The truth behind partition (Part I)

A couple of years ago i did a very thorough research regarding the influence of mass media on the general public, more specifically how the lack of proper education and misleading films affected younger generations who took certain films/tv series as historical facts.

Films like Michael Collins and Braveheart (and the devil’s own) were some of the most regarded ones when it came down to irish history (even though braveheart tells the story of a scottish attempt for independence from the english, but anyway..)

The area i chose to do the research was east Boston, obviously for its historical background (having one of the most “irish” populated areas in the united states AND due to the fact that a couple of years back, a journalist from the BBC had been attacked by a gang of so called american “IRA freedom fighters” who were “defending the right for irish freedom under british rule”

Suffice to say, i was shocked by the lack of knowledge these kids had that were fighting for a cause that was “long ago” settled. Sorta.

When i asked them about unionists, most of them (i will have to upload my statistics) didn’t have a clue who they were; all they did “know” was that the IRA (not the Provos or RIRA) was fighting a righteous cause for freedom and they would do “whatever it takes” to keep the “fight” alive.

Since some of them were actual gangsters i was in NO position to throw a book at them and shout “GET A CLUE!!!!!”. Instead i decided to congratulate them on their “fight for freedom” recommend a few somewhat objective films (no way they were gonna actually read something) and get the hell out of there.

Even though this is a very extreme example, it is true that most people influenced by tv series or films (plus the fact that most historians make the historical facts kinda long and boring to read) end up not really getting the whole story, specially when it comes to partition (in my opinion one of them most important turning points in irish history).

So.. whats the TRUTH behind partition, what really happen?

First thing i’m gonna say is.. FORGET ABOUT THE FILM MICHAEL COLLINS. It’s absolutely misleading about the actual facts. I’m not a Dev lover, but any rational human being knows nothing is SO black or white as that film tries to portray.

To understand partition, we need to go a bit further back the declaration of independence of 1916 and talk about home rule (i know, most people find this kinda boring).

Now, to make it clear enough, i’m gonna mention the 3 most historically important moments that lead to partition:

1- Home Rule Act (attempt n3) of 1914

2- GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT OF 1920

3- Anglo Irish treaty of 1921 under the section of the boundary commission.

Is it enough?

Some politicians are complaining about the fact that little is done in Stormont since power shearing came into place, which basically means that you shouldn’t wait for any major reforms any time soon and that resolutions like the hillsborough agreement (on policing and justice) is only a facade with no read depth.. or not enough to make it work anyway.

The only “undestandable” explanation for this, is the fact that well.. i dont suppose it’s really that easy to share the bed with a long time enemy and that obviously life long hatred is not gonna change overnight.  So according to SF and the DUP (off the record obviously) the people of Northern Ireland should understand that even though the government is innefficient the fact that is still standing should be enough for everyone.

So the question remains…. is it?

Parlez-vous irish republicanism?

Interesting how things develop, i think this is a great way to start this blog.

Yesterday i got a comment regarding my understanding on the word “republicanism” in an Irish context. Now don’t get me wrong, i KNOW where i come from and why it would be easy to think i might be attaching the wrong meaning to the word. So lets talk “Irish Republicanism” and its implications. While doing so, we might define other words in an Irish context along the line.

I’m gonna start by quoting one of my favorite authors when it comes to irish politics, Paul Dixon:

“(..) nationalists and unionists ideologies are not static but dynamic, shifting over time in response to changing circumstances. The term ‘nationalist’ is often used to describe someone who aspires to a united Ireland but is opposed to the use of violence to achive it, while ‘republican’ often shares much of the analysis of the ‘nationalist’ but is prepared to use violence. So all republicans are nationalists, but not all nationalists are republicans(…)“

Paul Dixon, Northern Ireland: Politics of War and Peace, page 7

So there you have it. What does this mean in my world? exactly that.

As a young girl making my way into irish history on my own, with no help whatsoever considering i was growing up on the other side of the world, in another language and with little notion of the island of Ireland’s current history, you can imagine how films and other media affected my so called “self-thought” education as regards to past events. As you can imagine, there was no independent line of opinion in the so called “self-taught” first few years of my Irish history education. (then again, is there ever one?)

Films like Michael Collins or Braveheart, while might help creating this very unique and nationalist sense of self about what “I” am and what I’m not by defining myself as part of something, it also brings along this confusing idea of taking other people’s views on different matters as your own. This lead to some very funny debates in forums (specially with uneducated Americans who took Breaveheart as a historical fact and didn’t know the difference between Ireland and Scotland) that ended up making me even more interested to find out the “truth”(if there is one) about the past.  Sometimes a mirror to the future of what you can become if you don’t take matters into your own hands, can be a very hard reality to face for a 18 year old girl.

But back to the subjective views of Irish history in film, now being aware of this at the start of my journey, it had a counter effect on me: If the director of the film Michael Collins is portraying him as the underdog hero and demonizing De Valera, surely there must be more to the story….. right?

Little did i know the historic rendezvous i was getting myself into.