Elizabeth Platt ([email protected])
Mon, 28 Dec 1998 16:51:25 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, "Allison Jane Rose" <[email protected]>
> Should be doing my final year project but never mind.
> My boyfriend and I were talking about U2 the other day when his
> mum came in and said she didn't like them because they gave
> loads of their money to the IRA.
This will be big news to the IRA--don't worry, I'll break it to them
*gently*, next time I see 'em. ;-)
> I know this is a controversial thing
> but why on earth do people think that just because they're an Irish
> rock group they automatically support the IRA?
Product of years of racist/politically biased propaganda, pure and simple.
Part of a McCarthy-like campaign to brand anyone and everything that
identifies as "Irish" as automatically Fenian-to-the-bone. What that it
were true!
Anyways, if you get a chance, you might want to look up some of the books
written by Liz Curtis, esp.. "Nothing But the Same Old Story", as well as
some of her books on media censorship. (Just FYI, Curtis is English by
birth, but moved to Belfast some years go.) You might look into other
analyses of the media and Ireland while you're at it.
> It really annoyed me. I want to take her the R&H video and let her
> hear his revolution speech in SBS. I mean Please? Sunday
> Bloody Sunday? They're hardly out to condone violence are they?
> Sorry, but it did really annoy me.
What good would showing her that sort of thing do? The British--and the
more reactionary Irish--always demand that any Irish public figures do
some sort of ritual condemnation of their own countrymen (and women) who
happen to hold to more radical politics, all the better to be "acceptable"
to their British neighbors. It's the old "apes and angels" scenario of
the Victorian era, updated for the late 20th Century. There are also
parallels over here in the US, where the media try to pit more
political/militant African-Americans against each other, and less radical
blacks. The smarter ones see the game for what it is, and don't play
along. Would that more people in Ireland were that sharp...
> Oh, and ">My English book has also a picture of U2 when it
> >refers to the BRITISH CULTURE (England)!!!!!" Since when was
> _British_ culture=England??? Excuse me but just to remind you
> that there's a bit of the country up north called Scotland). And U2
> are Irish because they're hearts are there. Just as my heart will be
> in Scotland and I will be Scottish until the day I die no matter
> where I may go or what my anscestry is.
Actually, "British" is more properly a _political_ label. And, to a
certain extent, "Irish" not just a mark of ethnic/cultural affiliation,
it's a political label as well. There are plenty of Irish citizens who
don't come from some sort of stereotypical, pure, Irish/Catholic/peasant
ancestry.
We need to be careful to sort out "cultural" from "political"; they need
not be the same. One problem with this is that some proponents of
"British culture" really mean "British political hegemony", and they
will insist that there is _no_ such thing as "Ireland", it's merely a part
of greater "British" culture. I'm not making this up; even during the
peace process, you could find people (mostly Unionists) who were arguing
that Irish self-rule had "failed" and the only true path to peace would be
for all of Ireland to be returned to British rule. (And I am _not_ making
this up--seriously!) It's not hard to go from such a position to the more
simplistic notion that anyone who ID's themselves as "Irish" must then, by
default, be some sort of "terrorist".
Slan,
Elizabeth Platt
[email protected]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Dec 28 1998 - 16:55:42 PST