Elizabeth Platt ([email protected])
Sat, 1 Aug 1998 17:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Karine Maucourt <[email protected]> wrote:
(Subject: Re: Northern Ireland...Again [and again!] [Part I?])
> At 19:47 25/06/1998 -0700, Liz wrote:
>
> >Excuse me, are you actually saying that anyone who thinks differently from
> >you is automatically wrong? Good God! You know, you've really got to
> >work on that self-esteem problem.... :P
>
> Oooppss ! You really misunderstood me !! You should know i'm not
> intolerant like you. I mean, WHO accuse a NI wireling who disagrees with you
> to be an unionist ? Do you forget i've written IMHO ? Do you really think i
> can't have another opinion than you ? I've already said to you a subjective
> judgement can't be right (IMHO again). It's so obvious in my mind ! Sorry, i
> can't understand why you can't see a so obvious thing. Can you explain to me
> how someone who refuse/can't take others points of view in account can be
> right in his judgement ? I mean, i don't ask you to change your mind, i'd
> just like you to understand other points of view. I'm serious, can you
> explain your position to me ?
I think--I *hope*--that you've dispensed with your preconceptions about
"intolerant" Yanks (etc.) who support the Republican Movement in Ireland,
or just the general concept of a reunified and democratic Ireland? And,
as I've said in other posts, being firm in one's point-of-view and
political opinions does not equal "intolerance", nor does it mean that I
don't read and comprehend other opinions. In fact, I do make it a point
to read some very anti-Republican opinions, too, if just for the ability
to get a sense of where the opposition is coming from! ;-)
> >When he was in Birmingham Jail, someone accused Martin Luther King, Jr. of
> >being an "extremist" (there's that word again!) and King replied with
> >words to the effect that yes, he was an "extremist", he was an extremist
> >for love, equality, freedom, etc. (I'd love to find the exact quote, but
> >my copy of King's writings is back at my flat.) So, in the same spirit,
> >if I'm so "one-sided", then I'm on the side of peace, freedom, justice,
> >and equality. If that makes me "wrong", then I'd rather be wrong than
> >right!
>
> Waou !!! Good point. Sorry, i forgot to say my argument is valid
> only because you can't stand to hear others points of view than yours and
> especially because you support violence. IMHO, anyone who's sound in body
> and mind can support blind violence WHEN there are other choices.
Well, then your argument isn't valid, because I do indeed seek out other
points of view! ;-) And the issue of supporting "violence" should never
be used to deny the validity of anyone's point of view--what about the
Resistance in Europe during WWII? Would Nelson Mandela, say, be "wrong"
because he co-founded Spear of the Nation, the ANC's armed wing, and
refused to renounce armed struggle? And what about violence from the
state, or committed on behalf of the state? I see a very selective sort
of condemnation at work here--it's "blind violence" when it comes from the
Irish republicans, but if, say, Bill Clinton wants to push the world to
the brink of war over the situation in Iraq, _he's_ not "violent"?
MLK Jr. himself recognized that the oppressor did not have the right to
dictate to the oppressed how they must wage their struggle--in other
words, no preconditions. True, King advocated that the oppressed must
seek to find a better, less destructive way of struggle, but that is
exactly what the Republicans in Ireland have been doing for years
now--pushing to create the conditions wherein the struggle can be fought
by purely political methods, not violence. Try reading King's proposals
on resolving the Vietnam War--they're remarkably similar to the IRM's
proposals on resolving the situation in Northern Ireland!
> BTW, you dare to compare Sinn fein to MLK ?
Whoops, already did! OK, there were a lot more Baptists in the SCLC than
in Sinn Fein. ;-)
> Don't you know MLK was
> against violence (like Gandhi, Dalai Lama, Aung Sun Yung and some others) ?
> What do you think of them ?
I have no objection to anyone who prefers to use nonviolence as a method;
I favor it myself, you know. By the same token, I don't endorse any and
every organization that uses force, either--deliver me from folks like
Rage Against the Machine, who actually support groups like Sendero
Luminoso in Peru!
Also, I think it totally oversimplifies King's ideology to say he was
merely opposed to "violence"--as I've stated above, he _clearly_
distinguished between the violence of the oppressor and the oppressed,
identified systemic injustice as the root of all violence, and did see
areas where common struggle could be waged, both by those who were
nonviolent and those who supported more "militant" action. The idea is to
resolve the root causes of violence, not demonize and cast the blame on to
anyone who feels compelled to militant acts in opposition to injustice. I
don't recall King ever yelling anything like "fuck the revolution!" in his
analyses of the war in Vietnam, for example; in fact, he was capable of
cutting through all the racism, propaganda, and outright lies, and see
that the NLF in (North) Vietnam had some very legitimate grievances.
> What kind of woman are you to support blind violence ? Just let me give you
> an example. I've met a wireling woman a few months ago who lives now in
> England but lived in NI before. She said to me (to explain her one-sided
> point of view) she was hurt by an IRA bomb when she was only 3. Can you see
> now why i think you're wrong ?
And if you were to meet with the families of the Bloody Sunday victims,
would you say that the "other side" is wrong? You're being very selective
in your choice of victims here--anyone who has been the victim of state
and/or pro-government violence is considered less of a "victim", it seems,
than anyone who was killed or wounded by IRA violence. We're constantly
told that _all_ violence is "wrong", but, in a weird kind of Orwellian
logic, some violence is more wrong than others!
>If you meet this woman one day, will you talk
> with her of "The glory of the revolution" ? What kind of woman are you to
> accept this violence ?
Don't make me laugh--and if you're actually using one of Bono's temper
tantrums to back up your position, you're on pretty damn thin ice! I
don't blather on about "the glory of the revolution"--in fact, I don't
have much patience for that sort of rhetoric in the first place. I've
met a _lot_ of people who have suffered directly from violence in the
North--most of them because of their religion or nonviolent political
activities. I've met people who have been beaten and shot by the police,
had their homes shot up or firebombed by loyalist paramilitaries, who have
been beaten in prison, or blinded by plastic bullets. Are their wounds,
their losses, any less awful than any damage inflicted by the IRA? And
would you dare to talk to them about "the glory of the Empire"?
As to what would I say: I would _listen_ to what _they_ have to say!
Always have, always will.
What's at issue here isn't who's wounds are more sanctified than someone
else's; I'll leave that up to the pseudo-pacifists and "white ribbon"
folks in Ireland (some of whom have, since the cease-fire, come out as
openly pro-Unionist, not that I'm terribly surprised by this!) The issue
is that of injustice, and ending the root causes of violence.
> Just notice this woman almost accused me to be
> republican because i said to her she was subjective. You can guess she's
> protestant and she can't stand me to talk about Paisley arguments, RUC
> actions... She even said she didn't care because the people hurt by them
> were catholics ! BUT i can understand her lack of objectivity because she
> was personally hurt. I'm human, you know. Unless you say to me i'm wrong,
> and it's possible, you never said anything to me about this, i suppose it's
> not your case. And if i'm right, you can't justify your lack of objectivity.
But why are you so quick to excuse a person who has expressed such an
openly sectarian bias, because she was injured by an IRA bomb years ago,
but are so quick to accuse me of being "intolerant" and "violent",
because I support the Republican Movement? If the RUC beat the crap out
of me on my next visit to the North, would my opinions suddenly be more
valid than they are now? I've met few victims of violence on the
nationalist/republican side who support or condone sectarianism or
violence against the Protestant/Unionist side. They don't use their
injuries and losses to "justify" emnity against anyone who opposes them;
they recognize that the struggle against injustice must continue, but they
also are politically aware enough to realize that their "targets" are the
state, the police and military, the courts and prisons, and so on. Not
someone who just happens to live on a different street, or goes to a
different church.
[snip]
> >And I get
> >almost daily input on the issue from a variety of personal, political, and
> >media sources--so I've certainly heard more diverse opinions on the issue
> >than most people. To be honest, I've heard stuff from some real
> >fuckwits! Does that mean I'm supposed to roll over and *agree* with them,
> >for fear that someone who feels a bit too self-righteous about the issue
> >is going to wag their finger at me and accuse me of being "one-sided"?
> >Sheesh.
>
> I'm sorry, but it's obvious you're one-sided. Why does this fact
> seem to annoy you ? Maybe i misunderstand. Let me know...
Again, what's wrong with being "one-sided", when it's being one-sided in
favor of _real_ peace, democracy, and justice? As I've said before, being
open-minded isn't synonymous with being a wimp; by your reasoning, I
should regard democracy and fascism as being equally "valid" and
acceptable political systems!
> >Down through the years, I've seen plenty of people from the south of
> >Ireland get all teary-eyed over any cause or issue that is a safe distance
> >>from their back yards: East Timor, South Africa, Central America, you
> >name it. But if the RUC stomp down the Garvaghy Road in Portadown, and
> >beat nonviolent protestors bloody, you can all but hear the minds slam
> >shut on the southern side of the border. All the excuses and
> >justifications come out, casting the blame for the violence onto the
> >victims. That's what I'm talking about here...
>
> OK. But it's not a reason for you to act like these people. Because
> it will mean you're as stupid than them. I hope you're not. And i guess/hope
> most of Irish people condemn all violence.
Hey, don't worry, I don't act like "these people"! And no, sorry, most of
the people in Ireland are politically trained to condemn _only_ violence
from the Republican side, not "all violence". People seem to be as
selective about condemning violence as they are about assigning
"victimhood" to people--and if you don't believe me, just take a good,
critical look at the phony "peace" campaigns led by the "Peace Train"
folks, for example.
More to follow....
Slan,
Elizabeth Platt
[email protected]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sat Aug 01 1998 - 17:10:29 PDT