was manning a barrier to stop the loyalist terror squads from carrying out their hate filled acts,if all of you stopped for a minute to think ,you would realize that everthing isent as black and white as you seem to think it is,are the new kids on the block who seem to think they are fighting for a free ireland by killing catholic policemen your heroes as well ?

Fratton Fred

A good friend of mine left NI when her brother was beaten up twice in a month. The first time was by the usual unionist bullies that bullied all the Catholics in her area, the second time was when he refused to be drafted into the IRA as a gofer, they beat him up for being a traitor to his community because he didn't believe violence was the answer.

That's the point my friend decided the whole place wqas ****ed up and moved to London.

Funny thing is, she expected to be bullied and ridiculed in London for being an Irish Catholic, but she very soon changed her opinion of English people.

Am I not right in thinking that the British Army was forst sent in to protect the nationalists? Doesn't sound to me like no action was taken.