An Camchéachta/The Starry Plough, Vol. 1, No. 2

Date: | 1991 |
---|---|
Organisation: | Sinn Féin |
Publication: | The Starry Plough [SF] |
Issue: | Volume 1, Number 2 |
Contributor:
Info | Mitchel McLaughlin |
Type: | Publication Issue |
View: | View Document |
Discuss: | Comments on this document |
Subjects: |
Please note: The Irish Left Archive is provided as a non-commercial historical resource, open to all, and has reproduced this document as an accessible digital reference. Copyright remains with its original authors. If used on other sites, we would appreciate a link back and reference to The Irish Left Archive, in addition to the original creators. For re-publication, commercial, or other uses, please contact the original owners. If documents provided to The Irish Left Archive have been created for or added to other online archives, please inform us so sources can be credited.
Commentary From The Cedar Lounge Revolution
11th February 2008
This weeks addition to the Archive is “An Camhéachta - The Starry Plough”, the Theoretical Magazine of the Republican Struggle issued by Sinn Féin in 1991. It’s an interesting read. This edition has the theme of Protestantism, Unionism & Loyalism. There is an article by Mitchel McLaughlin with that very title, a “Reaction to Sinn Féin Policies in the Protestant Community” by “A Derry Protestant”. Other pieces include a piece on “Partition - what it means for Irish Workers” and “Crisis in Women’s Funding - Lesson’s for the Women’s Movement”. Note the quotes from Alice Walker and others on the back cover.
There’s an interesting interview with Larry O’Toole who was regarded as having some chance in the 2007 Election in Dublin North East. I hadn’t realised he’d joined SF in 1984 - relatively recent. But perhaps his profile was typical of a shift in that party as the decade lengthened, having a background in community work and the unions. Certainly the language he uses in the interview speaks of a more clearly political direction.
The mention of Section 31 roots this in a different world.
The article on Partition is fascinating with a view of social reform and a fairly strong critique of the role of the Catholic Church that seems to be distinctly different to that seen in previous incarnations of Sinn Féin. Whether the idealistic view of a United Ireland propounded here is functionally realisable is almost admitted by the author when he states that ‘it is true a united Ireland would not necessarily do things differently but it is impossible to envisage any effective challenge to the present right-wing establishments, North and South, as long as partition persists and the working class remains divided’.
A “Derry Protestants” piece admits a slightly different truth. S/he notes that there ‘are severe limitations on Sinn Féin’s ability to influence the perception of their policies and strategies by Protestants’. Indeed. One might also point to the final sentence where s/he writes ‘What Protestants need is for their views to be taken seriously and incorporated in any solution. Is the Republican Movement willing to do this?’
It’s an interesting thought that the pieces seem to devolve Unionist identity to Protestantism (the terms are mentioned interchangeably in McLaughlins article) although they mention Loyalism and Unionism. It’s hard really to know what to make of that. Is it a reflection of a communalist reality or merely a pernicious a reductionism? That said McLaughlin is also highly critical of the anti-Protestant tradition within Republicanism but he goes on to make some fascinating statements. For example “The republican quarrel is with the British state in Ireland and the truth is that we cannot and should not ever try to coerce the Protestant people into a united Ireland”. Okay. That makes good sense. He continues, ‘We must convince them of the rightness of our cause and of the benefits accruing to them from advocacy of our cause’. That too makes good sense. It’s hard to read that and not feel that ground work was being laid for future events. Hey, hold on, why am I doing the reading for you all?
Overall? To my eyes it seems weak in terms of clear ideological underpinnings - indeed, and I know some won’t like this, perhaps the closest comparison might be the Democratic Left magazine Times Change. I mean that as no insult to either - or the (ex) members of either party - simply that the ‘socialism’ of this document is vague (much as DL seemed to cast around for a clear ideological position). But, it does at least appear to represent an effort to engage with some of the fundamental issues. How successfully I will leave to others to determine.
Please note file size is 9.3 mbs. If this is a significant problem for downloading just tell me and I’ll see what I can do…
Comments
No Comments yet.
Add a Comment
Comments can be formatted in Markdown format . Use the toolbar to apply the correct syntax to your comment. The basic formats are:
**Bold text**
Bold text
_Italic text_
Italic text
[A link](http://www.example.com)
A link
You can join this discussion on The Cedar Lounge Revolution
By: WorldbyStorm Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:19:23
I guess Joe I’d streamline my argument to as follows. I have no problem standing over what the parties (DL and WP) did and said (largely) up to the cessations – and would entirely support your stance. I have serious problems with how badly they received them (the cessations) and dealt with them. That I wouldn’t support and think was very bad faith considering the party had made a similar journey albeit earlier. I have an interesting doc for the Archive from the Republican Clubs which will help to contextualise some of this I hope…
Reply on the CLR
By: CL Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:04:04
“so much sacrificed and so little gained… the futility of it all..”
-Brendan Hughes.
Reply on the CLR
By: chekov Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:15:51
To my mind it’s pretty amazing that, knowing what we know today, people can still defend the Peace movements. We know that the horrible stuff was carried out just as much, if not more so, by the state as by the republican groups or by the loyalists. The peace movement essentially was defining peace as one side in a dirty war stopping fighting. They were, more or less, a pressure group in support of the British state’s policies on the north (i.e. the IRA should stop). The fact that the state that they were effectively supporting was involved in directing a whole host of sectarian murders sort of undermines their “peace” bona-fides.
Reply on the CLR
By: Starkadder Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:08:08
I vaguely remember groups like the Peace Train Organisation
and the New Consensus group (which included Austen Morgan
& Harry Barnes, the Labour MP) being active in the early
1990s. They seemed fairly sincere in their desire to end
violence.
But as I recall, some people at the time echoed Chekov’s
claim that they were on the side of the British government
or a DL/WP anti-Shinner campaign.
Reply on the CLR
By: WorldbyStorm Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:20:42
chekov, that too would be part of my critique… although I think the reality that the state itself was involved in collusion does not reflect in itself poorly on those who sought to look for peace. But again it does tend to speak of a certain lack of perspective on the nature of the problems they sought to solve.
Reply on the CLR
By: chekov Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:36:51
I’m not questioning their sincerity at all – I recognise that the vast majority of those involved were genuine in their desire to see peace. However, they were politically naive to the point where they became part of the problem.
As a loose analogy, it would be like holding marches marches to ask the Iraqi insurgents to stop the bombings and thereby bring peace. To your average Iraqi, that would be simply demanding surrender to the invaders. If you want to persuade a group to do something, you at least have to try to look at the world from their point of view.
I also think that, in general, movements which purport to stand for abstractions such as peace and claim to have no political motivation are just deluding themselves and have a political position which is so deeply ingrained that they can’t even see it. Everybody is in favour of peace – they just have totally different ideas of how to get it, in the North these ranged from British withdrawal to provo surrender (which the peace movement and the Dublin government essentially echoed).
Marching in favour of ‘peace’ – you might as well march in favour of happiness.
Reply on the CLR
By: WorldbyStorm Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:57:59
I entirely agree with the third sentence in your second paragraph.
Reply on the CLR