Irish history was and is continually plagued by an unfortunate tendency to reflect all opinion through nationalism, either orange or green, as if that were the sole means with which to understand past, present and future. There's far more to it than that, shades within shades, those who tried to stand apart and those immigrant workers who were caught up in it all.
From an anarchist perspective we see that nationalism, under whatever guise, has been the bane of working people throughout history but as one observant poster above remarked, where does that history begin? For example do we go back to pre-viking times when Irish raiding parties were the scourge of Britain, when Irish cheftains ruled large areas of Britain (e.g. Northumbria for over 100 years according to Robert Kee) thus creating a perennial fear that the Irish would dominate Britain? Do we start from the Vikings who brought their British slaves to Dublin thus enforcing the notion that Ireland spelled trouble for Britain and that the British had better do someting to check the Irish? Do we jump forward and look to the Norman (French) conquest of Britain and Ireland? Or do we begin only when the British established themselves? Remember that the the so-called original occupation was not by the British but by Norman adventurers who eventually, though not always, allied with the ascending British monarchy.
We know of the tyrrany exacted by subsequent British administrations, and those Irish lords allied to the Crown so does this have any bearing? Do we jump to 1798 or 1916, 1921 or 1969 to begin our analysis? You see the problem with history is when and where you draw the line and how you use your selective agenda to present your case. As mentioned I would accept that there are other viewpoints, though these do tend to be more modern, such as anarchism.
The blame game is an equal dead-end. As Deezer points out the partition of Ireland was not wanted by anyone on the island, neither unionist or nationalist but was enforced by the British to create the pro-British Unionist ascendency who abused the working classes from BOTH sides of the divide. We could thus blame the British, or we could blame the Unionist ascendency that created the class division along sectarian lines. The fact does remain that the rise of Peoples' Democracy and the Civil Rights Movement (itself a relection of a new international political awareness) and the subsequent rise of paramilitarism was reactionary and by provocation over decades of misrule.
But that is only looking at history from a certain point and ignores what went on before. Do we then blame the PIRA when they split off from the OIRA for creating and perpetuating a tradition of sectarianism? Or is that the fault of the UDA and the UVF? The difficult question is not who started it but who will put an end to it. Any other difficulty is merely the use of selective history to define an agenda within the confines of dualistic nationalist antagonism.
For example if I were to try and organise within a Loyalist community what use would it be if I made the stance that it was simply the British who were at fault? Wouldn't it be better to offer an analysis from a perspective of Class struggle? Whatever badge is worn it is the same old story of those who have and those who have not, of the perpetuation of elites by force or monoculturalism.
While we continue to speak in orange or green or by the union flag we will never be able to speak for workers. The blame lies with the rich and their traditions of imperialism, dressed in religion and nationalism - divide and conquer.
Republicanism has attempted to cover its nationlist agenda in socialism and working class chic but remains anathema to workers everywhere. Remember it was republicans who stopped organisations such as BAG (Belfast Anarchist Group) through threat and intimidation. Both Loyalists and Republicans wrecked any attempt to offer a different perspective to their own narrow agendas.
The current phase of development might also be looked at in terms of class struggle. The Good Friday Agreement, although it silenced the majority of the weapons (and was a good thing looked at in that light) was also the way through which Free-Market economy based on the Washington Concensus opened the gates for capitalism and the exploitation thus continues. It is vital to see the puppet masters in Brussels at work here too!
The history of the North, like anywhere else, is of rich over poor and that is where analysis should concentrate, rather than in the cul-de-sac of selective history.
Yep, I really don't see how 'who started it?' is in any way a useful or interesting question for anyone getting into class struggle politics.
I mean it really has no relevance any more to the issues we face daily.
When stuff like the Visteon occupation and sacking of pregnant migrant workers is going on, it's clear where the focus of our politics should be.