View Full Version : Should the 1981 Hungerstrike be Comemorated by the State?
Block G Raptor
10/10/2006, 11:49 AM
Just listening to a debate on newstalk as to weather or not the 25th anniversary of the 1981 H-Block hungerstrike should be comemorated in an official capacity by the state. can the mods put up a poll on this as I'd be interested to see how people feel about this 25 years on. I will keep my opinion to myself for now but would like to debate the pro's and cons with
any interested posters if this thread devolopes
Lim till i die
10/10/2006, 11:56 AM
I wasn't born at the time but it's my understanding that there was a national day of mourning for Bobby Sand's funeral??
I think it opens quite a can of worms.
In my opinion they should as these were brave, heroic men
But on the other hand can the state really commemerate men who would have refused to recognise it :confused:
The Ref
10/10/2006, 8:26 PM
I don't think so
The Hunger Strikes were, and still are, an emotive issue. Since then Article 2 & 3 of the Constitution have been deleted in order to appease Unionist fears as part of the Belfast agreement. Honouring the hunger strikes 25 years on will only whip a frenzy up in the Unionist camp that will set back Northern politics 2 years.
I believe that without the hunger strikes we would not have a Belfast agreement and that the sacrifice of these men while being an important part of Irish history the DUP would use an occasion like this to say how “republicans haven’t changed” etc. To the Unionists a Commemoration would be like a red rag to a bull, a bit like an orange order parade going down the Garvahy Road. I believe some day the conditions will be right that a commemoration can happen but not just yet, politics in Northern Ireland have not matured enough.
Just my 2 cent worth
Just listening to a debate on newstalk as to weather or not the 25th anniversary of the 1981 H-Block hungerstrike should be comemorated in an official capacity by the state. can the mods put up a poll on this as I'd be interested to see how people feel about this 25 years on.
Can you detail what is being proposed. Which hungerstrikers & how would they be recognised by the state?
Block G Raptor
11/10/2006, 9:00 AM
I'm not sure...AFAIK its all 10..I just caught the end of a debate between Dessie Ellis and a Fine Gael TD on news talk where Ellis was calling on the government to hold a commemoration for the hungerstrikers and the Fine gaeler giving the usual Ill informed reasons against ie. They were Murderers/Convicted Criminals etc. when in fact not one of the Hungerstrikers was convicted of Murder and their convictions for the crimes they did commit were handed down by non-jury Diplock Courts. I have always found Thatchers Line of Crime is Crime Is Crime ridiculously Ironic in light that from Arrest to Sentence IRA "terrorists" were dealt with under a completely different legal system than ODC's. ie Interment without trial. unlimited time held without charge.Non-jury Courts and finaly the five demands within the prison. If she wanted to Criminalise the IRA then they should have been tried under the Normal criminal process.No?
No, as what little hope there is of political progress in the north will be blown out of the water. Seriously undermines the arguements about a United Ireland too, particularly following on from the riots earlier in the year, as well.
ccfcman
11/10/2006, 10:59 AM
I don't believe they should, they would clearly be made marters and thus the goverment would be showing some form of support towards the IRA and indeed violence in a Northen way.
BohsPartisan
11/10/2006, 11:04 AM
Would the men themselves want to be commemorated by this government anyway?
Same for 1916. I don't think James Connolly would have been too impressed with the likes of Bertie eulogising the rising.
Lim till i die
11/10/2006, 11:09 AM
Would the men themselves want to be commemorated by this government anyway?
Same for 1916. I don't think James Connolly would have been too impressed with the likes of Bertie eulogising the rising.
Kind of touched on that above
I mean it's my understanding that those hunger strikers would have even refused to recognise this state :confused:
It's a tricky issue. I don't really think Unionist views should have to come into our states decisions though. I mean why should we almost deny large parts of our history, is that really progress??
It's a tricky issue. I don't really think Unionist views should have to come into our states decisions though. I mean why should we almost deny large parts of our history, is that really progress??
Not commerating it officially, isn't the same as denying. It hasn't been denied up to now, so why would continuing to have no state commeration change that?
As for Unionist views on our state decisions, well, if people genuinely want a peaceful united Ireland then those views have to be respected.
Yes they should be commerated, the same as any POW.. Lets remember that these men died defending their principles and beliefs.
All this bull**** about upsetting the Unionists and the creaky political status that remains in Northern Ireland should not stand in the way of remembering and for some embracing our history. The good and the bad side .
Remember that these men were treated to the Ala carte form of justice that this country has endured for centuries.
I don't know if these men would recognise the governmentof today I feel they probably wouldn't, but that is no excuse to brush them under the carpet becase someone might get upset.
cheifo
11/10/2006, 2:27 PM
No they def should not.The IRA had no mandate or wide ranging support within the 26 counties and indeed their savage torture and violence against innocent civilians meant their own constituents,Northern nationalists favoured the SDLP during the troubles.There is also controversary whether the men were sacrificed by the Republican leadership to engineer public support.
There should be a truth commission set up for victims of IRA, Loyalist and British forces and subsequently a dignified commemoration which should be non tribal and open to both communities.
Strabane_Harp
11/10/2006, 5:39 PM
Kieran Doherty was an elected TD when he died.
so to say he had no mandate is a joke
BobbySands
12/10/2006, 12:56 AM
To say that the hunger strikers were in some way used by the republican movement to engender support is totally false. The IRA/Sinn Fein were completely against the hunger strikes on the grounds that it would take from the armed struggle. It was the prisoners themselves who insisted that this was the path they would take. The anti H Block committees were not exclusively drawn from the extremes of republicanism. They included moderate nationalists and humanitarians who would never have dreamed of casting a vote for Sinn Fein. The demands of free association, the right to wear their own clothes, not to do prison work etc were hardly outlandish. These were rights they had enjoyed up to the late seventies when Britain instigated their "criminalisation" policy.
I feel a bit funny adding a view on this as my handle often draws a knee jerk reaction from some of the PD types whenever I chime in on a political discussion.
Incidentally, my constituency elected Kieran Doherty to the Dail and Bobby Sands was was an MP in Fermanagh/South Tyrone, so to suggest the strikers had no mandate is to deny the facts.
bennocelt
12/10/2006, 9:43 AM
No they def should not.The IRA had no mandate or wide ranging support within the 26 counties and indeed their savage torture and violence against innocent civilians meant their own constituents,Northern nationalists favoured the SDLP during the troubles.There is also controversary whether the men were sacrificed by the Republican leadership to engineer public support.
There should be a truth commission set up for victims of IRA, Loyalist and British forces and subsequently a dignified commemoration which should be non tribal and open to both communities.
a bit like the guys in 1916 then:rolleyes:
Lim till i die
12/10/2006, 9:52 AM
a bit like the guys in 1916 then:rolleyes:
The bit about "no wide ranging support" is similar
The rest is absolutely nothing like it tbh ;)
cheifo
12/10/2006, 1:13 PM
I was refering to the fact that the SDLP were the main nationalist party during the troubles but I take the point about Doherty and Sands.I stand by my point though that the main beneficiarys were SF and the IRA.Why should
we commemorate an event that led to support for an organisation that killed scores of innocent Irish people including some of our Garda.We dont have to symphatise with the IRA just because we agree Thatcher and her kronies were an unsavoury bunch of ******.
The love Ulster rally IMO was not a commeroration of victims because it was representitive of one tribe.This would be no better and will never happen anyway because powers that be dont want to lose votes to SF.
bennocelt
12/10/2006, 2:38 PM
The bit about "no wide ranging support" is similar
The rest is absolutely nothing like it tbh ;)
ah but ya know what i mean:)
its baby infants history, but some people dont even know it!
bennocelt
12/10/2006, 2:39 PM
I was refering to the fact that the SDLP were the main nationalist party during the troubles but I take the point about Doherty and Sands.I stand by my point though that the main beneficiarys were SF and the IRA.Why should
we commemorate an event that led to support for an organisation that killed scores of innocent Irish people including some of our Garda.We dont have to symphatise with the IRA just because we agree Thatcher and her kronies were an unsavoury bunch of ******.
The love Ulster rally IMO was not a commeroration of victims because it was representitive of one tribe.This would be no better and will never happen anyway because powers that be dont want to lose votes to SF.
or support an organisation that protected catholics from loyalist death squads, bent coppers, and 16,000 british soldiers
i know which side im on
ciaraa
12/10/2006, 2:59 PM
or support an organisation that protected catholics from loyalist death squads, bent coppers, and 16,000 british soldiers
i know which side im on
Are you saying that you support the IRA/SF? Sorry if I misunderstood that statement but thats what it sounds like.
Lionel Ritchie
12/10/2006, 3:03 PM
No.
We should study history and learn from it ...not celebrate it. Too much sh1t goes on on this island already because of peoples rose tinted view of some percieved glorious past or casting off of shackles.
bennocelt
13/10/2006, 2:28 PM
Are you saying that you support the IRA/SF? Sorry if I misunderstood that statement but thats what it sounds like.
god i dont know, what with my avatar and all
dcfcsteve
17/10/2006, 3:54 PM
Yes they should be commerated, the same as any POW.. Lets remember that these men died defending their principles and beliefs.
All this bull**** about upsetting the Unionists and the creaky political status that remains in Northern Ireland should not stand in the way of remembering and for some embracing our history. The good and the bad side .
Remember that these men were treated to the Ala carte form of justice that this country has endured for centuries.
I don't know if these men would recognise the governmentof today I feel they probably wouldn't, but that is no excuse to brush them under the carpet becase someone might get upset.
The Hunger Strikers were members of 2 organisations that were not only classified as illegal in The Republic, but which also actively committed illegal acts within The Republic - often against citizens of the Republic.
A host of members of those 2 organisations involved have been imprisoned in the Republic, right up to the Good Friday Agreement releases.
The organisations the Hunger Striker represented have killed members of the the legal and official civil protection/security forces in the Republic (e.g. the Gardai).
One of the Hunger Strikers was in prison at the time for an offense he had committed originally in the Republic (Michael Devine).
All were openly opposed to the existence and apparatus of the Republic, and the political movement that sprang out of the Hunger Strikes refused to sit in or recognise the democratically elected parliament of the Republic of Ireland.
It would therefore be nothing short of perverse for the Republic to officially honour these men. All were members of organisations that were not only illegal in the Republic at the time - but which are still illegal there to this very day !! All were opposed to the existence of the ROI, and were memebrs of organisations that activelty worked against the Republic and its representatives on occasion. Rightly or wrongly, all would also have been imprisoned in the Republic if they'd been tried for similar offences there (as indeed many of their colleagues were). How the hell could all that now be ignored and these men honoured ?
And if Irish Hunger strikers are to get honoured, why should it only be those 10 ? The 20h Century had at least 3 series of Republican hunger strikes. Why should only one be deemed worthy of official remembrance ?
Finally - the mists of time have obscured the fact that the Hunger Strikers themselves, as individuals, were not all in prison through acts that could be described as stereotypical of 'freedom fighters'. Three of them had been imprisoned for separate attacks on retail premises - including Thomas McElwee, who managed to kill a 26 year old female shopkeeper in his attack on a Balymena clothes store. A number were in for theft of weapons - including Mchael Devine, who not only had a petty criminal record from prior to his involvement in the INLA, but who's act of gun theft had actually occured in the Republic. Only 4 or 5 of the 10 could genuinely be considered to have been in prison for acts one would unambiguously associate with 'Freedom Fighters'.
Regardless of what their broader political purposes may have been, or the outcome they arguably attained, I see no reason or a modern, democratic, Western government to honour someone who, for example, burned a young woman to death in a clothes shop, all in the name of Irish Freedom....
dcfcsteve
17/10/2006, 4:27 PM
One other thought - how would any of us feel if the Scottish Parliament decided to commemorate people like Billy Wright, Jim Gray or Michael Stone (when he eventually dies/gets shot) for their efforts in working to protect the loyalist/protestant people of Ulster and uphold the Union in line with the wishes of the majority of its population.....?
Put things in a different light, does it.......?
I don't know enough about the details of each prisoners case & maybe some were genuine but does seem like their organisation used them as pawns against the British state.
I voted No as I think its time to move on & try not to repeat the mistakes of the past instead of glorifying it. No use saying the other crowd do it or don't do it as thats probably why in current state.
endabob1
17/10/2006, 4:54 PM
I am just old enough to remember the black flags and the high state of emotion and tension that was in the air at the time but while those men died for their beliefs history has moved forward and looking at the past is not the way to the future.
Strabane_Harp
17/10/2006, 5:42 PM
I dont see why the free state/ 26 counties or whatever would commemorate them. I know a few councils and the likes passed votes on it.
Commemorating the hunger strikes should be a personal decision and not some political point scoring.
Like when Bertie and McDowell had the military parade for 1916. It would mean alot more if they were genuine and not trying to win votes
Thunderblaster
18/10/2006, 11:00 PM
No part of the Troubles should be commemorated. The only thing that should be commemorated is a just and lasting peace in Ireland for everybody.
Strabane_Harp
19/10/2006, 11:59 AM
No part of the Troubles should be commemorated. The only thing that should be commemorated is a just and lasting peace in Ireland for everybody.
same could be said for the easter rising and many other things though.
BohsPartisan
19/10/2006, 2:01 PM
I'm sure if it were possible, James Connolly would have been turning in his grave at the type of person who was commemorating the rising at easter.
Dr.Nightdub
20/10/2006, 12:31 AM
Considering that the state battered supporters of the hunger strikers at the time and had pretty little compunction in doing so, it'd be an act of monumental hypocrisy for that same state to now turn round and commemorate the hunger strikers those people were supporting.
The most useful thing that could be done would be to educate people as to why the hunger strike happened in the first place - in fact, why the Troubles happened in the first place. From some of the comments in this thread, the degree of ignorance - as in simply not knowing the course of recent history - is staggering.
Strabane_Harp
20/10/2006, 7:40 AM
Considering that the state battered supporters of the hunger strikers at the time and had pretty little compunction in doing so, it'd be an act of monumental hypocrisy for that same state to now turn round and commemorate the hunger strikers those people were supporting.
The most useful thing that could be done would be to educate people as to why the hunger strike happened in the first place - in fact, why the Troubles happened in the first place. From some of the comments in this thread, the degree of ignorance - as in simply not knowing the course of recent history - is staggering.
very good post.
as for Hypocrisy, its dirty bertie and herr mcdowell we are talkin about here :rolleyes:
Strabane_Harp
20/10/2006, 7:40 AM
I'm sure if it were possible, James Connolly would have been turning in his grave at the type of person who was commemorating the rising at easter.
sure Bertie is a life long socialist :p
bennocelt
20/10/2006, 8:11 AM
sure Bertie is a life long socialist :p
i think he meant to say lifelong socialite
Lionel Ritchie
20/10/2006, 10:47 AM
I think DCFCSteve wrapped it up pretty tightly.
Curiously -dodgy painter and unrepentant psychopath Michael Stone has spoken of his admiration for the courage of "the ten".
On one level I can acknowledge that courage -but only to the same extent that I'd admire the courage of the 7/7 bus/tube bombers or the 9/11 hijackers.
BohsPartisan
20/10/2006, 11:01 AM
On one level I can acknowledge that courage -but only to the same extent that I'd admire the courage of the 7/7 bus/tube bombers or the 9/11 hijackers.
I'm no fan of the 'ra but I think its unfair to compare them to islamic militant suicide bombers.
Lim till i die
20/10/2006, 11:03 AM
I'm no fan of the 'ra but I think its unfair to compare them to islamic militant suicide bombers.
Why??
If anything those islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers are far more courageous than the I.R.A man who say, blew up the pub in Guildford for example
BobbySands
22/10/2006, 10:44 PM
Considering that the state battered supporters of the hunger strikers at the time and had pretty little compunction in doing so, it'd be an act of monumental hypocrisy for that same state to now turn round and commemorate the hunger strikers those people were supporting.
The most useful thing that could be done would be to educate people as to why the hunger strike happened in the first place - in fact, why the Troubles happened in the first place. From some of the comments in this thread, the degree of ignorance - as in simply not knowing the course of recent history - is staggering.
Fantastic post from the good Dr. Nightdub. Hats off etc......
cheifo
23/10/2006, 12:50 AM
Thats right, we will all go educate ourselves on the course of recent history
and we will become big RA heads.:rolleyes: :p
dcfcsteve
23/10/2006, 9:56 AM
it'd be an act of monumental hypocrisy for that same state to now turn round and commemorate the hunger strikers those people were supporting.
You mean like the way the Easter uprising is celebrated, even though it faced widespread opposition at the time across the island, people in Dublin coming out to barrack, spit-at and abuse the prisoners when it ended etc etc ? Knowing the course of history indeed.
The Irish would happily turn someone from public enemy No 1 to national saint in the blink of an eye if they were seduced into doing so, and vice-versa. It's shocking that it took recent revelations for people to finally accept that Haughey was a crook, for example. As if a man of no independent means living in that level of wealth wasn't an obvious enough sign at the time...
The most useful thing that could be done would be to educate people as to why the hunger strike happened in the first place - in fact, why the Troubles happened in the first place. From some of the comments in this thread, the degree of ignorance - as in simply not knowing the course of recent history - is staggering.
Most people could do with education about the Hunger Strikes - but I suspect not in the way you're suggesting. They had feck all to do with 'the struggle' and the advancement of Irish freedom in themselves, and were just about trying to get POW status for Republican prisoners - the ability to wear civilian clothing, mingle freely in prison etc like a World War 2 camp. Which was never, ever going to happen in all seriousness. Most people don't know that that was what it was all about, and would probably be quietly disappointed that it was over something so officious and 'fringe' to the struggle.
Rovers'Til IDie
23/10/2006, 11:23 AM
I think it opens quite a can of worms.
:
Opening up a can of worms might be a bit insensitive, considering what they went through.
The state wouldn't be interested in a commemoration and besides Gerry 'I'm not a brit spy (honest)' Adams and Martin 'neither am I (honest)' McGuinness are the ones who decide where and when the memory of the hunger strikers is used or abused.
Partizan
23/10/2006, 11:28 AM
Always knew that the Provies were riddled with MI5 spies. Though in saying that, the struggle of the Hunger Strikers bear very little resemblance to the policies of PSF today who have all sense in purpose have sold out. The State if it ever did try to commemorate them would as pointed out in earlier posters smack of gross hypocracy and cynical vote catching.
Then again anything is possible with FF.
Rovers'Til IDie
23/10/2006, 11:34 AM
Always knew that the Provies were riddled with MI5 spies. Though in saying that, the struggle of the Hunger Strikers bear very little resemblance to the policies of PSF today who have all sense in purpose have sold out.
The hunger strikes was where it all began for adams & co., they started using the hunger strikers as Sinn fein promotional material.
dcfcsteve
23/10/2006, 12:45 PM
Though in saying that, the struggle of the Hunger Strikers bear very little resemblance to the policies of PSF today who have all sense in purpose have sold out.
If "selling out" equates to not trying to bomb, bully and coerce up to 1 million unionists into accepting your point of view re the future for them and their families, then thank feck they've sold out.... :rolleyes:
Dr.Nightdub
23/10/2006, 1:08 PM
Most people could do with education about the Hunger Strikes - but I suspect not in the way you're suggesting. They had feck all to do with 'the struggle' and the advancement of Irish freedom in themselves, and were just about trying to get POW status for Republican prisoners - the ability to wear civilian clothing, mingle freely in prison etc like a World War 2 camp. Which was never, ever going to happen in all seriousness.
Don't forget that the prisoners had freedom of association, no prison clothing, etc, etc previously, so "never, ever going to happen" isn't quite accurate.
Without getting into a debate about the rights and wrongs of the five demands (which'd be a bit pointless now, 25 years after the event) my guess is that Republicans at the time viewed struggle inside the prisons as part of the wider struggle against the British i.e. same fight, just a different battlefield.
By the way, I'm not neccesarily advocating a form of education about the Hunger Strikes that'd meet with the approval of Sinn Féin's department of propaganda, it would obviously have to be put in the context of a wider history of the north, so 1921 and the Government of Ireland Act would probably be the logical place to start.
dcfcsteve
23/10/2006, 2:24 PM
Don't forget that the prisoners had freedom of association, no prison clothing, etc, etc previously, so "never, ever going to happen" isn't quite accurate.
As much as I hate saying "never" about anything, it is a fact that the Hunger Strikers were "never" going to get their demands under Thatcher. That is why 10 men died, and that is why the strike was called off - everyone realised they were just lining up to commit suicide.
As for having many of the demands previously - that is exactly the point. They ahd them in the past. They were consciously and deliberately removed. They never got them back, and they never would've under Thatcher. Witches used to get burned at the stake in this part of the world. That doesn't make it likely that it'll start happening again any time soon...
I agree with you that it was part of the broader struggle, but the average person in the street probably doesn't know exactly what the strike was all about (particularly in the Republic), and would probably be a bit disappointed to learn the mandane level of the strikers demands. Starving yourself for Ireland is seen as glorious -starving yourself for the right to wear whatever jeans you want and to hang out with your buddies in jail wouldn't be seen to have the same ring to it.
Are the Troubles not taught in the South as part of modern Irish History ?
Rovers'Til IDie
23/10/2006, 2:42 PM
Starving yourself for Ireland is seen as glorious -starving yourself for the right to wear whatever jeans you want and to hang out with your buddies in jail wouldn't be seen to have the same ring to it.
Talk about a simplistic interpretation of history. They were on hunger strike in protest over thatchers policy of 'criminalisation'. They saw their actions as politically motivated and not acts of criminality. Their 5 demands reflected this. Whether you agree or not at least get the facts straight.
dcfcsteve
23/10/2006, 3:18 PM
Talk about a simplistic interpretation of history. They were on hunger strike in protest over thatchers policy of 'criminalisation'. They saw their actions as politically motivated and not acts of criminality. Their 5 demands reflected this. Whether you agree or not at least get the facts straight.
RTID - I'm more than familiar with the facts thanks, as my initial post on this topic illustrated. That was my tongue-in-cheek account of how Seamus Public would see it, not my own view of history. :rolleyes:
Rovers'Til IDie
23/10/2006, 3:40 PM
RTID - I'm more than familiar with the facts thanks, as my initial post on this topic illustrated. That was my tongue-in-cheek account of how Seamus Public would see it, not my own view of history. :rolleyes:
Fair enough. I suppose I should really start reading these threads from the start.....but then again why waste my time when I can just spout out the first thing that comes to mind :p
"Michael Sands...we'll always remember you"
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.