Protestant exodus in Londonderry

[Wasp]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxwCOnHlwnY

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeLhCA4lElc&feature=related

Maybe this will make some have a rethink of the notion that there was no ethnic cleansing and the ira were not anti-Protestant.

[Jim]

The first video talks about how protestants have been pushed out of parts of Derry. But should we not remember this is not abnormal with anyone living in NI over the past 40 years? It happened in Belfast too, areas where protestants once lived are now catholic areas, areas where catholics once lived are now protestant, areas where either lived are now more mixed.

Republicanism is not anti-protestant, individuals are, its a natural reaction to a hostile political climate and likewise for loyalism and its anti-catholism which is much more based on religion than Republicanism is.

[Wasp]

Jim how can you compare thousands moving from one side of a city to the likes of Belfast where the city side in Londonderry has only several hundred Protestants left out of 18,000 odd.

Most of the individuals who were involved with the ira in one way or another are anti-Protestant (in N.I anyway).

Apart from that you seem only to be side stepping it as the norm for up here so its no big deal. If this programme was about Catholics driven from there homes in there thousands over the years, IMO I think your reaction may have been more acknowledging and sympathetic.

[Jim]

Because thats how it happened. There was forcable segregation everywhere, if protestants in Derry feel it shouldnt have happened well, join the bloody club mate!

If this was a programme about catholics I'd say the same thing, I already know what happened and honestly, it just doesnt surprise me or even phase me, I'm sorry but thats how it is for me.

You know and I know its wrong what happened, so lets make what we can of it and move on, weither its parts of the waterside, shankill or falls where protestants or catholics have had to move.

[Wasp]

Jim a classic move of republicans is that this never happened, unless they were the victims or the victims were Catholics. Any admittance or acknowledgement is errors/mistakes/cock ups were made then the usual the ira were not sectarian but some actions could have been perceived that way.

They just don't want to know or have these things discussed unless of course it is showing them as the poor down trodden ones.

[earl]

I'm going to rock the boat here, by presenting another side of this argument from it's extremity. The object of this is to meet somewhere in the middle.

I will be quoting from the book, 'Anti-Catholicism in Northern Ireland, 1600-1998 The Mote and the Beam by John D. Brewer with Gareth I. Higgins'

Protestants did not have to artificially construct a sense of nationhood, for they had long defined their identity around two antinomies or opposites; the one religious, the other national. Northern Ireland defined itself by its Protestantism against Catholicism and by its Britishness against Irishness; Protestantism and Britishness were its core values and they had been established as symbols of Ulster centuries before. This also meant, however, that anti-Catholicism and anti-Irishness continued as central defining tenets of the new state.

Now this isn't unique to Unionists, as even today, in a letters page in a Dublin newspaper, there is evidence that some deluded Irish define Irishness as anti-Britishness (these letters were in relation to the possible visit of the queen to the south).

However, partition of the island of Ireland solved nothing for Protestants. It may have kept from them a Catholic Ireland, but the old problems were transported with them into the new territory. The same dimensions of differentiation occurred, and around them the same conflicts. The same zero-sum framework was applied to Protestant-Catholic relations in Northern Ireland, by the perpetuation of traditional anti-Catholicism and anti-Irishness, in order to achieve the same ends - protecting die security of Protestants, which simultaneously meant the domination of Catholics. Supporters of partition were aware of this, for they argued at the time that a smaller area with as large a Protestant majority as possible was preferable to the whole of die ancient province of Ulster, with its unsafe Protestant majority (Farrell, 1976: 24). So Unionist leaders deliberately decided, if reluctantly, to jettison Protestants in Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal in order to protect their dominance in the six counties and Ulster's religious, economic and national-identity interests (Ruane and Todd, 1996: 50)

This paragraph basically states that the creation of the NI state did not achieve it's main goal - a secure and confident state within the British institution. All the old fears and hatreds still existed as before partition.

The Catholics who remained in the North felt as abandoned as Protestants in the South. It is forgotten by Unionists in Northern Ireland, who bemoaned the position of Protestants in the South at having to confront, as they portrayed it, a social structure which excluded them and a cultural value system to which they felt outsiders,[1] that this was precisely how Catholics felt in the North at the time of partition. They lacked a separate cultural identity as Northern Catholics, they had no secure national identity, no long local roots in Ulster, nor any political coherence, and they were defined as outsiders by the state's core values of Protestantism and Britishness. They were offered citizenship in the new state but on terms which made their Catholicism and Irishness problematic, and their position in the social structure made them second-class citizens. Accordingly, they mostly withheld legitimacy from the state, adding yet more tensions to Protestant-Catholic relations in Northern Ireland. This made the stakes even higher in the long-standing zero-sum conflict, for the losses and gains for either side now included the very existence of the state. The history of Catholic progress in Northern Ireland, however, shows their transition from a fragmented and subjugated community to a position of growing self-confidence, cultural self-awareness and cohesiveness, and political assertiveness. This may or may not have occurred more rapidly without terrorism, but the sustained period of civil unrest since 1968, known colloquially as 'the troubles', has polarised Protestant-Catholic relations and reinforced the zero-sum framework within which group interests are constructed by both communities in Northern Ireland. The violence has made traditional hatreds worse.

This paragraph states that while Unionists would highlight the inequality within the framework being created within the Irish Free state in favour of Catholics to the detriment of Protestants in some cases, they did not apply the same logic to their own situation, even though the religious minority in their state was significantly larger. Irish Catholics were defined under NI's institutions as outsiders. It is no wonder that in areas where Catholics were in the majority, that this feeling would be reciprocated towards any Protestant minority within an area. Both sides viewed the other in this manner. The very institutions of the state demanded it.
This paragraph also highlights that the zero-sum mindset was ingrained into the very state of NI. No compromise. Only one side or the other could ever win a particular argument. This was also highlighted in one of the videos WASP posted in relation to the renaming of Derry city's council. Unionist politicians would not compromise on the situation despite efforts from nationalist politicians, creating a zero-sum outcome.

Now this next paragraph is very important as to it's relevancy to this particular topic:

Developments in Northern Ireland have also confirmed Protestants in their mind-set. Political domination by Protestants proved to he weak and insecure; the economic base of Ulster similarly so. The re-emergence of terrorism confirmed many Protestants in their opposition to a united Ireland and fed their negative attitudes toward Catholics. Terrorism, in this sense, enabled anti-Catholicism to be disguised by elevating it into an issue of law and order. Violence has also disguised anti-Catholicism by allowing Protestants to claim that they are objects of a process of anti-Protestant ethnic cleansing. The tendency has been reinforced for Protestants to be insular and incestuous, to see themselves as beleaguered and threatened, perpetually insecure and undermined, unable to rely on anyone but themselves. The only security comes from the old shibboleths, 'No Popery', 'No Surrender', 'not an inch', even if such shell defensive posturing', as Akenson (1992: 184) calls it, excludes them from Catholic neighbours, people in the Irish Republic. from Britain and the international community. Insecurity has been reinforced by British-In relations as well. From the beginning of Northern Ireland, the Unionists let it known that Britain should let them get on with running the province, and Britain seemed content to let them away with it until the wide-scale unrest provoked in 1 by the demand for Catholic civil rights. Direct rule in 1972 transformed relationship with Britain, and increased Protestant suspicions of Britain's innate untrustworthiness and duplicity in Irish matters, especially since the British government has begun to allow the Irish Republic more influence in Ulster's affairs - the very circumstance partition was supposed to avoid and which Protestants have struggled to resist since the seventeenth century. If Britain seems prepared so easily, as Unionists see it, to sacrifice this historical struggle for expediency in British-Irish relations, the burden of the history is a greater weight on Unionists who cannot, or will not, transcend the past. They cannot transcend history because these past struggles to defend their Protestantism and Britishness have helped shape who they are, and who they are not: they are not Catholic, they are not Irish.

This paragraph highlights that since NI's creation, the threat of terrorism, both real and imagined were used to fuel anti-Catholic feelings. Unionist politicians used this fear and paranoia to ensure that their own positions within the ascendancy in NI was secure. This ensured that working class communities kept at each other's throats rather than finding that they had common issues.
The violence which grew out of Protestant insecurity and Catholic alienation, along with the zero-sum mindset which was how NI operated since it's creation, helped to not only create ethnic cleansing in some areas (on both sides) but also the illusion of ethnic cleansing in others. Any violence was seen in these terms rather than looking at alternative reasons for it.

Anti-Catholicism is therefore not just a feature of Protestant historical traditions, it determines the views many have of the options for the future. That the future goes backwards - back to the plantation society, back to the old anti-Catholic ideas, back to sixteenth-century definitions of group interests - does not seem to bother many Protestants in Northern Ireland. Many find security in their history, comfort in the old shibboleths, and reassurance in past victories. Many ordinary Protestants also lack the foresight and the courage to move on because they receive no encouragement to do so from Unionist politicians and Orange organisations, which fail to offer new options for the future. In fact, the tragedy of Northern Ireland is that most people. irrespective of political and religious hue, only want more of the same.

So the Protestant people were kept in fear by their own politicians, who never had a plan about how to move things forward. Regression or the status quo was the name of the game. In the real world, this doesn't work. Protestants in certain areas saw their privileges being stripped from them when the back of gerrymandering was broke. They saw control of certain areas slip away as the civil rights movement started to gleam success. In places like Derry, the whole political environment was turned on it's head.
After the fires of Bombay street, and after around 36,000 Catholics were forced out of their homes and into refugee camps south of the border (largest forced movement of people since WW2 at that time), the old IRA was replaced by the PIRA. Now those fears that many Protestants had, became a reality. The bogeyman they had long feared was created with help from that very fear.

In the case of Derry's Protestants, the population shift occurred because of many factors.
1. The change in the political structure from Unionist dominance to Nationalist.
2. The old fears and siege mentality meant that many Protestants felt exposed on that side of the river, with their backs towards the Donegal border and being surrounded by Nationalist strongholds.
3. The PIRA targeted security forces. To many Protestants, it could have seemed that if the security forces can barely protect themselves, how can they successfully protect the minority Protestant population surrounded by Nationalists. This would have made it attractive to move into an area where their community was more numerous.
4. 'white flight' (or in NI's case, 'Orange flight') - where the increasing affluence and population growth of Catholics meant that some areas began to fill up with Catholics. Some Protestants would have left through fear, some through bigotry, and some through intimidation (from yobs, as treating PIRA as separate point).
5. The PIRA campaign - I said before that I believe that there was certain sectarian elements among the PIRA. These elements would have targeted non-strategic and non-military targets, and directly intimidated many of the Protestant population of the area.
6. The Zero-sum mindset in NI. No compromise. One side wins at the other side's expense. In areas with minority populations, this usually meant that they got squeezed out (for both sides).

In conclusion, I do believe that the PIRA were directly and indirectly involved for many a Protestant leaving the area, but I do not believe that they were the sole reason for it.

This issue of population movements affect both sides. No-one has the higher moral ground on it. It is a problem which affects almost every person in NI in some way or another. Only together can this be resolved. Lets hope that now the politicians are finally working together, that this spirit trickles down. As one of the videos that WASP put's up shows that attitudes are changing and hopefully, we're in end days for this type of story occurring on either side.

[Wasp]

Thing is this shouldn't be put as anyone trying to gain moral highground, answered with the happened to us as well, and listing and trying to explain all the reasons. Why can anyone not take it for what it is which is disgusting IMO. Why can anyone not come out and even show sympathy or understanding for a better word without having to try and seem to make out it is not as bad and even unintentionally trying in someway justifying some of it.

No matter how many reasons there are that they fled, the fact is that the biggest one was because of republican intimidation and threats. Can anyone not say that what happened was terrible, sad and completely wrong AND THEN go into all the other stuff to do with various reasons why some left???

This is what I find sad, when it concerns Unionists/Protestants no-one can come out and simply condemn it, all the other factors or alledged factors have to be thrown into the mix to belittle what happened. But saying that I am well used to republicans and anyone with an anti-Unionist pedigree doing this.

I thinik in future no matter how wrong something is that happened to Catholics I will do likewise instead of utterly condemning it outright, and then maybe adding other explanations or what happened to us Prods etc.

[earl]

wasp said:

Thing is this shouldn't be put as anyone trying to gain moral highground, answered with the happened to us as well, and listing and trying to explain all the reasons. Why can anyone not take it for what it is which is disgusting IMO. Why can anyone not come out and even show sympathy or understanding for a better word without having to try and seem to make out it is not as bad and even unintentionally trying in someway justifying some of it.

No matter how many reasons there are that they fled, the fact is that the biggest one was because of republican intimidation and threats. Can anyone not say that what happened was terrible, sad and completely wrong AND THEN go into all the other stuff to do with various reasons why some left???

This is what I find sad, when it concerns Unionists/Protestants no-one can come out and simply condemn it, all the other factors or alledged factors have to be thrown into the mix to belittle what happened. But saying that I am well used to republicans and anyone with an anti-Unionist pedigree doing this.

I thinik in future no matter how wrong something is that happened to Catholics I will do likewise instead of utterly condemning it outright, and then maybe adding other explanations or what happened to us Prods etc.

WASP, I shouldn't have to explicitly say that this is wrong sad or condemn it. That should be a given. How long have you known me that I have to still explicitly state these things in case you think I'm the republican bogeyman? Why do you always revert to the thinking that all Republicans support the IRA and everything they did? How many F*ckin' times do I have to say that I never supported the IRA before you believe me? Have I denied that it happened? Have I tried to cover it up? Or have I acknowledged that it was a very important factor among many factors which led to this? What's your idea of a debate anyway, you write up something that's an issue, people reply 'that was sad and horrible and I condemn it' and that's it??? Tackle my post directly if you have an issue with anything. Simple condemnation isn't going to solve this issue anyway. People's mindsets have to change. Discussing the issue in full, is a much healthier way of tackling it. This is a forum for debate. So debate.

[Wasp]

WASP, I shouldn't have to explicitly say that this is wrong sad or condemn it. That should be a given. How long have you known me that I have to still explicitly state these things in case you think I'm the republican bogeyman?

Earl that is not my point, it is not a case of you having to prove yourself because I know you don't support the ira or anything like it. Infact you are part of the reason that I now argue that to be a republican does not mean you support the ira. If someone doesn't condemn etc something like this then it can be hard to know their opinion especially if they answer by posting other stuff which may or not be linked. Even a simple that was terrible etc then all the other stuff.

Why do you always revert to the thinking that all Republicans support the IRA and everything they did? How many F*ckin' times do I have to say that I never supported the IRA before you believe me? Have I denied that it happened? Have I tried to cover it up?

See answer above.

Or have I acknowledged that it was a very important factor among many factors which led to this?

At the end of your post, you did.

What's your idea of a debate anyway, you write up something that's an issue, people reply 'that was sad and horrible and I condemn it' and that's it???

I never ever suggested that or anything like it, re-read my post and what I said.

Tackle my post directly if you have an issue with anything. Simple condemnation isn't going to solve this issue anyway. People's mindsets have to change. Discussing the issue in full, is a much healthier way of tackling it. This is a forum for debate. So debate.

I think my track record shows that I do debate. Of course peoples mindsets have to change, no question about that at all. My problem is simply this, if it concerns the PUL community then it is continually belittled and made out to be insignifficant. That is how it is to some and to others such as yourself you can do it unintentionally.

On another thread I said about OO halls being attacked and the replies was that plenty of schools and halls etc are attacked so there was no proof it was sectarian, if it is a GAA hall then it is automatically sectarian. I have no problem acknowledging that there are those thugs who target property because it belongs to the other faith or those from a differing political outlook, but sadly this doesn't work both ways.

[Jim]

wasp said:

Jim a classic move of republicans is that this never happened, unless they were the victims or the victims were Catholics. Any admittance or acknowledgement is errors/mistakes/cock ups were made then the usual the ira were not sectarian but some actions could have been perceived that way.

They just don't want to know or have these things discussed unless of course it is showing them as the poor down trodden ones.

I and most republicans I know admit that protestants were forcably removed from their homes. Thats the only way a segregated area could be enforced.

[Wasp]

Fair enough Jim and I know only too well Catholics were forced from their homes. But why the denial or reluctance to admit it with all the 'the ira are not sectarian', 'Protestants are wanted', 'that never happened bullshit' and 'it happened to all sides so no big deal' etc etc.

My family were forced from their home and I only found out the reasons why recently. My parents are far from political and they have many Catholic friends, the rest of my family knew why I was the only one not born in the daisy hill hospital apart from me. Maybe they saw something in me or were scared incase I became too politically invovled and they wanted me kept from all that for my own good.

I used to ask why was I born in Ballymena and I always got because we were viditing family and friends when my mum went into labour. Thirty odd years later I was finally told what really happened. Saddest thing of all there is not one jot on the internet or anywhere else about the families forced to flee at that time by republicans. In all over twenty families were forced out by the ira and their supporters and NOT ONE of them had security force connections.

This is why now more so than ever it irritates the shite out of me when republicans go along the usual denying route or belittling it all.

Even though we were forced from our home by cowardly bastards members of my family circle fully supported high kirk church in their condemnation of the protest at Harryville chapel, some joined the church when they went to the chapel to support those going to mass. So obviously there was no bitter taste left in there mouths and that includes relations of mine that were targeted by the ira, and not all of them were in the security forces.

[Jim]

Because the IRA as an organisation is a lot more complex than just "they where/wherent secterian", the organisation went through splits and leadership changes throughout the entire troubles, some leaders had different ideas than others. An Fear dubh said himself that the IRA where more concerned about the British army than protestants, religion has never been a driving force for the IRA the way it was for loyalists, so it comes down that they arent anti-protestant for the most part, but they are against the views the majority of protestants have, it just happens to be their religion is protestant. If you where catholics it wouldnt have made a difference, politics was the dividing factor.

Why was this ever allowed to go on anyway Wasp? If the stormont government had of actually been a government for the people the troubles would never have been so hard hitting. The failings of the state to provide for and look after its population is the most important factor than anything else.

[Wasp]

Jim you can blame the state, you can try and claim the ira were not anti-Protestant etc all you want, but I know different and I have witnessed different along with thousands and thousands of others.

[Jim]

I've spoken with ex IRA men and had conversations with them about politics, because surprise surprise, most of them are interested in what goes on in the world. Anti-unionism, yes. Anti-protestantism, no. No one really gives a shite about religion you are or I am.

I wouldnt be alone in blaming the state. Even the British government agreed with the assessments against the state and closed it down for direct rule, thinking they could do better. Obviously something went very wrong!

[Wasp]

So why did the ira target mainly Protesdtant towns??? Why did the ira carry out so many sectarian massacres against Ulster Protestants?? Why did they take part in putting Protestants out of their homes by both violence and campaigns of intimidation?

I have spoken to ordinary people about these things, I have spoken to ex security force members and they all say religion played a major part in the ira's campaign. There is decades of proof with thousands of witnesses, so whos word are you going to take, ex ira cowards who would deny it anyway or the word of the ordinary man, woman and child on the street who only wanted to get on with their lives.

The ira were every bit sectarian as the uda/uvf if not more so. They are nothing more than a bunch of sectarian hate filled murdering bastards and I take it you disbelieve everything another ex-ira man had to say as in Sean O'Callaghan? Afterall he is ex ira as well.