Ian Paisley and his responsibility for the troubles

T

Thomas_

Dear Mr hoopster it is only chit if it is untrue,as for the famine I could cry for what happened to the people of ireland, the hard nastiness of laissez faire, the ill luck to have a stupid,unsympathetic man like Travelyan in charge at the time ,a better man could have kept the death rate right down and been a hero in ireland and all it would have taken was doing the morally right thing by our fellow man,that one person should die of starvation in the richest country in the world was a disgrace,and whilst they were harder times then there was no excuse for the authorities to be so mortally hard for Ireland.The era of England putting the irish down was over,we had freedom of the press and assembly,a decent native police service and as wide a franchise as the rest of the UK.
In Scotland, there was a fimine around the same time as in Ireland. The difference between both of them? In Scotland the people showed solidarity with those starving and didn´t let them starve to death. So just to put the blame on the English is just "one side". Had those wealthier in Ireland also helped those starving, maybe some lives could had been saved. Another "country" another "solution" to the same problem.

I am no fanatic and have learned that the truth is actually sometimes / frequently different to our nation's mythical history but you will have to excuse me if I put my own patriotic interpretation on the facts and I will afford you the same honour as well,because the decent posters of this site are here for the joy of the debate.
Depends on the conditions you regard some of the resident posters on this forum as being "decent posters", as well as how you see them being here for "the joy of the debate". Sometimes it´s more bickering than debating, but to some people both means quite one and the same.

Next,the people of Ireland in 1912 lived under a government that was increasingly sensitive to the wishes of its governed and my reading of the achievements of the IPP up to the time leads me to believe the people of ireland had the most able politicians in Westminster and the people of Ireland should have stuck by them,so,all the bad things that happened were the fault of the men who reached for the pike and the gun.The morality of the gun running has always bothered me but faced with their certainty that they were going to be forced into a situation where their livings were at risk what could they do,in my opinion they bought the guns they never used to be taken seriously and not be steamrolled ,this should have made the home rulers redouble their efforts and dig deep into their ingenuity to find a form of words and institutions to placate the unionists even if it took another ten years(the onnus being on them as they were the ones seeking change).THe end result a better history and a United ireland.
I don´t know about any sensitiveness, to me it rather looks like the "Irish problem" has been for too long a pain in the back of the British parliament and they wanted to somehow get a solution for that problem.

The clowns who organised the rising are the ones to blame for the partitioning of Ireland and destroying any chance of unity for over a hundred years and beyond,the men of the 36th Ulster division marched off to war singing about how proud they were to be Irishmen and came home angry,and embarrassed to be irish,thanks to killers of the Easter rising.
A British Army Division consisting of nearly 100% of Ulster Unionists doesn´t surprises anybody that they were "flocking" to the trenches with "Hurray bravery" and dispised the Easter Rising. You may look at where these soldiers were before, it´s been the UVF.

I have never knowingly read loyalist propaganda,my knowledge of irish history comes from anecdote ,the press,personal experience,Tim pat Corrigan,and the history forum of politics.ie ever I have been really amazed at the wide breadth of knowledge of the contributors,their honesty in even presenting facts that go against their own sides narrative.
I´d strongly recommend you to do just that and "listen" (respectively reading) the "o-tone" of them. Undistorted and plain in their own expressions, so might get the idea of their own ideas and values. I did so on some rare but despite on some occasions to read it from the original and not just relying on the extracts to find in TPCs books. I´ve long ago shifted from Coogan to Dwyer, a better writer and a historian.

By the way I always thought Ian paisley a bad man who rabble roused for his own ends,who poured petrol on glowing embers instead of oil on troubled waters as a Christian minister should have,instead of opposing civil rights marches he should have joined them and helped keep republican influence of the organisation at bay,civil rights and the lifting up of mankind being the right thing for a Christian to be heavily involved in,but he was totally incapable of the humility necessary to join anybody else's endeavour as an equal.
To some Paisley was "the defender of the Protestant faith" (and "majority"), to many others he was just the "Devil".
 
Last edited:


Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
83,467
Heresy!

CONCLUSION

In the preceding sections it has been shown that Catholic grievances were exaggerated and that nationalism was a much stronger force in the Catholic population and the civil rights movement than is generally acknowledged. Once accepted this interpretation explains otherwise puzzling facts.
Violence by deprived minorities typically takes the form of looting, as occurred in the black ghettoes of the USA throughout the 1960s.[SUP]57[/SUP] Northern Irish Catholics who were supposedly in a similar position to American blacks almost never looted, attacking instead the symbols of the state. Such violence is manifestly political, and although strange behaviour for people concerned with 'civil rights' makes perfect sense if the rioters were nationalists trying to overthrow the Unionist regime.
Supposedly the civil rights demonstrators wanted reforms. Yet the violence was not reduced in the slightest by a 'one man one vote' franchise, the redrawing of local council boundaries, a massive house-building programme and an allocation system for housing that favoured Catholics. There are two reasons for this: first since the old system was not particularly inequitable, reforms could not have much impact, second the nationalists who predominated in the movement were not really interested in reforms.
and

The Catholic leadership was very conscious of the importance of English public opinion and made great efforts to influence it.60 By presenting the Northern Irish situation in terms of discrimination by bigoted Protestants, the Catholic leadership was able to recruit support from most English left-wing and liberal opinion. They were aided by the lack of knowledge of most journalists and politicians concerning Northern Ireland. For example, Hastings reveals an awesome ignorance of the constitutional issue when he remarks, 'The least an Irish Catholic could expect from being a part of Great Britain would be the rights that other English citizens enjoy.'61 Also the British patriotism of the loyalists was seen as embarrassingly old-fashioned if not akin to 'fascism' o r 'racism'. Lack of understanding concerning the nature of the Northern Irish problem, combined with a bias against the loyalist majority and in favour of the Catholics, helps explain the failure of British policies.
Christopher Hewitt
Department of Sociology
University of Maryland,
Baltimore County
Pages 377-378

Hewitt, Christopher. (1981) 'Catholic grievances, Catholic nationalism and violence in Northern Ireland during the Civil Rights period: A Reconsideration', British Journal of Sociology, Vol.32, No.3, pp.362-380, 1981.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,655
I disagree that "the old system was not particularly inequitable". Businesses (generally Unionist) had up to 7 votes each in local elections. Since the vote in local elections was linked to being a householder, local authorities had incentives to deny housing to Catholics. Derry was majority Catholic but had a Unionist council for 50 years because of both. The virtually 100% Protestant RUC was another example of Apartheid against Catholics.

I would remind you that the Unionists introduced the gun into Northern politics with the refoundation of the UVF and the burning down of Catholic homes such as Bombay Street (which forced Mary McAleese's family to flee). I would also remind you of incendiary speeches by Unionist leaders such as PM Lord Brookeborough who said "I recommend those who are Loyalist not to employ Roman Catholics".

The abolition of Fermanagh and Tyrone county councils was a brazen attempt to silence their Catholic majorities - as was the abolition of PR-STV first in local and then Stormont elections. This system had been intended to protect minorities under the Government of Ireland Act.
 
Last edited:

Global Justice

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
13,240
I'm just curious, every CNR on here says that Bloody Sunday was a catalyst in the rise in support for PIRA. The Ballymurphy Massacre occurred five months before and almost as many innocent civilians died then also. Why did people not get upset about that as much? Why was it the 'big media event' that got people riled up? Were the people of Ballymurphy not worthy of getting angry over!
What planet are you living on?

The good folk from Ballymurphy have been struggling for justice for the British instigated slaughter for decades.

Bloody Sunday proved for a fact that the paras were genocidal scum terrorists.
 

DT123

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
14,145
I disagree that "the old system was not particularly inequitable". Businesses (generally Unionist) had up to 7 votes each in local elections. Since the vote in local elections was linked to being a householder, local authorities had incentives to deny housing to Catholics. Derry was majority Catholic but had a Unionist council for 50 years because of both. The virtually 100% Protestant RUC was another example of Apartheid against Catholics.

I would remind you that the Unionists introduced the gun into Northern politics with the refoundation of the UVF and the burning down of Catholic homes such as Bombay Street (which forced Mary McAleese's family to flee). I would also remind you of incendiary speeches by Unionist leaders such as PM Lord Brookeborough who said "I recommend those who are Loyalist not to employ Roman Catholics".

The abolition of Fermanagh and Tyrone county councils was a brazen attempt to silence their Catholic majorities - as was the abolition of PR-STV first in local and then Stormont elections. This system had been intended to protect minorities under the Government of Ireland Act.
I suggest that you educate yourself with regards to the number of Catholics in the RUC .
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
83,467
I disagree that "the old system was not particularly inequitable". Businesses (generally Unionist) had up to 7 votes each in local elections. Since the vote in local elections was linked to being a householder, local authorities had incentives to deny housing to Catholics. Derry was majority Catholic but had a Unionist council for 50 years because of both. The virtually 100% Protestant RUC was another example of Apartheid against Catholics.

I would remind you that the Unionists introduced the gun into Northern politics with the refoundation of the UVF and the burning down of Catholic homes such as Bombay Street (which forced Mary McAleese's family to flee). I would also remind you of incendiary speeches by Unionist leaders such as PM Lord Brookeborough who said "I recommend those who are Loyalist not to employ Roman Catholics".

The abolition of Fermanagh and Tyrone county councils was a brazen attempt to silence their Catholic majorities - as was the abolition of PR-STV first in local and then Stormont elections. This system had been intended to protect minorities under the Government of Ireland Act.
Tsk - This is silly Dame .... for example - there were more RC Business votes in Derry than Protestant Business votes - and there were never enough to change an election result.

Housing - RCs had more than their share of Housing in Belfast and other places

If you read Bernadette Devlin you'll see that it was Protestants who arranger that her family got a House in Cookstown .....

RCs in the RUC ? Run a boycott, ostracise Catholics who join and then complain because of supposed under-representation ?

Last of all - the abandonment of PR was to counter The threat from Independent Uinioonist and the like - NOT to attack CNR representation.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,655
Tsk - This is silly Dame .... for example - there were more RC Business votes in Derry than Protestant Business votes - and there were never enough to change an election result.

Housing - RCs had more than their share of Housing in Belfast and other places

If you read Bernadette Devlin you'll see that it was Protestants who arranger that her family got a House in Cookstown .....

RCs in the RUC ? Run a boycott, ostracise Catholics who join and then complain because of supposed under-representation ?
Not a single house in Derry was allocated to a Catholic for 34 years when NICRA got started despite Catholics being 60% of the population. On the business vote - I also factored in the denial of the local authority vote to non householders - a device which explains to a large degree why Unionists were anxious to deny housing to Catholics.
If you read Bernadette Devlin you'll see that it was Protestants who arranger that her family got a House in Cookstown
Which does not alter the reality of what the Old Stormont Apartheid regime was doing.
 

james toney

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
16,278
I was just listening to RTE radio. The superlative journalist Ed Moloney was discussing the life of Ian Paisley.

Moloney offered a devastating assessment of Ian Paisley, saying that, without Paisley, Sir Terence O'Neill might have survived as leader of Northern Ireland and there would not have been any troubles or Provo campaign.


I suppose a good case can be made that Paisley is not the only one who bears responsibility for the troubles. Nonetheless, Moloney's assessment is savage and indicates his belief that Paisley bears great responsibility for causing the troubles in Northern Ireland.

I'll try to put up a podcast of Moloney's contribution on RTE Liveline later
Many loyalist prisoners held the same view of Paisley,and other unionist politicians.
 
Last edited:

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,655
Cruimh here is a video describing gerrymandering in Derry under the Old Stormont. Another aspect of it was gerrymandering of electoral boundaries.

[video=youtube;NbiW0yrnsLY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbiW0yrnsLY[/video]

The Waterside had 3500 Protestant voters and 1800 Catholics. It elected 4 Unionist councillors.

North Ward 4000 Protestants to 2000 Catholic votes = 8 Unionist councillors.

South Ward 10,000 Catholic voters to 1100 Protestants = 8 Nationalists

Total for all wards: 12 Unionists and 8 Nationalists. Despite 13800 Catholic votes to 8600 Protestant ones.

In other words, 90% Catholic Southward had the same number of councillors as 67% Protestant North Ward - which had half its population!
 
Last edited:

DT123

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
14,145
Many loyalist prisoners the held the same view of Paisley,and other unionist politicians.
It is a common trait of terrorists on both sides, to seek to shift the blame for their actions onto somebody or something else.You would think that they had no choice in what they chose to do.

Their problem being that the vast majority of people never felt the need to kill anybody.
 

james toney

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
16,278
Good analogy,
"he's like the guy who sets fire to the house and then, because just when it's at the point of like collapsing into cinders he turns up with a bucket of water and phones the fire brigade, he's hailed as the saviour of the house."

There is no doubt he bore some responsibility, and that's not touching on his Ulster resistance and the murders that flowed from the weapons they and other loyalist terrorists brought into NI.

"But his role at the start of The Troubles I think was like crucial because if he had not blocked and stopped the reform, if he had not got Major Bunting to attack the Burntollet march and all of the violence that followed from that - would we have had the violence in Doire in August, 1969?
Would Belfast have exploded into violence a few days later? Would the IRA then have split into Provisionals and Officials? Would we have avoided the thirty or forty years of bombings, shootings and killings?
So, he's been hailed as a peacemaker but you know the only reason there was a need for a peace process was because he, primarily, was responsible for the conflict that caused the need for the peace."
 

cricket

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
13,786
It is a common trait of terrorists on both sides, to seek to shift the blame for their actions onto somebody or something else.You would think that they had no choice in what they chose to do.

Their problem being that the vast majority of people never felt the need to kill anybody.
I'd go about 95% of the way with you there. The vast majority of nationalists did not become IRA volunteers either.
However, there is an onus on everyone, especially those in public office, to be responsible in what they say. That's why you have incitement to hatred legislation,etc. Paisley made a career out of persuading protestants that they were on the verge of being massacred in a papish plot.It took many on the loyalist side a long time to see through such behaviour ( PUP and others ) while large numbers never did.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
83,467
I also factored in the denial of the local authority vote to non householders - a device which explains to a large degree why Unionists were anxious to deny housing to Catholics.Which does not alter the reality of what the Old Stormont Apartheid regime was doing.
Erm - when the householder thing was changed MORE protestants gained local authority votes than Catholics. I know because I got a vote which I wouldn't have had .... Which was why there was little or no difference AFTER the changes .....
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
83,467
Good analogy,
"he's like the guy who sets fire to the house and then, because just when it's at the point of like collapsing into cinders he turns up with a bucket of water and phones the fire brigade, he's hailed as the saviour of the house."

There is no doubt he bore some responsibility, and that's not touching on his Ulster resistance and the murders that flowed from the weapons they and other loyalist terrorists brought into NI.

"But his role at the start of The Troubles I think was like crucial because if he had not blocked and stopped the reform, if he had not got Major Bunting to attack the Burntollet march and all of the violence that followed from that - would we have had the violence in Doire in August, 1969?
Would Belfast have exploded into violence a few days later? Would the IRA then have split into Provisionals and Officials? Would we have avoided the thirty or forty years of bombings, shootings and killings?
So, he's been hailed as a peacemaker but you know the only reason there was a need for a peace process was because he, primarily, was responsible for the conflict that caused the need for the peace."
That in bold is untrue.

And it is amusing to see people who defend the attacks on the OO going past the Ardoyne in recent times ignoring the deliberate routing of a Provocative march through a loyalist area decades earlier....

Hypocrisy much? :D
 

Glaucon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
8,337
So what? Nobody denies that Derry was Gerrymandered - the point is that Nationalist councils gerrymandered where they could .

Something you need to admit.
One of Edmund Burke's argument against democracy was that one could not trust the masses to protect unpopular minorities, only a disinterested, educated (non-popularly elected) aristocracy could be trusted to do this.

It seems that a certain level of education and respect for minority rights must be engendered in the common mind in order for liberal democracy to function effectively. This is one of the major reasons why imposing democracy on the Middle East is such a disaster, and why continued Westminster rule, frankly, would have been better than partition, which merely gave both sides the scope to discriminate against ''unpopular minorities''.

In regard to NI, Nationalist councils did discriminate and gerrymander where possible, but it was never as endemic or sanctioned as in Unionist councils because, of course, Unionists controlled the Six County entity, which they had founded to take care of their own interests. In that vein, a disempowered Nationalist minority tried to ''protect its own'' where it could, though it rarely did so very effectively.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
83,467
In regard to NI, Nationalist councils did discriminate and gerrymander where possible, but it was never as endemic or sanctioned as in Unionist councils because, of course, Unionists controlled the Six County entity, which they had founded to take care of their own interests.
Thank you for the honesty. As you say it was never as endemic (not so sure about sanction- those with power in the nationalist community certainly never tried to stop it!) from nationalism - but ONLY because they were the minority.

And if we are being honest, as the Civil Rights Movement never acknowledged that both communities discriminated, let alone protested at nationalist discrimination - it does rather suggest that they were not seeking a fair society, just one in which they themselves would be the ones doing the discriminating.

And when Unionists saw how places like Newry and Enniskillen under nationalist control were run - is it any wonder they did everything they could to block nationalism?

And fast forward to the 21st century - even with all the reforms - the most blatant discrimination was within the CNR community - step forward and take a bow Conor Murphy and his cronies.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top