NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/misc/activism/progress/6425

Text File | 1992-09-09 | 10.4 KB | 176 lines

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich
From: Eugene McElroy <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Stitch the Wound..."
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:06:11 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 161

              SINN FEIN 'MUST OPEN ITS MIND TO PROTESTANTS'
                        from the "Irish Democrat"
                               August 1992
                               **********

           If Republicans are not ready to understand the fears and
aspirations of the Protestant community, they will consign the people of Ireland
to endless war, Derry Sinn Fein leader Mitchell McLaughlin warned last month.
      "If we are ever to resolve the situation in Ireland...there must be a
rapprochement with the Protestant community in the North", he wrote in 'The
Guardian' newspaper.
      Even after  British withdrawal, which he said remained a prerequisite for
peace, the north-east of Ireland would still be occupied by almost one million
people "whose whole history, aspirations, culture and sense of stability have
been formed, nurtured and reinforced within a British political, intellectual and
emotional environment."
      He admitted a reciprocal desire for peace and understanding would be
needed from the Protestant community.
      But most controversially, he alleged that republicans had been partly to
blame for the disappearance of a vibrant, radical non-conformism from the
Protestant community.
      Since partition, republicans had rejected the dissenting Protestant voice
because of their own fear of the Catholic hierarchy, he charged.
      Republicans had to face the unpalatable truth that "many IRA activities
from the northern Protestant perspective are perceived to be sectarian."
      He said that there had always been an element within the republican
movement "who secretly believe that the Protestant population could be coerced
into accepting Irish unity and independence."
      This was neither possible nor acceptable, he warned. "We must convince
them of the rightness of our cause and the benefits accruing to them from
advocacy of our cause," he said.
      He said republicans had to choose between paying lip service to anti-
sectarianism or actively seeking to connect with Protestantism at every level.

                               **********

The 'Irish Democrat' is published by the Connolly Association. It is available by
subscription from the CA at:
                             Irish Democrat
                         244/46 Gray's Inn Road
                             London WC1X 8JR

Cost 7.50 pounds sterling in Britain and the Six Counties. (Sorry, I don't know
what it costs for a sub to North America.)

                               **********

The following is an article by Mitchell McLaughlin. (This must be the Guardian
article cited above, but it was handed to me without a citation...)

                        TIME TO STITCH THE WOUND
                         by Mitchell McLaughlin

      We Republicans must ask (and answer) the question, "What are Unionists
afraid of?" The Unionists for their part have provided clear indications that
they would say catholicism, republicanism and nationalism, in that order. There
is also the understandable if seldom expressed fear that they will be treated in
any new arrangement in just as cavalier a fashion as the Unionists have treated
the nationalist minority. In this they do not differentiate between Sinn Fein,
the SDLP and the various southern parties.
      The Unionists quite correctly demand civil and religious liberty, yet have
done their best to extinguish it in political and social life in the North, as have
their reactionary counterparts in the South.
      The Unionists now talk as if they have been a persecuted, misunderstood
people whose only desire is to live in peace with its neighbors. They have
distorted history and made their sectarian little statelet the butt of ridicule and
shame. And yet, tragically, given the role created for them by Westminster,
there was very little else they could have done or believed. Prisoners of a
history made behind their backs in committee rooms in Westminster and in the
great drawing rooms of Empire, they behave exactly as an artificially created
imperial bulwark would behave.
      So it is that present day Unionists of every shade of opinion blame the
IRA for all their ills, and have little difficulty in seeking the defeat of the IRA,
and by implication, that of the Catholic population, as a far more important
consideration than any attempt at peaceful reconciliation within the island of
Ireland.
      In a perceptive and illuminating essay, "Intellectual and Political Culture:
A Unionist-Nationalist Comparison", Liam O'Dowd points out that to outsiders
the inability of Unionists and nationalists to engage in constructive political
dialogue is mystifying. On of the explanations frequently advanced is the
existence of political violence. Yet the rejection of dialogue preceded the
"troubles". More than 40 years went by before the prime ministers of both parts
of Ireland met.
      When people say that if we are all to live on this tiny island, it must be
in harmony with our Protestant brothers and sisters, some militant Republicans
are only too eager to dismiss such statements as facile, mindless, heart-tugging
liberal nonsense. And so they are when presented in a context where British
involvement in our affairs is ignored or glossed over.
      However, we all will have a future after British withdrawal, and if we are
to live together in Ireland without the Brits, then Republicans and nationalists
have got to reach an equitable arrangement with the Protestant community, and
that arrangement must guarantee equal rights for all. No privileges, no perks,
no special relationships and no religious or economic favoritism for anyone or
any organization.
      If we are to ever resolve the situation in Ireland, if we are ever to have
real and lasting peace on this island, there must be a rapprochement with the
Protestant community in the North. We, as Republicans, must seek to
understand and empathize with the Protestant community. Of course, a
prerequisite of peace is a British withdrawal, but we must be realists enough to
accept that even after that withdrawal, part of this island will still be inhabited
by more than 900,000 people whose whole history, aspirations, culture and
sense of stablitity, have been formed, nurtured and reinforced within a British
political, intellectual and emotional environment. Despite the accumulated angers
and resentments of the centuries, we must open our minds to the ideology, the
fears and the beliefs of a community that has been part of out oppression.
      Of course, a reciprocal desire for peace and understanding is required
from the Protestants in the North, but we have repeatedly stated that in a
post-British Ireland the negotiations that would precede such an arrangement,
Republicans would be generous. That generosity would be needed because
someone, somewhere, will have to take that first step toward breaking the cycle
of hatred and misunderstanding that has poisoned Irish society.
      Irish republicanism prides itself on its historical linking of Protestant,
Catholic and Dissenter. Every rebellion, rising and social movement since 1798
has had, we are told, its share of Protestant involvement and leadership. But
partition ended all that, and it is no exaggeration to say that since the ending
of the civil war the Protestant population  has had only a minimal part to play
in the ongoing debates and struggles for the creation of a united, democratic
country.
      What happened? How did a vibrant, radical nonconformism virtually
disappear? Republicans have been partly to blame. When you look at the post-
partition development of the Republican movement, it is clear that time and time
again we have rejected that dissenting voice because of our fear of the Catholic
hierarchy. Also, one objective reality which must be faced by Republicans,
even if it is unpalatable, is that many IRA activities from  the northern
Protestant perspective are perceived to be sectarian. It is therefore
undoubtedly true that differences between the two communities which have
historically existed have become wider as a result. This is the truth which
must be recognized by Republicans.
      I can think of occasions when some IRA operations displayed insensibility
to the feelings of ordinary Protestants, and although the IRA campaign is
clearly not sectarian (even when RUC-Royal Ulster Constabulary- and UDR-
Ulster Defense Regiment- personnel are the targets), nonetheless there remains
an unconscious insensitivity in some areas of the movement which must be
removed.
      Unpalatable it may be, but there has always been an element within the
Republican movement and on the island of Ireland itself who secretly believe
that the Protestant population could be coerced into accepting Irish unity and
independence. That is not acceptable. Neither is it possible, as Republicans
should know, because all the might of Britain could not and cannot suppress
Irish resistance.
      The Republican quarrel is with the British state in Ireland, and the truth
is that we cannot and should not even try to coerce the Protestant people into a
united Ireland. We must convince them of the rightness of our cause and of the
benefits accruing to them from the advocacy of our cause.
      We as Republicans have choices to make: we can continue paying lip
service to anti-sectarianism while denying the reality of sectarian elements in
our movement, or we can actively seek to connect with Protestantism at every
level.
      There is great animosity and misunderstanding on both sides, and our
joint histories are littered with atrocity and shame. While we offer the hand of
friendship to our Protestant neighbors, we cannot expect them to read our
palms to discover our intentions. We, as they, must be ready to talk and
apologize and unite, and the only way that can be achieved is through
understanding. Are we ready for that painful experience? If we are not, then
we consign the people of this island to endless war.

Mitchell McLaughlin is leader of Sinn Fein on the Derry City Council.
                               **********

for further information on Ireland in Peacenet, please see "reg.ireland".