'Loyalist' graffiti - valid points made...

[Papa C.]

Found this pic a while back and thought it was very interesting how the loyalist community saw the republican community. As lefties I think the issues raised by this statement would have to be addressed in order to build trust between the ulster scots community and the left wing.

Obviously this statement is directed at the provos and the provos have had a very documented history of having pockets of sectarianism within their ranks (as well as some very revolutionary people I might add) but I think it is important to understand where some in 'Loyalist' areas are coming from and I think this statement is very interesting in that respect. What do others think?

[RedFlag32]

I think republicanism in general has failed the working class. The campaign that the PIRA and INLA carried out only served to create a sectarian feeling between nationalist and loyalist that this country has never seen before. It also pushed the working class protestant into the arms of reactionary loyalism. Whatever we say about the reasons for the war, this is the outcome.

[Papa C.]

On the point of creating a sectarian feeling. I think the British Government and it's agents waged war on republicanism by creating that sectarian divide. I don't think any republican grouping had the capacity to have a decent public relations campaign that would stand up to multi-million pound, international, campaign run by the British Government. The provos did make a decent effort and made some gains though.

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

The campaign that the PIRA and INLA carried out only served to create a sectarian feeling between nationalist and loyalist that this country has never seen before.

But would it not be fair to say that their campaigns were a result or product of the troubles?

I would think it is 'understandable' that armed struggle developed from the conditions that were present at the time.

[RedFlag32]

Jun 29, 2008 15:40:54 GMT Stallit 2 de Halfo said:

The campaign that the PIRA and INLA carried out only served to create a sectarian feeling between nationalist and loyalist that this country has never seen before.

But would it not be fair to say that their campaigns were a result or product of the troubles?

I would think it is 'understandable' that armed struggle developed from the conditions that were present at the time.

This is what im unsure about. But armed resistence from an elite goes back before the troubles and it has more or less been a failure for the working class.

[Papa C.]

I think the most important thing in any working class struggle is for working people to understand the struggle and what can be gained by working class control of the economy and flat structure participatory democracy.

Put it this way; the promise of the abolishion of stamp duty, slightly lower taxes, more funding for childcare and more social housing schemes is enough for some voters to vote in gangster parties that they know are going to rob them blind anyways. I think some working people think socialism is a dictatorship and are worried as they don't understand that there are serious gains to be made. It is our job to convince them any way we can. Therein lies our struggle.

[Stallit 2 de Halfo]

This is what im unsure about. But armed resistence from an elite goes back before the troubles and it has more or less been a failure for the working class.

Yes I agree that armed struggle might very well have been a failure.

But the IRA in the early/mid 1960s were nothing. They had something like one or two guns for the entire city of Belfast, and when it came to defending catholic areas from sectarians they were incapable and ineffective (one of the reasons the BA were welcomed at first).

It was because of events like bloody sunday and violence against NICRM protests by the BA and B specials, along with attacks on catholic communities, while the British did nothing, which created a situation where young men looked to join the then existing IRA and swelled its ranks.

It began as a justified defence of catholic communities and understandably developed into an armed campaign.

But the point is, that the IRA as we know/knew it wouldnt have existed or have been able to carry out any armed struggle only for the conditions, created by the British presence, that brought the IRA back into the lime light.

Some theories suggest that Bloody Sunday was not an accident for this very reason, to change the nature of the civil rights struggle from a popular movement to that of a paramilitary struggle which the British 'may have been able to handle'.

You should have a listen 'John Thrones' interview on youtube, he explains abit about what im saying:

This vid in particular: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZl73OxWaMM

Here you can view the entire interview: www.youtube.com/user/RevQuest

[anticapitalist]

The loyalists in my oppinion, are victims of Capitalism just as much as us all, but they are just as bad as their masters for not acting against it's plans to use them,
they had one thing in common with their masters, which was religion, and they clung to this and tried to please their masters by looking down on our people, and they even tried to ethnic cleanse us at times, in the hope that they would get rewarded, and they were rewarded alright, with the bomb and the bullet, the armed struggle was the only thing to ever work against them, how can they look for apologies they deserve all they got, and more, fuck them the orange protestant wanna be british bastards,
apologies for my rough bigotted reply but thats how i feel and would never change my oppinion,
repremand me if youse want for it, but i got pleasure in posting it.

[Papa C.]

There are many protestant Irish republicans. There are many protestant socialists. I don't think religion has anything to do with political ideology which is what loyalism is. It is a political belief, just Irish republicanism, socialism, anarchism or communism.

I would agree that they are victims of capitalism/ imperialism, victims of the British presence in Ireland and because of that they have chosen to wage war on their fellow working class. We could also say that nationalists are a victim of British oppression also though. I know many protestants living down south that were terrorised by nationalists around the 80s and I think it was a disgrace as these protestants weren't supporters of the British Government, they were in fact republicans, but because of their religion they were seen as the enemy. This is sectarianism and it is built by the British and world Governments. Those who attack protestants, because of their religion, are doing the work of the British Government.

If we look at the case of David Eirvine (RIP) of the PUP. Although claiming to be a loyalist and growing up around loyalism, in later life, he made an active stance against the British Government and made an effort to reach out to Irish Republicans, nationalists, socialists etcetera which really helped the cause of the working class against the Government. This is commendable.

[anticapitalist]

I suppose there is some valid points in your reply comrade, i just get pissed off about the history between us and them, especially around the marching season, and the way they put our flag on top of the fires, and demand to parade to intimidate, i realise that the only way forward is to keep appeasing them, until equality is more in place.

[Papa C.]

I agree comrade, the orange order should have no right to march through any streets anywhere. They are an organisation built on the ideal of bigotry and hatred and these groups shouldn't be allowed to operate. The British Government conveniently turn their heads and allow them to march often upseting a large number of people. They offer no decent message to the children or the people of Ireland or around the world. We don't have to appease bigots and nor should we. Our ideals are democracy, justice and equality and bigots like the orange order are the anathema of these ideals. In order for democarcy to flourish the orange order, just like the fascists, have to be stamped on. iNo Pasaran!

[ulstersocialist]

basically the first point made by the artist's mural is a non-sequiter because the loyalist working class had no freedom in the first place. It was taken away from them already by the british beourgiose!

Is the rest of the mural valid? I don't know. Perhaps taking into account the deeds of beourgiose republicanism. Its pretty much what i expect since they lack any sort of class conciousness.


EDIT: The grammar is atrocious as well! ;D