What did Bobby Sands die for?

KeithAFC

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They did, prior to the deaths of the last six men I believe, but the army council ordered them to continue to maximize the publicity.

They must have been really thick.

Fratton Fred

KeithAFC wrote: »

They must have been really thick.

Actually I think they were pretty skinny.

Wolfe Tone

I was under the impression that the strikers refused to stop because if they did it would be a betrayal to Sands' memory.

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

They must have been really thick.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Actually I think they were pretty skinny.

Good stuff lads, well done, top class. :rolleyes:

Manic Moran

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I was under the impression that the strikers refused to stop because if they did it would be a betrayal to Sands' memory.

Am I to read that as saying that even though their superiors had told them that sufficient headway had been made and that they should stop, they basically decided that since sands was willing to kill himself for perfection, they thought they should too? There's a reason that ' acting like lemmings' is a bit pejorative.

Some might even say ' thick'

Terrontress

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Brits give in to the demands in the end anyway? All except one I think.

Who do you mean when you say "the Brits"?

Successive governments from opposing ideologies; the royal family or Queen; the people of the UK; the British army?

K-9

feelingstressed wrote: »

Bobby Sands may have got the attention and he died first but don't forget the other nine. They are not forgotten

Even from your background OP, a more appropriate thread title would have been on the ten, not just Bobby Sands.
Don't hold Bobby Sands up and not mention the other nine, he was no more or no less then them

I'd say all the hunger strikers should be remembered, even the ones that felt the sacrifice was in vain like Brendan Hughes.

Wolfe Tone

Manic Moran wrote: »

Am I to read that as saying that even though their superiors had told them that sufficient headway had been made and that they should stop, they basically decided that since sands was willing to kill himself for perfection, they thought they should too? There's a reason that ' acting like lemmings' is a bit pejorative.

Some might even say ' thick'

The way I read it it is that they got a half assed offer and thats not what they set out to get, ie, still classed as criminals.

Fratton Fred

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The way I read it it is that they got a half assed offer and thats not what they set out to get, ie, still classed as criminals.

Then you read it wrong. They got 9 of their 10 demands, more than they had hoped for.

The reason the hunger strike ended is because of the families of the protesters having the balls to stand up to the IRA otherwise even more would have died.

T runner

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Then you read it wrong. They got 9 of their 10 demands, more than they had hoped for.

The reason the hunger strike ended is because of the families of the protesters having the balls to stand up to the IRA otherwise even more would have died.

What demand didnt they get? Have you any substantiation to say that the demands given was more than they hoped for?

You, like others, seem to have completely misunderstood the importance and significance of the hunger strikes to the nationalist community in NI. Your disgusting insult a few posts back reminiscant of loyalist and British slurs indicates this.

Fratton Fred

T runner wrote: »

What demand didnt they get? Have you any substantiation to say that the demands given was more than they hoped for?

You, like others, seem to have completely misunderstood the importance and significance of the hunger strikes to the nationalist community in NI. Your disgusting insult a few posts back reminiscant of loyalist and British slurs indicates this.

I am basing it on the book Blanketmen.

I was mistaken though, it was four of the five demands, the only one not conceded was free association on the wing.

I can't link to the article, but the Belfast telegraph article covers it nicely.

walshb

I always pondered as to why Bobby could not "LIVE" for the cause....
Why die for the cause? To go that far?

ISAW

Einhard wrote: »

You could apply that principle to any prisoner who dies on hungerstrike in an attempt to gain what he wants,

And you could apply it to the people of heroshima. i mean the General/ President didnt actually drop the bomb - they only ordered it to be dropped!

Indeed you could apply it to the chief of Staff of the IRA. I mean they might have killed no one and only ordered it!

See where that thinking gets you?

and especially to any would-be political prisoner who does the same. Had the Bieder-Meinhof Gang or the Red Brigades made such demands under such circumstances of the German and Italian governments respectively, would you similarly accuse those administrations of being responsible for their deaths?

Well? Yes! But the nationalist "struggle" for an independent Ireland free of British rule and the "red" brigades idea of turning into a communist state (nothing to do with foreign rule) and the RAF were also marxist in approach and not nationalist.

I don't believe that any paramilitary group in the North should have been treated as political prisoners, and so I can't condemn Thatcher for refusing it to the hunger strikers.

so why then did the British government treat them differently before they removed political status? And why did they treat them differently when they flew some of the prisoners to London to negotiate with the British government?

Incidentally, wasn't there reposts recently that the deaths could have been avoided, but that the IRA leadership stmied talks which might have brought about a compromise, in order to score a propoganda victory?

Yes. You point being?

ISAW

walshb wrote: »

I always pondered as to why Bobby could not "LIVE" for the cause....
Why die for the cause? To go that far?

I think one might investigate the case of Terence Mc Sweeny to throw some light on the subject.

K-9

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I am basing it on the book Blanketmen.

I was mistaken though, it was four of the five demands, the only one not conceded was free association on the wing.

I can't link to the article, but the Belfast telegraph article covers it nicely.

That was my understanding from the book Ten Men dead as well. Pressure was put on the remaining hunger strikers to continue, though, there was a debate on the issue, to be fair.

Part of the problem was the INLA/IRA divide.

ISAW

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Are you saying northern Ireland is the one place on earth which wouldn't have undergone social changes over the last fifty years? I never said any such thing as you suggest, but the idea that unless there were an armed campaign that absolutely nothing would be different is utterly laughable.

Palestine springs to mind...and east Timor...and several central American republics. Im not laughing by the way.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Palestine springs to mind...and east Timor...and several central American republics. Im not laughing by the way.

Palestine/E.Timor / S.America are not valid comparisions at all. The only valid comparision as I said previously is with ETA . And both ETA and Pira are as far from their ultimate goals as they ever were.

Who would have believed in 1970 that come 2011, Germany would be united,South Africa and all The East Bloc countries would be free , and a black president in the USA and a united Ireland and a separate Basque state as far away as ever ? And all without a shot being fired ( by the good guys anyway).

There is a case to be posited that all those lives were wasted.

Wolfe Tone

Former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher's government privately signalled that it would not stand in the way of a united Ireland a year after sweeping to power.

State files released for the first time show the reputedly hardline Conservative administration told Dublin it had a greater interest in Northern Ireland than London.

But the then Secretary of State Humphrey Atkins confided in Foreign Affairs Minister Brian Lenihan that "there would be an explosion" if it emerged they were making plans towards reunification.

"One step would have to be taken at a time," he said, according to government notes of a meeting between the two on April 15, 1980.

"There was 'no way' he could go round promoting Irish unity. This was simply not possible. That was not to say however that it was something that the British Government would stand in the way of - but it could not promote it."

Mr Atkins insisted that persuasion was needed to remove genuine Protestant fears and apprehensions.

The previously classified notes of the meeting in Dublin show Mr Atkins - considered by many an uncompromising Tory - advised then Taoiseach Charles Haughey on the apparent British position.

"The Secretary of State indicated that he had said to the Taoiseach that the Irish Government's interest in Northern Ireland was greater than any other party except of course the people of Northern Ireland," the notes reveal.

A year later Mrs Thatcher memorably remarked that "Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley."

The documents released from the Taoiseach's office, under the 30-year rule, show the Irish Government was already pushing for a three-strand resolution focusing on North/South and British/Irish dimensions, as well as cross-community relations within the North. The model would eventually form the basis of the Good Friday Agreement 18 years later.

Lol. Apparently not.

OhNoYouDidn't

marienbad wrote: »

Palestine/E.Timor / S.America are not valid comparisions at all. The only valid comparision as I said previously is with ETA . And both ETA and Pira are as far from their ultimate goals as they ever were.

Who would have believed in 1970 that come 2011, Germany would be united,South Africa and all The East Bloc countries would be free , and a black president in the USA and a united Ireland and a separate Basque state as far away as ever ? And all without a shot being fired ( by the good guys anyway).

There is a case to be posited that all those lives were wasted.

Hold on, there were no shots fired by the ANC, Black Panthers and Eastern European Resistance movements?

marienbad

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Hold on, there were no shots fired by the ANC, Black Panthers and Eastern European Resistance movements?

Sure there were, but not on the same scale and casualty rate per head of population, and not as their central means of achieving their aims. Violence was always a side issue in all of these great struggles and usually applied by the state. The FBI killed more people than the Black Panthers .

It was the absence of violence in Solidarity,Civil Rights movement etc that made them unstoppable. The ANC was different in that it accepted violence as a legitimate weapon, but it was the realization that state sanctioned violence was an even greater weapon and that and civil protest world wide turned the tide.

Why would N. Ireland have fared any differently ?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Palestine/E.Timor / S.America are not valid comparisions at all.

Really? Let me referesh your memory. Here is what was stated in thread:

...[it is silly to say] northern Ireland is the one place on earth which wouldn't have undergone social changes over the last fifty years? ... the idea that unless there were an armed campaign that absolutely nothing would be different is utterly laughable

there are ample examples of change coming about in the last 50 years due to armed action. I did not claim all change. Also without armed action little happened in some places . This is a whole central basis for why the IRA did what they did!

for example I have given some places where armies enforced an Imperial power ( Timor, Central and South America) and some where civil rights were not implemented and that caused people to move towards armed action e.g. Palestine, Ireland.

So how are these examples "not valid"? They clearly show how military presence mitigated for and against social change.

Need I remind you that the US invaded Iraq and had it not done so Saddam would probably still be in power there? Not that that would be any difference to the West apart from the US oil barons not having Iraqi oil or being able to depend on their fundamtalist pals in Saudi Arabia.

The only valid comparision as I said previously is with ETA . And both ETA and Pira are as far from their ultimate goals as they ever were.

Spain is a different entity and much like Italy. there isnt a "Spanish nation" in that sense. No more than an Italian one. IT is a collection of nations. Now in Ireland you wont find people fighting for an independent Cavan or Laois no more than a Breton doing so in France but they will still identify with a county.

So the idea of a seperate Cornwall or Brittany or Basque country isn't the same as a united Ireland.

So you dont think Algeria can be compared with Ireland in the sense of political struggle for geographic independence? Or Aden? Or Iraq? Or Honduras?
Why not?

Who would have believed in 1970 that come 2011, Germany would be united,

Me

South Africa and all The East Bloc countries would be free ,

Free of soviet military control? Me . Free of Russian influence ...not likely.

and a black president in the USA

I thought a Catholic was just as unlikely.

and a united Ireland and a separate Basque state as far away as ever ?

see there is a difference. The Basques are not fighting for a united Basqueland seperated from spain.

Clarification It isn't like Ireland in the sense of (Northern) Basques wanting to remain part of the "united France" and Southern Basques wanting to rid themselves of French influence and control.
In fact the people both regions are today prepared to be a part of separate larger geopolitical entities (but with their common culture origins promoted North and south - unlike some northern Irish who consider it insulting to be called Irish at all and also seek to recognise other communities within their own region e.g. Gascons)

Today Ireland depends on the UK for its co-existance. The constitutional position has also changed. Irish people north and south accept that they can vote by majority for a united Ireland. The UK accepts this and they had not accepted that before. The IRA also accept that this is what Irish people want.

And all without a shot being fired ( by the good guys anyway).

since 1970 plenty of people were killed in Germany Soviet bloc countries and South Africa and all of their deaths were related to their lack of freedom. also genocide happened as a direct outfall of the collapse of the Soviet Union and dictatorships e.g. Yugoslavia.

There is a case to be posited that all those lives were wasted.

Indeed. The IRA since the 1970s were working against the will of the Irish people. But they were doing that before the 1970s. What is more important to note abotu the IRA "wasting lives" was the denial of human rights and jackboot politics on Irish people by a British establishment for 50 years before that which caused the upsurge in the support of the IRA.

getz

i can not believe the way that some of the posties think,trying to justify terrorism,say that in 20years ireland is united,and a large amount of angry loyalist,start a terrorist campaign against the state,planting bombs in dublin,cork and galway,killing civilions police ect,would any of you still be saying, its a fight for freedom ? i do not think so.in my mind any terrorist who attacks and kills people in the streets to try and get is way are evil,and the people who supports him/her are also just as bad

proon4

Did he die so that Martin Mc Guinness could lick Ian Paisleys rear end ring? I dont think so.............
May heaven be your bed Bobby

ISAW

getz wrote: »

i can not believe...would any of you still be saying, its a fight for freedom ? i do not think so.in my mind any terrorist who attacks and kills people in the streets to try and get is way are evil,and the people who supports him/her are also just as bad

So the British people who supported the British Army who they admit "killed people in the streets" are terrorists' supporters?
P.S. Look up "justification for violence" and "reason for violence" they are not the same you know.

getz

ISAW wrote: »

So the British people who supported the British Army who they admit "killed people in the streets" are terrorists' supporters?
P.S. Look up "justification for violence" and "reason for violence" they are not the same you know.

so you are a supporter of terrorism ?,god help you

ISAW

getz wrote: »

so you are a supporter of terrorism ?,god help you

And you accuse me of being a supporter of terrorism based on what evidence exactly?

marienbad

Hello Isaw. I have yet to master the quote fuction as you have but I will try to answer you as best I can.

I dont want to get into a debate about post colonialism struggles on a world wide basis, but I do believe there is a huge difference between the changes in the western world ( Germany/East Bloc/Ireland/Spain) and the developing world E.Timor, Algeria , Iraq and when we compare them we are not comparing like with like.

And I completely agree with you that in many of your examples armed struggle was the only way to bring about change.

I just dont think it applies in the , shall we say the ''western democracies'' to use a bit of shorthand. All those governments accepted all the fundamental arguments put forward by the civil rights movements .They were acceped in the USA as early as 1963 and it took until the 90's for the message to reach the E.Bloc. N.Ireland was as much a part and an heroic part of this sweep of history as anywhere else.

Now it is one thing for a government to accept those arguments and another to implement them and theirin lies the essence of the struggle, forcing politicians to do what they know is right. And this is done in the West by publicly demonstrating the evils under their watch. Some get the message early (Lyndon B. Johnson) some get it in the medium term (de Klerk) and for the ''slow learners'' it takes a little longer.

The British Government were no different, as long as the appalling abuses, the gerrymandering, b-specials, the housing and job scandals, were kept away from the mainstream media everything was hunky-dory , but that all changed with the advent of the 60's and 70's and television . As it did in S.Africa and USA and elsewhere. It is no longer possible to ignore the bias of the police after seeing the footage of Burntollet beamed worldwide in 1969 or those baton charges from Selma Alabama in 65.

The British people long ago accepted the Nationalists/the Civil Rights argument, their governments were just a little slower but accept them they did.To such an extend that there is better rights legislation in N.Ireland than in the republic. We have devolved government as the norm now in the UK, and if than inches towards independance in the coming decades (unlikely) it will do so without a shot being fired. Why would N.Ireland have been left out of all of this ?

Would all of this have happened without the the hunger strikes , the armed campaign etc. We can never know for certain but I would suggest that yes it would have happened so in that sense all those lives were wasted.

The connection with ETA is valid in that they and PIRA made force an over-riding part of their strategy and I contend that they so alienated the communities that their ultimate goal (in our case an united Ireland) is as remote as ever.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Hello Isaw. I have yet to master the quote fuction as you have

You must be joking! Im still trying to understand the rudiments of how things work here socially and technically.

Only a week ago or so was my first use of multiquote

I don't want to get into a debate about post colonialism struggles on a world wide basis, but I do believe there is a huge difference between the changes in the western world ( Germany/East Bloc/Ireland/Spain) and the developing world E.Timor, Algeria , Iraq and when we compare them we are not comparing like with like.

So if Britian had worked harder on making Ireland into a third world country it would be different? How about Palestine anyway?

And I completely agree with you that in many of your examples armed struggle was the only way to bring about change.

Well I'm not a pacifist in the conscientious objector mold.

I just dont think it applies in the , shall we say the ''western democracies'' to use a bit of shorthand. All those governments accepted all the fundamental arguments put forward by the civil rights movements .

No they didnt! the British rejected any appeal to human rights in Northern Ireland from the 1920s till the 1970s

the "democratic" US frequently used their military to surpress anyone who got in the way of business both inside and outside the US.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2010.
well over a hundred of them!

They were acceped in the USA as early as 1963 and it took until the 90's for the message to reach the E.Bloc.

It took them till the next century to elect a black President! and they picked the Catholic over the liar!

N.Ireland was as much a part and an heroic part of this sweep of history as anywhere else.

Because British policy was exposed on TV to the world!

Now it is one thing for a government to accept those arguments and another to implement them and theirin lies the essence of the struggle, forcing politicians to do what they know is right. And this is done in the West by publicly demonstrating the evils under their watch. Some get the message early (Lyndon B. Johnson) some get it in the medium term (de Klerk) and for the ''slow learners'' it takes a little longer.

And who described the Good Froday Agreement as "sunningdale for slow learners"?

Sunningdale was in 1973 by the way.

The British Government were no different, as long as the appalling abuses, the gerrymandering, b-specials, the housing and job scandals, were kept away from the mainstream media everything was hunky-dory , but that all changed with the advent of the 60's and 70's and television . As it did in S.Africa and USA and elsewhere. It is no longer possible to ignore the bias of the police after seeing the footage of Burntollet beamed worldwide in 1969 or those baton charges from Selma Alabama in 65.

'A man in Fintona asked him how it was that he had over 50 percent Roman Catholics in his Ministry. He thought that was too funny. He had 109 of a staff, and so far as he knew there were four Roman Catholics. Three of these were civil servants, turned over to him whom he had to take when he began.'
Sir Edward Archdale, Unionist Party, Minister of Agriculture, Stormont, 1925
Reported in: Northern Whig, 2 April 1925

"Another allegation made against the Government and which was untrue, was that, of 31 porters at Stormont, 28 were Roman Catholics. I have investigated the matter, and I find that there are 30 Protestants, and only one Roman Catholic there temporarily."
J. M. Andrews, Unionist Party, Minister of Labour, Stormont, 1933
Quoted in: Harrison, Henry (1939), Ulster and the British Empire 1939: Help or Hindrance?, London: Robert Hale.

Plenty more to chose from at this source:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/quotes.htm

The British people long ago accepted the Nationalists/the Civil Rights argument, their governments were just a little slower but accept them they did.

They knew since the 1920s. the world knew sincwe the 1970s. It took another 30 years before they even began to share power.

To such an extend that there is better rights legislation in N.Ireland than in the republic. We have devolved government as the norm now in the UK, and if than inches towards independance in the coming decades (unlikely) it will do so without a shot being fired. Why would N.Ireland have been left out of all of this ?

Well how about because of the mindset of the "Conservative and Unionist Party"?

Would all of this have happened without the the hunger strikes , the armed campaign etc. We can never know for certain but I would suggest that yes it would have happened so in that sense all those lives were wasted.

Funny. Terence Mc Sweeny goes on hunger strike and REpublicans fight a war of independence in the 1920s. Result - Irish Independence. No more hunger strikes and scant armed campaign. Result - discriminiation for 50 years against Catholics. Growth of IRA due to world being told about civil rights abuse and Britian responding by putting the boot it.
Upsurge in violence dirty protest and hunger strikes bring international focus. Things then happen withing a decade.

The connection with ETA is valid in that they and PIRA made force an over-riding part of their strategy and I contend that they so alienated the communities that their ultimate goal (in our case an united Ireland) is as remote as ever.

The IRA were always active but were small unpopular and remote until the British put the boot in and drove Nationalists in the the hands of the IRA. Even then the SDLP and other constitutional nationalists were still strong but consistant bootings only served to fuel SF growth.

junder

Did the Sinn Fein president prolong the 1981 campaign to improve the party's electoral prospects? Richard O'Rawe outlines the case for the prosecution

In a recent column in the Belfast Telegraph, Eamonn McCann said of my 1981 hunger strike book, Afterlives: "O'Rawe - perhaps like Ed Moloney - stretches his argument too far in suggesting that Gerry Adams personally drove the decision to keep the (hunger) strike going in order to build Sinn Fein's support. Personalising the debate around the Sinn Fein president does little to advance understanding of the factors in play."

This is a reference, I assume, to the suspicion the hunger strike had been kept going to ensure that the republican candidate, Owen Carron, would be elected to replace Bobby Sands as the MP for Fermanagh-South Tyrone (an important step in Sinn Fein's journey into electoral politics).

At the heart of the matter was a British Government offer to settle the hunger strike which had been made through secret contacts just weeks before the by-election for the Fermanagh-South Tyrone seat.

The fact that the offer was spurned determined the outcome of that election, because the on-going hunger strike motivated angry nationalist voters in the constituency to turn out for Carron and he won the seat.

Just weeks later, Sinn Fein adopted the 'Armalite and ballot-box' strategy.

Unfortunately, Eamonn does not say on what basis he reached the conclusion that it was going "too far" to suggest Gerry Adams personally drove the decision to keep the hunger strike going until the by-election.

But, clearly, he thinks I was too hard on the Sinn Fein president.

Was I? What did I write in Afterlives about Gerry Adams' part in the hunger strike?

That Gerry Adams - and not Martin McGuinness, Danny Morrison or anyone else - had been tasked by the IRA Army Council to set up and manage a committee of senior republicans to help out with publicity and to advise the prisoners on a variety of matters.

That he was told by the army council that the prisoners were to be the final decision makers in regards to any approaches or offers from the British Government - yet he ignored that edict.

That he had been the main negotiator with the British Government when, on July 4 to July 5 1981, their representatives made an offer to settle the hunger strike.

That when the prisoners' leadership accepted that offer, Adams wrote a communique to the prison leadership which effectively overruled their acceptance of the British offer (my then-cellmate confirmed the rejection of this offer "by the outside leadership" in an interview with Eamonn McCann which was published in the Belfast Telegraph on February 27, 2008).

That either in his role as the main negotiator, or as the senior republican on the committee, Adams did not tell the army council about this contact with the British Government.

That he did not tell the army council the British had made an offer considered to be good enough by the prisoners to end the hunger strike.

That he led the army council - and the republican community at large - to believe the opposite of what was actually the case, claiming the prisoners were implacable and would not settle for any less than their five demands, when he knew from the acceptance of the British offer that this was not true.

That he met Monsignor Denis Faul and members of hunger strikers' families on the evening of July 28, 1981, but did not tell them about the British offer.

That he did not tell the families the prison leadership had accepted the offer.

That he did not tell the IRSP/INLA leadership about the offer (even though two of their members were among the last six hunger strikers to die). That he met the hunger strikers in the Long Kesh hospital on July 29, 1981 and told them "...there was no deal on the table, no movement of any sort...".

That he did not tell the hunger strikers of the British offer at that visit and that, consequently, he deliberately misrepresented the situation to these dying men.

So, am I stretching my argument too far in suggesting Adams personally drove the decision to keep the strike going in order to build Sinn Fein's support? I don't think so.

Still, it would be easy enough for Adams to prove me wrong - he could follow my example and agree to participate in a republican inquiry into the hunger strike.

Or he could refute - point by point - what I have written in this article.

But I'd be surprised if he did either.

junder

A pop test for you all, who said this:

"If I thought that the principle that the librarian in a Catholic community should be Catholic was a new principle introduced merely to deny a Protestant an appointment, I should vote against it, but I know from my youth that it is not so," he continued. Catholic communities were entitled to Catholic librarians and Catholic doctors, he contended.

"If I had a vote on a local body, and if there were two qualified people who had to deal with a Catholic community, and if one was a Catholic and the other a Protestant, I would unhesitatingly vote for the Catholic."