Karine Maucourt ([email protected])
Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:09 +0200 (MET)
I'm very busy at work as you could guess and i'm just finishing to
reply to this part of this Liz message about NI. Hope you're still
interested in this. We're here at the part II of Liz post. There are two
parts, IIa and IIb. Here is the part IIa.
I wrote:
>>........
>> You really think this ???? BTW, to be well-informed DOESN'T mean AT
>> ALL best understanding.
And Liz replied :
>This can be true in some cases--I've met some very stupid political
>science grad students!--but on the other hand, I feel that a genuine
>"understanding" of any situation requires being well-informed about the
>issue!
I can agree in part, hehe ! But noone can say "my judgement is right
because i'm very well informed." It's not enough. The problem is that we
never have all informations about an event when we don't live in the country
where the event happened, even with all present medias. Our judgement always
depends on our sources and if these sources come from foreign countries, we
must (IMO) search informations in "home-newspapers" which can give us other
infos we can't find in foreign newspapers. However, it's not enought and
it's why it's so crucial to meet all-sides people from the country in
question when it's possible or read their accounts to make our judgement
closer to reality. And it's why i've asked to you in an early message (many
months ago) if your NI-list had others subscribers than US people. Because
if all participants in a debate come from the same land, it means they can
all see the situation in the same mind and they all can access to the same
sources. So, they can't see their mistakes if they make one and can't find
new ideas, arguments... i hope you understand this. Then, to avoid political
propaganda, we also have to read how each side tells the story about the
same event. For instance, i thought very revealing the so different ways
British government and Sinn Fein told Bobby Sands story (don't imagine
anything here please, it's just an example). The story is on their own
websites. It made me take care of their own propagandas. Because we know any
story can be a total lie and any story can be a total truth. I think the
truth is somewhere between these both versions of the same event. I still
think we can't make right judgement if we're under influence because it
means we can't be objective. And how a judgement can be totally right with a
subjective way to think ? As we're always under influence in a certain way,
the only way i've found to become more objective is to confront my opinion
with others and it's why i'm very interested by accounts from people, more
sometimes than by political analysis. It's also why i'm still enjoying your
posts, even if i often disagree. I think it's beneficial to you (and to me
;-D) to confront our opinions. In my previous post, i meant to know
something doesn't mean automatically you understand this. You can know very
well a problem (because you can get very informations about it) but totally
misunderstand it. Notice i don't say it's your case, but i felt your
messages like " i know this problem for many years now and i got all
informations i could, so i can't be wrong". And i think this kind of
reasoning is a big mistake, because it doesn't take into account all
influences we can be under.
>... and someone like myself would be excoriated (by someone like you?)
I failed to find "excoriated" in my dictionary but i supposed it
means like exorcized (?). Tell me if i'm wrong. If i good understood this
word, you're wrong. I never wanted to excoriate you.
>for not embracing their ideology as worthy or even _better_ than
>that espoused by someone like, say, Gerry Adams
If you think it's what i try to do, it's a mistake. Like i'm saying
above, my main interest in this debate with you is to confront my ideas with
someone who lives in a very different country, with a very different way to
see things and with different access to informations (i mean with different
sources). I don't think it can be interesting to debate with someone who can
easily agree with all you can say. And i can reassure you, i don't try to
change your mind (and it should be very hard ;-) ) I just want to show you a
few things you don't seem to be able to see. You guessed i couldn't exactly
agree with someone like Gerry Adams and it's why i'm interested in you. I'd
like to understand how you can agree with this movement. I still don't
understand how a very well-informed person like you who knows how many
innocent victims this movement made can support it. It's also an
intellectual interest from me to you. Maybe you can show me the both
influences of Sinn Fein and british propagandas in USA. Why not ?
About O'Brien, you also can guess i can't agree with them. And about
this recessive "killer gene", a biologist like me can smile. ;-) Just don't
forget this kind of stupidity can't allow any other kind of stupidity from
the other side. I don't want to say republicans said something as stupid as
this, but republicanism doesn't protect people to say stupid things.
>Lovely folks--and if I'm "one-sided" because I won't tolerate or accept
>their reactionary politics, so be it!
Hehe ! You seem to be very angry against this word ;-D However, you
know it's not what i meant when i said it to you.
>> Have you already read Edge talking about NI ?
>Yep. And so what? I recall Bono (was it?) saying at one point that all
>they knew about the North was what they read in the papers. To which I
>said: Yikes! =:|
So, i have a question for you : where are your others sources,
excepted the newspapers ?
In your place, i wouldn't claim i know what U2 know and what they
don't know about NI. You're not one of their closed friend and your
statement seemed to be a little pretentious.
BTW, why are you so annoyed when i talk about Edge's thoughts and
why did you always answer : Bono's thought is... when i talk about Edge's
ones ?
But if you need one of famous Bono's quotes (found into the book "Bono in
his own words") here it is :"I would love to see a united Ireland but i
never could support a man who put a gun to somebody's head to see that dream
come true" (July 87). And i think any human being can agree with this quote.
And i also think you don't need to be very well informed to understand this
and to agree with this. Notice i don't think Bono is right about everything,
i can make my own judgement, he's not my god and i'm not credulous, but i
agree with him for this quote.
>Actually, now that I think of it, Trimble is a bit less reactionary than
>the likes of O'Brien and Dudley Edwards! ;-)....
We can speculate about what he had to do...but do you know the last
news ? David Trimble accepted to meet Gerry Adams (from a french newspaper
named Liberation). I suppose you're happy now...;-) And the RUC seems to be
less loyalist now (2 policemen were hurt last week-end (5-6 sept) trying to
protect a catholic district from protestant extremists).
>> >Also, I get the impression that U2 are a _lot_ more biased and one-sided
> >than I am!
>
>> Waou ! It's your impression ! Because they don't support violence,
>> you think they're more one-sided than you ????? What a weird mind you have !
>It's not a question of supporting (or not supporting) violence--it's a
>question of being receptive to hearing opinions or analyses that differ
>from yours. Granted, by the time a band gets to the world-beating
>rock-star stage of their career, the chance that they'd even bother
>meeting with anyone who hasn't been on the cover of, say, _Vogue_ magazine
>is pretty damn slim! Never mind someone who is poor and disenfranchised
>and lives in the Bogside or Ballymurphy...
You didn't answer to my question which was: Why do you think they're
more biaised than you ? And how can you judge this ? And i still don't think
U2 aren't receptive to different opinions than theirs. But if they don't
want to support any movement which judges it's good to kill civils for the
cause, it's their right and it doens't mean they're unable to listen to
different voices. BTW, do you notice only the poor parts of NI population
(from both sides) have an extremist behaviour ? What do you think of this ?
>The only exception to this seems to apply to some musicians they know,
>e.g., Christy Moore, Shane MacGowan, et al, who have fairly strong
>nationalist or republican views. But this isn't unusual in Ireland; I
>recall meeting a record industry rep once, who had worked with Christy
>Moore when the latter was at the most "republican" stage of his career; he
>gushed about how _brilliant_ Moore was, then, in the very next breath,
>announced that he loathed Sinn Fein and the IRA, and hoped that they would
>gushed about Christy Moore, then refer to the Republican Movement as
>"fascists". So is Moore a fascist too? Shane? Sinead O'Connor? Me?
>And isn't this the kind of thinking and speech that precludes dialogue and
>an exchange of ideas?
Waou !!! I didn't know this ! I also think IRA/Sinn Fein aren't
fascists BUT NOT because i agree with them (i'll never agree with theirs
methods) but because fascists were/are so much more extremists/violent than
them. This guy seemed to be a little excessive there. Fascist ideology
was/is so worst than all violence there is/was in NI. You know there're no
concentration camps in NI, for anyone from any side. And no physical torture
too...BTW, i don't think this kind of sentence can preclude dialogue. It
wouldn't prevent me at least...;-) And you know Bono and Sinead O'Connor are
friends (made it up since 92-93, B.P. Fallon's book).
Moreover, saying what we think doesn't means at all we can't listen
to others opinions. And you know it ;-)
>Ah, but if *I* disagree with anyone, then I'm the narrow-minded, one-sided
>bitch, huh? Or are rich and famous people excluded from this sort of
>thing? How does this work? :P
HO !!! This word again ! :-D
I didn't say you was one-sided because you disagree with me but
because you seemed not tolerate my opinion. And U2 appear to me to be able
to listen to many opinions, so i don't think they're one-sided, unless you
can give me an example of this. They have the right to disagree with you,
don't you think ? ;-) And you know fame has nothing to do with this (IMO).
>> >They've shunned the
> >North for over 10 years;
>
>> For shows. Do you really think it was because of politic/violence ?
>> And do you know something about their private life ?
>What does their private life have to do with this? I know more about
>their private lives than they'd probably want me to know, anyways! ;-)
>And yes, I do think politics played a part in their refusing to play in
>the North. A shortage of suitable venues no doubt also played a role, but
>why not play in the Botanic Gardens before 1997?
Sorry, i talked about their private life just to be sure you thought
only about shows in your sentence <<<They've shunned the North for over 10
years>>> Maybe you didn't think it could be dangerous to play in the North
after all what Bono said about IRA. Do you think Sinn Fein/IRA loved the way
Bono talked about them in his famous "Fuck the revolution" speech ? I'm sure
U2 thought about this because Edge said something about this in an interview
in 93 in a french magazine. I don't want to weigh down this post, so i'll
send it in private to Liz. To resume this, Edge said the band had to take
care because they were watched by IRA. Maybe it played a role for refusing
to do shows in NI. BTW, maybe they also have problems with NI security, i
mean like the problems they had to play in Dublin last year. Any of us can
know for sure. And if now U2 feel more secure to come to Belfast i'm happy
for them and for their NI fans.
>And why shoulnd't they? The IRA supports Sinn Fein,
And it's in a big part why i don't support Sinn Fein...
>and have also
>supported the drive towards an unarmed (nonviolent) resolution to the
>conflict. You're forgetting that the IRA have supported the peace process
>all along, and have played a key role in making it work. So why shouldn't
>some of us continue to support the IRA?
How much time is "all along" for you ? Don't you know IRA supported
the peace-process only since Sinn Fein decided violence wasn't the good way
to reunificate Ireland ? And it's not for so long years. They're in
peace-process because they have no other choice, because they finally
understood they couldn't succeed by using violence only. I do know they're
not alone to reason like this. It's very sad they understood this only since
some years, contrary to Hume for instance who understood this so many years
before. I know loyalists/british government have provoked IRA/Sinn Fein many
times but it wasn't a good reason to reply in violence. The problem is
supporting IRA during their violent phase was an absurdity to my mind (and
it's why i'd really like to understand how foreign people and especially
well-informed Irish-Americans could do this) and the problem also is
supporting IRA now means you support punishments they're still inflicting to
people from their own side (like you can see in Sheridan's movies for
instance, like kneecapping).
>I didn't "attack" U2 for not supporting the IRM, but I do think they're
>open to criticism, both for their habit of demonizing republicans and for
>the exclusionary nature of the Waterfront Hall concert. If this whole
>"peace process" is going to work, all of us need to find new ways of doing
>things--and it's not just the "extremists" who need to do this!
I still think Sinn Fein wasn't in this concert because their
supporters were supposed to all vote yes, so the organizers didn't need them
to support the show. And it could prevent protestants to vote yes. I think
you can easily understand this. BTW, you noticed they didn't invite
Loyalists extremists too. And if U2 say publicly they don't support IRA/Sinn
Fein, it's their right, and IMO it's also because so many US fans thought
they had to support IRA because they're Irish. Bono said something about
this too. I'll send it to you. I think you're excessive saying they demonize
republicans. But it's your opinion :-D.
More to follow in the part IIb...
In the name of love
Karine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Fri Sep 11 1998 - 05:53:51 PDT