|
As
a youngster growing up I can remember on occasions
the perceptions held amongst myself and some of my
peers of ‘those Protestants’ that we had
not yet met but had heard about. Amongst us kids we
told each other that they could be found by checking
to see if ones eyebrows did not part in the middle,
by seeing if they had a slight slit at the top of
their tongues or of course the pronunciation of H
or ‘ait H’. As I grew older I began to hear
then from some circles of teenage peers of those loyalists
and that they could be found through their grunts,
huge heads, with knees bent while their hairy clenched
knuckles drag behind them on the ground. I presume
one would most definitely also find such childhood
perceptions directed upon the Catholic community from
the ‘other side’. Such stereotypes are found
in many walks of life. Yet such are predominant though
in relation to religion, sexuality orientation, political
understanding and ethnicity. Although some do hold
on to those perceptions for life there are however
many who of course find eventually that such held
views are on many occasions but those perceptions
reinforced through time, many through childhood, while
others later in life.
Yet
when one attempts to ‘really’ find an understanding
of those perceptions and of why such persons hold
differing views then I feel we have at least took
another step forward. I used to think to myself of
what it would have been like as a ‘Prod’
growing up on the Shankill for instance and how then
would I have perceived the ‘Taigs’ living
on the Falls. I suppose many people have asked that
question of what if, but as importantly I believe
that one should ask the question, why? Yet for me
I find that within the recent conflict at the beginning,
it was an initial reaction in an overwhelming part
to a discriminative Unionist state, propped up and
backed by the various British governments. I hear
also loyalists stating that it was then a reaction
to Republican actions in defence of their state {British
ness} and to themselves that moved them to violence.
Yet each will have their own understanding as I would
mine but whether it was defensive or offensive tactics
at various times during the conflict in relation to
‘para- militarism - militarism’ from whatever
side, it is now but part of our bloody history. Yet
the question is where have we went and where do we
go from here.
We
have a situation now of a peace process with continual
attacks on that limited ‘peace’ with now
the very recent murder by most probably dissident
Republicans of a W/Belfast man, and that ‘process’
being of a political vacuum which is giving succour
to such very groups A very dangerous game therefore
is being played out by those governmental leaders
and others holding this process and at times citizens
lives in limbo. Whether one is for the peace process
or for the peace and against this specific process,
we would all be against more needless slaughter. Like
all of us, such groups and organisations who featured
in the conflict have a past, and on many occasions
a brutal one, yet many of them are now prepared to
search for an alternative to this. Many do not want
to see another generation, their kids and grandkids
growing up into more brutal slaughter. Many more realise
that more of the same is not only futile but also
counterproductive which lessens the chances of bringing
closer stated aims.
I
and many other colleagues of similar age, who had
our childhood years in the late seventies early eighties
find it ironic that while some political and community
aspects of loyalism thirty years on are at times actively
searching for a way to ease tensions and attempting
to bring their supporters into a process of peace
with nationalist and republicans. That some Republicans
whom state that they are based on tradition are thirty
years on, rather than that held tradition of defence
of their community, are now actively killing members
of their community. Yet we also know that various
other organisations loyalist and Republican have and
are still inflicting violence on citizens through
various means, this is again wrong and equally one
needs to state so. Yet for those who still hold out
for the tactic of armed struggle to deliver in the
present, it cannot only not deliver, but is a concrete
obstacle to deliverance of stated objectives giving
the reality of the present. The history that such
groups are now writing for themselves is increasingly
comparable to those that did not look at the objective
conditions during the border campaign pre this recent
conflict from 1956 -1962. It lead to defeat and demoralisation,
this because of two major factors, firstly they had
little support for their war from the Nationalist
community, as today, and severe state pressure was
put on them, as today {but increasingly more so, and
internationally also} It would not take a theoretical
Republican traditionalist to learn these lessons and
realise with the objective conditions, unless there
is a change of strategy, history for such present
groups will read the same. Quite simply is it to be
a question of principle or a strategy that learns
from the past but knows how to develop it in the present
while looking to gain and with the support from the
Nationalist/Republican/ and wider communities?
Whatever
the case violence cannot be allowed to fill the vacuum
of political change. People have spoke out, rallied
and marched in their tens of thousands in recent times
calling for an end to slaughter and murder and they
may need to do so again, to again tell those whom
wish to provide to another generation, death and destruction,
that enough is enough. Finally this vacuum must not
be allowed to continue, as death again stalks our
streets it is all the more important that people ‘from
all sides’ continually look to go forward, continue
to engage with each other, continue to attempt to
find common ground in the present to work together
for a better future for us all. This while acknowledging
that all have a past but ensuring that unlike some
who seem to still wish to see such by their continual
actions, that our children do not have to still live
in such a past, in the present or in the future.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
