People/alanmansfield/ch4.html

[[People/alanmansfield/index.html|File:Freotopia people .. img banner.jpg]]

Fremantle Stuff > people > Alan Mansfield > PhD >

===== A Cartography of Resistance:
The British State and Derry Republicanism =====

Chapter 4

REPUBLICAN DISCOURSE AND THE NORTH OF IRELAND

4.1  Introduction: Minority Discourse

'A soldier told me England was my mother country
What did you say?
I want to be an orphan!'
(Cartoon, Starry Plough, May 1981: 2)

History, or perhaps more accurately the mythology of history, has salience for the British, Republican and Loyalist discourses: for each discourse, it is the basis and justification of present and future action. In the British state's official discourse, history is the crux of the 'insolubility' of the Northern Ireland Problem. In Republican discourse 'history' is an 800 year period of occupation and repression by the British, legitimating the contemporary guerrilla war. It is, however, a war which the British refuse to recognise as such. Thus, Irish history is divided into two parts: Figure 4.1
(Cormac, cited Curtis, 1984: 94)     There are many things to distinguish the style or technique of much Republican discourse from that of the British state. It is beyond the scope of this present thesis to develop any detailed schema of the characteristics of minority discourse in general, assuming such a thing were possible. The task of this thesis is much less ambitious, being merely to outline some of the key features of the specific discourse of Republicanism in Derry. Even this task cannot produce an account of all aspects of Republican discourse. My emphasis is on how Derry Republicanism, or rather certain key features of it, interact with an official discourse of the British state, producing the social praxis of Bogside/Creggan community. There are two noticeable features of the style of Republican discourse, features of primarily its interactional systems (see below), that are, however, worth noting. The first is the use of humour, often 'black' humour. This is, of course, a technique highly suited to dialogic utterances. It was Bakhtin (1968), and subsequently Kristeva (1980) who pointed out the possible revolutionary, liberating nature of the carnivalesque. Carnival involves the re-articulation of dominant meanings, the production of radically new meanings and, as importantly, this re-articulation occurs through the necessary foregrounding of old meanings and their reworking. A joke, such as the one discussed below, for example, allows a new 'meaning' to be made at the same time as speaking and undermining an old meaning. The second stylistic feature of much Republican discourse is its evocative or highly polemic nature. Examples of this are discussed below but one might suggest that this too is an important feature of the interactional system of the discourse. Discursive re-articulation, the repositioning of elements within a discursive field is a feature of political discourse, a prominent feature of a heteroglossic field such as Northern Ireland. If the task of discursive formations is to 'answer' other discursive formations, to win struggles over meanings then statements which attempt, via a highly-charged linguistic style, to prove not only the rightness, but the extreme rightness of their cause, are likely to be more effective. A somewhat paradoxical situation arises then whereby the most blatant form of rhetoric appears as the least rhetorical; the most dialogic of utterances as the most monologic. These two discursive techniques are common to other minority discourses, just how common is, of course, in need of specific investigation.
The cartoon depicting 'Irish history' is important then, both in terms of the 'knowledge' about Republican Ireland it produces, but also for the way in which it produces this knowledge. The 'humorous' presentation of what is, for all involved, a very serious issue, is worth noting. There is a cynicism in the joke, a feeling reflected in the sense of 'injustice' of the situation, that is, of becoming 'terrorist' for merely defending ones self. This sense of injustice can only be reinforced when there is a conspiracy involved:

'Did you hear about the left-wing MP who condemned the conditions in H-Block?'
'Good heavens, no!'

'Funny—neither did I. I wonder what happened to him? ...'
'He's probably having a drink with the SDLP politician who never betrayed his principles ... and they're both being guarded by the ... eek! (falls down a manhole) ... by the RUC man who never perjured himself in court! ...'
.rm6
(An Phoblacht/Republican news: 22nd April 1978)
 (originally a cartoon)

This then, is the world spoken of in the official discourse turned on its head becoming a discourse of the carnivalesque. Left-wing Members of Parliament are not identifying with a struggle they 'should' identify with; Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) politicians are not looking after the constituents' interest but their own personal careers and the Royal Ulster Constabulary are corrupt and make a mockery of the justice system. Furthermore, it is not just a few of these people who are corrupt, selfish or hypocritical, but all of them. By building image upon image upon (false) image the whole sordid conspiracy is uncovered. The humour in the joke stems from its sense of the ridiculous or incredulous. It is only funny then, if the truth of what it says it accepted and believed. It is not a joke, rather an ironic truth, truth being 'recognition'. As this joke originates from An Phoblacht: Republican News, it is reasonable to assume that most of its audience would share its assumptions. It would be unwise to overstress this humorous style or technique. Republican discourse is not full of jokes and satires, quite the contrary, very often it is deadly serious. It is perhaps more accurate to highlight the often rhetorical, polemical or evocative nature of such discourse. The 'revolutionary' discourse of any minority then, often carries a powerful linguistic presence. Kieran Nugent, one of the first 'blanket men' to be released, when discussing his refusal to wear prison uniform stated:

'... they (the British Government) will have to nail the uniform on my back' (K Nugent, 14th September 1976, cited  Coogan, 1980: 79).

Or the late Bobby Sands MP,

'You cannot put a rope around the neck of an idea. You cannot put an idea up against a barrack wall and riddle it with bullets. You cannot confine it in the strongest prison that your slaves could ever build'. (Liam, 1985)

This evocative revolutionary verve is particularly evident in Padraig Pearse's famous oration of 1915 at the funeral of O'Donovan Rossa, a celebrated Republican who died in an English prison.

'Life springs from death; and from the graves of patriot men and women spring living nations. They have left us our Fenian dead, and while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree shall never be at peace' (Pearse, 1915, cited Kearney, 1978: 128).

The currency of such sentiment within Republican discourse is witnessed by the fact that 'Ireland unfree shall never be at peace' is a battle-slogan written on walls and gable-ends throughout the Republican areas of the Province, a prominent feature of Republican iconography. The martyr spirit and image of self-sacrifice, forward the cause, even unto death, is a powerful element of the Republican discourse, as will become readily apparent in the discussions of the 'hunger strike'. Richard Kearney notes this element of self-sacrifice and quotes the graffiti of a Republican prisoner in the Province.

'I am one of many who die for my country ... If death is the only way, I am prepared to die. To be free is all I want and many like me think the same' (Kearney, 1978: 62).

All of these texts then, imply a task to be achieved, a utopia of the future. It is revolutionary in the sense that it implies and looks to a time' after the revolution' when freedom and peace will be achieved. This 'utopianism' is a further important strand of Republican discourse, and perhaps all political discourse—the British state, for instance, looks in different ways and under different conditions, to a time when Northern Ireland's 'problems' are solved, witness the euphoric optimism of each 'new initiative' by the succession of Ministers of State for Northern Ireland. 4.2  The Declaration of 1916: A Theology of Sacrifice     The declaration of the 'Provisional Government of the Irish Republic' to the people of Ireland in 1916 epitomises the evocative, rhetorical style of Republican discourse (see Figure 4.1). It is this statement upon which the legitimacy of contemporary Provisional IRA activity is based. Further as Richard Kearney notes,.lm8
.rm58

'this extended genealogical invocation would have linked the 1916 heroes not only with their founding Fenian forebearers of the preceding century, but also with former Irish patriots such as Emmett O'Neill, and ultimately with the legendary heroes and deities of mythological Erin, that is, Oisin, Cuchulainn, Mananan, Caitlin Ni Houlihan and most importantly Fionn MacCuhall and his warrior band, the Finna' 1 (Kearney, 1978: 125).

The 1916 declaration then, is a key text in the construction of a Republican history of legitimate struggle, an 800 year struggle against occupation. In order to examine this text in some detail Figure 4.2it is necessary to examine the thematic, interactional and heteroglossic systems (Lemke, 1986) of the declaration. It is necessary to analyse what topics are mentioned, how they are named, in what order they are mentioned (thematic analysis) to note the rhetorical devices at work, what kind of speaker/audience relationship is established (interactional analysis), and finally, how does this text situate itself in relation to opposing discourses, what kind of intertexts are foregrounded  (heteroglossic analysis). An analysis of these systems and the way they interrelate will enable an understanding of how the text is actively producing meaning [What Pecheux (1975) calls articulated meanings] and to what degree its sense is dependent on prior meanings (what Pecheux calls preconstructed meanings).
The declaration begins with an evocative plea for the moral history of the cause. The first thing to note then, is that interactionally, a speaker/addressee relation is  created, we are speaking to you and this is our message. This structure is used throughout the text. Importantly, the 'we' and the 'you' are different at different points in the text, not only are there important inclusions and exclusions set up in the text via the use of pronouns, but the relations of inclusion/exclusion shift throughout the text. Not only is there a lot of naming occurring, that is, the social creation of entities, but these entities are thematically connected to each other by the text. Thus, for example, the signatories of the declaration, the Republic of Ireland and the Provisional Government are all doing the declaring. The second paragraph states that now is the hour, the moment of the cause. The next paragraph outlines in more detail the nature and the history of the cause Irish nationhood, and following this is a statement of the duties of both the citizens and the state of this nation. The final paragraph repeats that the moment (of revolution) is nigh and calls for the payment of the morality of the cause—'sacrifice ... for the common good'. There are many things to note about this declaration, not the least of which is its evocative, highly charged style:

'In the name of God and the dead generations ... Ireland ... summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom ... she now seizes that moment ... supported by her exiled children in America and by gallant allies in Europe, but relying in the first on her own strength, she strikes in full confidence of victory .. the unfettered control of Irish destinies ... we pledge our lives ... to the cause of freedom ...  We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God ... this supreme hour ... the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves ... the august destiny'

The frequent invocations of God, honour, nobility, destiny and freedom create a very emotional and powerful text, and call to arms.
The force of these evocative terms is strengthened by the paradigmatic choice, common enough amongst nationalist discourses, of the feminine gender. Ireland, the Irish nation, becomes a mother calling her children to her aid in her hour of need. The call of a 'damsel in distress' is powerful enough but the call of a mother is even more important. The call of a mother to her children, especially when in distress, is a call that not only must be obeyed but one that must be obeyed with urgency. It is also a relationship of power, the mother has charge over her children, not vice versa. The nation then, is more important than any of its individual citizens, male or female.

'The Irish nation ... (the nation of Irish people) ... must prove itself worthy of ... by the readiness of its children ... the august destiny (the establishment of an Irish Republic in the face of opposition from an alien power) to which it (the nation of Irish people) is called (by Mother Ireland)'.

Furthermore, the 'sacrifice for Ireland' is the 'sacrifice of her children'. The cause of Irish freedom is so great, so important then, that the 'Mother ' will sacrifice surely her most valuable possession, her 'children'. The family, let it not be forgotten is a 'sacred institution of the Church' and women as mothers (but not as wives) have a central place within this institution particularly in Catholicism with its conception of Mary and the holy family. Women within Catholicism are importantly 'portraits of Mary' 2.
It is interesting to note the use of Irishmen and Irishwomen in the declaration when referring to the Irish people. As many feminist writers note, the normal procedure, however undesirable, is to use to masculine gender only, that is, man , men, he, to mean humankind, person, including women, that is, the so-called 'generic pronoun'. The use of both genders in the text then, often repeated, serves to emphasise the inclusiveness of the call to arms. Any such declaration already has 'known' obstacles of the might of a 'foreign people and government' to overcome, as well as the long history of this 'usurpation' of Irish freedom and the 'differences (within this Irish population) carefully fostered by (this) alien government'. With the enemy well dug in and a minority of fellow soldiers falsely alienated and divided from the majority, the battle is difficult enough, without any skirmishing or desertion along gender factions.
The watering down or weakening of the agent by relexicalisation (Hodge and Kress, 1979) is a further aid to the unification sought by the text. The enemy of Ireland, the agent of the denial of Ireland's freedom is not denied or deleted, but neither is it explicitly named, it is the 'foreign' or 'alien government' 3. Furthermore, it is not just a foreign government but a 'foreign people and (plus) government' This all aids the text's desire to wipe away all foreign taints. It adds emphasis to the one thing which must be emphasised, ethnicity, ethnic identity and unity, Ireland and the Irish nation. For it is to this cause that 'every generation (of) Irish people have asserted' a cause that can only be destroyed by the 'destruction of the Irish people'. The declaration then, is attempting to make nationalism and Republicanism significant, through the discourse of ethnicity. Thus the call is to 'the people of Ireland', 'the Irishmen and Irishwomen'. 'Irish' is to be joined with 'nation', 'nationhood' and 'Republic'—this is the cause of Irish Republicanism. This 'nationhood' is a 'right', a right which the Irish people of 'every generation' have asserted in arms'. 'The Republic is entitled to, and claims' this call to arms. The Irish people have a right to this Republic and the Republic has the right, the duty, to call for war against the usurpers. Irish identity must then be fought for. It is the right and moral duty of all its citizens to enter the battle.
There is an (acknowledged) problem in the text, with the call for unity, however. A 'minority of the population' have 'in the past', the time preceding the very moment of the declaration, been divided from the majority. All the text says about this division is that it has been 'carefully fostered by the (unnamed) alien government' the 'minority' is , of course, the Protestants, largely occupying the north east of Ireland. The state of Northern Ireland was not formed by the British government until 1921. Again as with the usurping alien government, Britain, a weakened anonymous wording, has been used. The Protestants are the 'minority' in the text. The existence of this 'minority' and their acknowledgement within the text is the reason why the 'Republic' must guarantee religious and civil liberty to all its citizens. This minority must be won over by the text, or at least the text must contain the possibility of this happening (Bakhtin's notion of dialogicity is relevant here). That this 'incorporation', of the minority into the majority, will not be achieved is also contained within the text. This fact is 'hidden' by the personification and glorification of the Republic, that is to say, it is part of the utopian aspect of the text. The sentence order of paragraph four and thus the thematic structure of the declaration is important. it states the Republic is entitled to and claims the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic has rights and privileges and is entitled to claim them. Anyone who does not give allegiance to the Republic, the 'minority' for instance is on the wrong side of the war. The earlier statements about a 'call to arms' have made it clear that one is dealing with 'war-discourse'. The text states that all people should be protected, regardless of religion. It also, however, identifies all the people as Irish, and calls the Protestant population the 'minority'. The text is speaking within the context of the whole island of Ireland, any identification with Britain from its speaking position is false.
The importance of minority/majority distinctions becomes even more critical with the establishment of the Northern Ireland state in 1921 by the British government . One aspect of how this discourse changes over time is that in the northern state, the contemporary arena of greatest conflict, the 'minority' becomes the Catholic population. This state, the 'Orange state', was specifically designed with a Protestant majority. It had a 'Protestant parliament for a Protestant people' (Lord Brookeborough). Republicans, however, often describe the Protestant population as the 'minority' because, speaking from a Republican position, thus refusing to accept the legitimacy of the state of Northern Ireland, they are talking within the context of the island of Ireland. The Protestants are not merely a group with a different religion to Catholic Ireland, the majority of the island's population, they are also a group with a 'different version of history', different political allegiances and importantly, different ethnic affiliations. The Protestants of the north may describe themselves as Ulstermen first, but their ultimate identification is British rather than Irish. It is interesting to note that the text talks of 'differences carefully fostered', it does not deny the possibility or actuality of difference. One can leave the historical question of the origin of difference aside for the minute and note that whatever the causes of the difference between Protestant and Catholic in Ireland, the very device that seeks to achieve textual unification, ethnicity—that is, the way in which nationalism gains discursive significance—is the very device that ensures the non-incorporation of the Protestant minority. There is then, a significant discursive articulation between Catholicism, Republicanism and ethnicity in Ireland. 4.3  Catholic RepublicanismRichard Kearney suggests that the theology of sacrifice is predominantly Catholic rather than Protestant. In the context of Northern Ireland he notes that the strategy of suffering is a specifically Republican phenomena:

'The Catholic notion of the Mass as a 'real sacrifice' has been a source of frequent symbolic invocation for the Republican tradition of martyrdom' (Kearney. 1978: 127).

This was true in 1916, Padraig Pearce's poem 'A Mother Speaks' shows this clearly 4. Kearney continues:

'But this identification with Christ is to be found with equal, if less subtle, emphasis in the current IRA propaganda (sic) posters portraying battered and tortured prisoners in Christ-like postures, the wire of Long Kesh (sic) transformed into a crown of thorns, the H-Block blanket into a crucifixion cloth' (Kearney, 1978: 128) 5.

This allusion can be seen clearly in the picture taken from The Heart of the Matter a pamphlet published by the 'Derry Relatives Action Committee' in 1979 (Figure 4.3). This example is only one of many, hunger strikers are often portrayed with references or allusions to Christ and the crucifixion. That there is a significant relationship between Catholicism and Republicanism in Ireland cannot be denied. An analysis of Eire and its constitutional and parliamentary affairs would reveal much in this light. In Northern Ireland the words 'Republican enclave' and 'Catholic ghetto' are virtually synonymous. Eamon McCann (1980) recalls a boast made by the leader of the Derry Brigade of Provisional IRA that every one of his men went to mass every morning. The link between Catholicism and militant Republicanism, however, is neither direct nor uncomplicated. Several prominent IRA men have been, and are, Protestant. The statement concerning the religious zeal of the Derry Brigade of PIRA must be put alongside continual denunciation of 'violence' by members of the Catholic clergy. Pope John Paul II's speech at Drogheda on 29th September 1979 is an example. Even this speech, however, revealed ambiguities and the complex nature of the relationship between Republicanism and Catholicism. The speech undeniably calls for a halt to military action:

'On my knees, I beg you to turn away from the paths of violence' (Pope John Paul II, 29th September 1979).

The Pope, however, also implied that IRA action, though its methods were morally unacceptable, did have a cause. That is, that direct rule in Northern Ireland, by successive democratically elected UK governments, did not constitute
political justice.
Figure 4.3Derry Relations Action CommitteeThe Heart of the Matter, 1979: 7

'If politicians do not decide to and act for just change, then the field is left open to the men of violence. Violence thrives best when there is a political vacuum and a refusal of political movement (Pope John Paul II, 29th September 1979).

A short article in the Guardian newspaper reporting the appointment of Dr Cahal Daly who is thought to have written the Pope's Drogheda speech also reveals the complex linkages of Catholicism and Republicanism:

Headline: 'New Ulster Bishop Will Back Repulican Cause' 'Dr Cahal B Daly ... with the Irish Primate, Cardinal Tomas O'Fiaich, and the bishop of Londonderry (sic), Dr Edmund Daly, ... tends to identify with the nationalist cause'.
'These three bishops who have direct responsibility for Northern Ireland all strongly oppose the IRA but are likely to give formidable support to the Catholic community in the event of any confrontation with the British government' (Guardian, 9th September 1982—my emphasis).

There are many things to be noted in this article. Perhaps the most important is the fact that supporting the Republican cause and strongly opposing the IRA is possible. The headline informs the reader that Cahal B Daly supports the Republican cause, as do his two colleagues. Like the other bishop Daly, (who is, incidentally, not the bishop of Londonderry but of Derry and Raphoe) and Tomas O'Fiaich, bishop Cahal B Daly,  is opposed to the IRA but gives not just support, but 'formidable support' to the Catholic community against the IRA's sworn enemies, the British government. The Catholic Church then does and does not support the Republican movement. The complications arise because of the conflict between the Catholic community and the British state, particularly its military representatives. The Catholic clergy may or may not protect, support or help the IRA but it is impossible for them, unlike the British state, to extend this hatred or mistrust to the whole Catholic community, for this very community constitutes their 'flock'. A parallel here could be drawn between the Catholic community and the British Army. If someone in the Catholic community disagrees politically with her or his neighbour or relation this is a very long way from supporting the British Army. As a community worker of Republican persuasion in Derry remarked:

'You can't expect anyone to inform on their brother or their family. When the barricades come down, you know which side you are on, there is only us and them' (Community Worker, Derry, 1979).

This complex relationship between Catholicism and Republicanism is made even more intricate if one considers IRA prominence and popularity as a dynamic rather than static entity. At certain periods in its history the IRA is more popular, has greater support than at other times. After the events of 'Bloody Sunday' in January 1972, the IRA in Derry were 'flooded with recruits, people were queuing in the streets to join' (Community Worker, Derry, 1979). The hunger strikes of 1981 also did much to boost support for the IRA. If one considers the difficulties of the quantifying or qualifying of the term 'support' as in 'support for the IRA' some appreciation of the connections between Republicanism and Catholicism can be made 6. Whatever refinements one makes to the argument, however, the strategic unity of Republican discourse is connected to and infused with the discourse of Catholicism.
4.4  Ireland: Britain's last Colony      There is a further facet of the linkage between Republican and Catholic discourse which although mentioned in the discussion of the 1916 proclamation earlier, has not yet been developed. Basically this facet revolves around what is often termed the 'Two-nations' theory. The relevance of this two-nations theory here is the way in which it is appropriated within the Republican discourse. Republicism and Catholicism are the structures through which the discourse of ethnicity achieves salience. Thus the Gaels, the 'original' Irish people, the Catholic Irish are the real Irish. Republicanism is significant for these groups, they are the people who 'want their country back'. The fusion of Republicanism, Catholicism and Irishness is apparent in a series of 'open-letters' written by a prisoner in H-Block 3:

'An open-letter to the People of Derry'
'Even if one has a moral objection to war, one cannot deny that we are political prisoners, imprisoned for political activity, arising out of political problems created by British colonial rule... Britain, a state, which by law aborted over 1,000,000 unborn infants in the past few years, cannot on moral grounds condemn us'

This letter had already made references to Cardinal O'Fiaich and the Catholic bishop of Derry, Dr Edmund Daly. The letter continues:

'... everyone who remains silent now, drives a nail into the coffin of the blanket men'

The letter is plea for the recognition of political status, for the fact that the Irish Republican Army is fighting a war against the British, a foreign army of occupation. The repetition of key words in a text, such as the above example, political prisoners
political activity ... political problem', is a common feature of polemical discourse. Pope John Paul's Drogheda speech referred to earlier contained the phrase 'murder is murder and should be called by no other name'. Another example would be the 'La Mon' poster discussed in Chapter Three of this thesis. Other examples will be noted when discussing the hunger strike of 1981. The 'choice' of the noun 'war' in the first line of the statement delineates a clear political framework within which to situate any discussion of the rights and wrongs of IRA activities. The Catholic Church's views on abortion, as well as divorce and birth control, are well enough known to need no elaboration here. Abortion, is yet another case of 'murder by any other name'. These views are part of the Republican population of Derry and other areas of Northern Ireland and Eire. The reference to the 'crime' of abortion, which is legal in Britain, is aimed at a specific audience, and is delineating this audience again through the ground of ethnicity and Irishness. It is Britain who murders infants. What Britain and Britishness is being opposed to is Ireland and Irishness.
The opposition which is between 'good' and 'bad', is equally clear in another open letter written by the same person:

'To the patrons of ...'
'How many of you have actively opposed the state during the last 10 years of war? How many of you have helped or supported those engaged in the struggle? Are you criminals? Certainly not, but that is what an Englishman sitting in Stormont says, a man who has absolutely no authority, given to him by the people of Ireland'.

and is signed,

'Padraig Diarmada, Cime Cozadh H3'.

The opposition then, is between an 'Englishman sitting in Stormont' and the 'people of Ireland'. The basis for the justification of political status is contained with this last letter. The authority for government must come from the people. The government of Northern Ireland is in the hands of the British, and Englishmen sitting in Stormont. The law which defines criminals, is in this case invalid. Within this discourse, those classified as criminals are in fact those fighting for a representative government and justice. This government must be elected by the people of Ireland, it must be Irish. The phrase Cime Cozadh is Irish and it means political prisoner. The fact that it is written in Irish along with the writer's name, which is also in Irish, is significant. It further emphasises the ethnic gap between British and Irish. A separate language in itself is not a necessary condition for the emergence of nationalist aspirations, but it is often an important aspect of such struggles. Within Northern Ireland, the Irish language often serves as a marker between Republicanism and Loyalism. It is certainly a device for claiming Irishness.

}PDRAFT}

There is, within the Republican discourse, a mythological history, mythological not because it is 'untrue', but in the Barthesian (1 973) sense, it is partial, carrying a particular ideological emphasis and is in some senses a fact of life which seems almost primor dial. This discourse not only opposes Irishness to Britishness but contains an explanation of why Britain should concern itself with
Ireland. It is the 'empire-context' of Britain's past and present that is to blame.  «IP4,0»British Army 'Why don't we just shoot all the ones Officer: who aren't on our side? Subordinate: I'm afraid, sir, that the enemy isn't always that easy to identify. Officer: I don't see what the problem is! I mean, they are all black, eh! Subordinate: No sir, that was in Africa ... or perhaps Notting Hill next year.

«IP0,0»Officer:         What colour are the blighters then?

«IP4,0»Subordinate:         White, I think.

«IP4,0»Officer: By Jove! These Irish wogs are damned clever!«»No British Solution«»—Troops Out Movement, undated: 20—originally a cartoon) «IP0,0» A document published by Derry Provisional Sinn Fein in 1976, outlines in some detail the history of the oppression of the Irish by t he British. It also explains the connection between Catholic and Irish, that is, why within the context of the present, the Catholic Irish are the real Irish. The simple answer is that within this discourse the Protestant people living in Ireland are part of Britain's colonial conspiracy.

Northern Ireland: Britain's last colony based on the perversion of religion and the enslavement of the catholic Irish. The British have tried for seven centuries to conquer Ireland. In the beginning of the 17th Century the British government planted Protestants in the North of Ireland, dispossessing the Catholic people of the good land and placed British adventurers, loyal and Protestant, on the land to keep the natives down and help to hold Ireland for the British government. All law in the north of Ireland h as been based on the act of robbery, murder and pillage ever since and the objective of those who administer the law is to put down the Catholics and maintain British influence in Ireland. Catholics had no legal rights during the 17th and 18th centuries: they could not be educated, hold land or enter the professions; pr iests and bishops were hunted, imprisoned and martyred. These British laws were described by one historian as, 'the most fiendish gr oups of laws ever devised by man for the subjugation and degradation of his fellow men'. The Catholics struggled against the tyranny
and total deprecation of human rights; apart from the incidents of open warfare in 1641, 1691, 1848, 1967, 1916-21 there was contin ual tyranny forcing them off their own land and preventing them earning a living in their own country. The British parliament kept p assing coercion acts for putting down the Irish and the English or Protestant hangmen never stopped executing Irishmen. The British stole the land and abused the law in many ways; they also proscribed the Irish language and culture and religion and tri ed to remove all traces of a distinct identity from the people of Ireland. The British ensured that the Protestant settlers would ne ver be assimilated by bribing them, by giving them land, property, power and privilege, by making them conscious of being first clas s citizens over their Catholic neighbours. Inequality and injustice were deliberately cultivated in Ireland by the British to keep t he people divided and to rob the country of its wealth and independence—Classic Colonialism.

The British were driven out of th ree quarters of Ireland in 1921, but they used their power and army to maintain control of 6 counties and thereby indirectly the who le of Ireland. In this six county area in the north-east of Ireland from which many of the Protestant settlers came, they establishe d a system of tyranny over the Catholic people to keep British influence in Ireland. The 6 counties—Antrim, Down, Derry, Armagh, T yrone and Fermanagh were to give the Protestants a 2:1 majority in all elections and thus to keep the political control of the area permanently in Protestant hands loyal to Britain. Towns which had a Catholic majority were 'gerrymandered', that is, the boundaries of the Electoral wards were fixed in such a way th at a smaller number of Protestants elected a greater number of representatives than their Catholic neighbours. In this way Derry Cit y, Dungannon and Omagh were rigged. The majority of councillors which the Protestants obtained was used ruthlessly to deprive Cathol ics of jobs in Local Government. In Dungannon there were no Catholics in the first eight levels of employment; in Cookstown (40 per cent Catholic) no Catholic at all
was employed by the Urban Council. In large public industries such as ship building and heavy engineering few Catholics were employ ed although these industries are subsidised by the taxpayer's money. Catholics were refused houses built by public money or were com pelled to dwell in one part of the town to suit the gerrymandered voting pattern; there were two standards of application of the law , one in favour of the Protestants and one to keep the Catholics in subjection; the Police force, legal officials and judiciary were
extremely bigoted and anti-Catholic and regarded it as their first duty to preserve the Protestant Ascendancy. The Civil Rights Campaign in the sixties led to world wide publicity being given to the unjust tyrannical methods used by Britain to
hold on to Ireland, by using the colonial Protestant settlers as her dupes, and playing on their sense of fear and greed. When Engl and knew she could give no more concessions to Catholics without imperilling her own power, she used the extremist Orange Prote stants to attack and burn out Catholics in the Falls Road and refused to allow any legal action against the offenders but cultivated
all sorts of myths about the IRA who did not exist at that time. The British army who came in then, were speedily turned against th e Catholics by the British and Orange population. This led to an outbreak of violence by the IRA which was an explosion of rage at 5 0 years of ill treatment, interment and torture. Even the Catholic Church could not stop it and it has gone on for six years, fuelle d by systematic ill treatment by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British army. There will be no solution to the problem of Northern Ireland until the British disarm the Protestants and leave with their army and money and leave all sections of the Irish people to live in terms of equality and fraternity'
(Derry ;Provisional Sinn Fein, 1976)

The support for the Irish home-rule movement in the 18th century by the Orange Order and the Presbyterian church is ignored o r denied in this text. The fact that Wolfe Tone, along with many other prominent Republicans, was of the Protestant faith, or at lea st 'non-Catholic', is of no consequence. These are things that cannot be said within this discourse. This Republican discourse equat es Catholic with Irish and Protestant with British. The 'true Irish' then, were those who lived in Ireland before the British began their policy of colonisation. By way of comparison, however, the policy document «»Eire Nua«» ('New Ireland') issued by PIRA
first in June 1971, then revised and re-issued in June 1972, made a great deal of Wolfe Tone's Protestant origins. 0 «IP0,0»  «IP10,10»'In order to further soothe Protestant suspicions about their status in a reunited Ireland, Eire Nua called for a stri ct separation of church and state. Provisional Sinn Fein hailed the strength which cultural diversity and religious pluralism would lend to the new Ireland. Wolfe Tone's desire to unite Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter under the common noun of Irishmen (sic) was
recalled, with the notation made that Tone himself was a Protestant, as were many other Irish nationalists over the centuries' (Kel ly, 1982: 197).  «IP0,0»  Britain's 'Last Colony' suggests not only the empire-context of British involvement in Ireland, but the outmoded, declining nature o f such a context. The 'last colony' which will/should soon gain freedom and independence? This particular discourse like all others,
is validated through a history, a history which is created partly within the text itself. Thus, the British 'have «»tried«» for seven centuries to conquer Ireland'. There is a 'natural' link between the troubles throughout the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries and the contemporary period of troubles which erupted with the civil rights campaigns of the late 1960s. The fact that the Britis h have tried for centuries to conquer Ireland allows for the existence of a historically continuous struggle against the British. Th is struggle, partially successful, is one carried out by the Irish against the British, which in the context of this discourse is al so Catholic versus Protestant. The enemies of the revolutionary struggle are English or Protestant. It is interesting to note here t hat this text contains the same ambiguity or contradiction as the 1916 declaration examined earlier. After linking Catholic with Iri sh and Protestant with British the only explanation of the contemporary situation in the north of Ireland, not it should be noted 'N orthern Ireland' as in the official discourse, is that the Protestant population is duped or greedy. The Protestants are treate d ambivalently within this discourse. They are bigoted extremists who need to be disarmed, yet they are also duped by the British an d further in the last sentence of the text become a part, the minority of 'all sections of the Irish people' who will one day 'live in terms of equality and fraternity'. The revolutionary intertextual reference of the last phrase is, of course, well known. Republican discourse coheres many things into a strategic unity. The above text includes a version of history which contains a privi leging of the conflict between British and Irish and an explanation of the machinery of law and politics which aids the British in t heir occupation of Ireland. There is also an economic referent. It is not until British armies and monies leave Ireland that Irish  ndependence will be achieved. The Republican discourse then, contains an economic explanation of the conflict in Ireland. This expla nation is essentially one taken from a standard marxist framework, one which involves colonialism, a division of the workers and a c onspiracy against both the working classes and the indigenous population. The significance of such an incorporation within this discourse is twofold. Firstly, it is in direct conflict with the official discourse. Secondly one must note that it is the ethnic rather
than the class nature of the conflict which is privileged. The above document is one of a number of photocopied information sheets published by Derry Provisional Sinn Fein. It is a part of what has been referred to as Ireland's 'other news' («»Belfast Bu lletin«», Spring 1979: 41). «»4.5 The Week That Was: The Death of Mountbatten«» Stencilled sheets concerning genera l viewpoints or specific news are quite common in working class Loyalist and Republican areas in Northern Ireland. They can be aimed
at local, provincial or international audiences. They are produced by Republican and Loyalist political and paramilitary groups, co mmunity groups and others. When one considers the number of such formal and voluntary groups in existence in Northern Ireland, one c an appreciate the vast plethora of such information occurring on a regular and ad hoc basis. These photocopied or stencilled informa tion sheets, together with more well-known, regular publications, such as «»An Phoblacht«»: «»Republican News«»' and
the «»Starry Plough«»', form an important 'alternative media' both in terms of providing local news and disseminating infor mation to a wider audience challenging the official discourse and its populist mediation the British media. There are examples of fa irly regular and well-organised texts dealing with a specific on-going issue, such as those concerning the prison campaign, which st arting with the 'Dirty Protest' culminated in the hunger strikes in the H-Blocks (see Figure 4.4). Many of these pamphlets are techn ically well-produced. There are, however, also less well produced sheets, often stencilled on low quality paper which are distribute d locally. Such things as the dates and times of protest meetings or marches together with either a plea for support, or an exp lanation of the need for action, would be printed on these. Another kind of information contained on the stencilled sheets would be local news. Such sheets were produced in great quantity during the period of 'Free Derry' when the Bogside was barricaded against th e police, army and local authorities, «»Barricade Bulletin«» and the information sheets produced by the Derry Citizens Defen ce committee and the Derry Citizens Action Committee were examples of these. The death of Lord Mountbatten in 1979 was an event which led to the production of a local newsheet in Derry. The sheet was a stencilled, typed statement of approximately twelve hundred words, was cheaply produced and contained many spelling mistakes. It is a fairl y good example of texts of its kind. It is focused around an event in the news but its coverage of this demonstrates the rationale a nd logic of the minority discourse. The sheet itself, produced cheaply and quickly, is distributed free within a fairly localised ar ea, and like most of its kind, although often produced in great numbers, disappears quickly with the passage of time. It is not inte nded to 'last', to be kept, like speech it is ephemeral. Often, normally even, such things are neither referenced, dated, nor signed . Mountbatten's death then led to the production of «»The Week that Was«». This newsheet outlines the need for an alternativ e press and in doing so notes the use and 'misuse' of language by the British media: 0   «IP10,10»'There have been several Catholics murdered in the last few months; never reported as sectarian. The reporting of thes e was contrived to cover by phrases like '«»motiveless killings«»' or '«»the victim was not a member of the security for ces«»'. The British media is very skilful in applying their system of weights and measures'.
(emphasis in original)  «IP0,0»  The use of British media, instead of merely 'media' clearly identifies the ethnic oppositions being presented. The bias of the Briti sh media is, later in the newsheet, 'sloganised' into the phrase 'discrimination in death': 0   «IP10,10»'Not all life in Northern Ireland is sacred. It depends on who takes it. If Protestant paramilitaries take it, it is unders tandable revenge, and if the British army or the SAS Figure 4.4 Ireland's 'other news' «IP0,0» Source: «»Voice for Withdrawal«», p 11«IP10,10»take it, 'it is a necessity', here we call it 'discrimination in death".  «IP0,0»  This 'discimination in death' still occurs within the British media according to Republican sources: 0   «IP10,10»'leaders in the INLA said they wanted to clear the air following what they called misrepresentation by the media of their p olicy ... ... They said the outrage when Catholics were killed in Northern Ireland was very low key compared to the outcry when Loyalists are attacked. The statement criticised the Royal Ulster Constabulary for allegedly concealing the truth about sectarian Loyalist killing s by using the stock-phrase that they were 'keeping an open mind' whenever a Catholic was murdered' («»Guardian«», 7th Sept ember 1982).  «IP0,0»«»The Week that Was«» continues: 0 «IP10,10»'The week will not be remembered because a 3,000 mob of Loyalist football supporters descended on Dundalk (Eire), very few of whom had football in mind. It was a mission of hate and the hate was ferociously exhibited by wrecking the town and seriously inj uring 35 Guardai'.  «IP0,0»  This passage highlights the sectarian, anti Loyalist nature of the discourse again through ethnicity. The opposition ofLoyalist mob and injured Guardai is not only a conflict between South and North—Eire and Northern Ireland but between Irish and British. The im age of the Guardai, the Eire police force, is worth comparing with that of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the next few sentences. 0   «IP10,10»'It might be well to remember that Catholics in the North especially Belfast (where they are in the minority) have been an object of that hate for more than fifty years. The same hate that was displayed in Derry, August 1969 with the help of the RUC'.

 «IP0,0»  The police of Northern Ireland are actively engaged in supporting Loyalist mobs. The Guardai and the RUC, both police forces, are in
this discourse very different entities. The authority of the discourse is not as within the official discourse a 'juridical stare' (Burton and Carlen, 1977). That is, the discourse is not speaking from a 'law and order' position, as a view of the police would be within the official discourse, rather the moral worth of the police is a factor explained within the ethnic discourse in which Irish
nationalism is significant—this finding will obviously be familiar to researchers in the field of, for example, race in London or Liverpool. West Indian views of the British police, are very often so different and raise so much disbelief and mistrust among memb
ers of the legal fraternity for precisely this reason. It is not in the above account, the legal but racial or ethnic considerations
which are paramount. The pathological hate of Loyalist football supporters at an away match in Dundalk becomes the agent of op pression of the Catholic population within the state of Northern Ireland, which has continued for 'more than fifty years'. This path ological hatred is backed up and reinforced by the state apparatus. The RUC as Protestants are part of the organised conspiracy agai nst Catholics. The newsheet then, is beginning to assemble a view of history, a mythology of the past. The events of 'Derry, August 1969' «»7«M DNM» need no elaboration in the text as they are 'common knowledge'. What happened was simply the 'same hate', as shown at the Dunda lk football match by the 'Loyalist mob' was directed, with the help and connivance of the RUC, towards the Catholic population of De rry. It is within this political genealogy that, as the first paragraph tells us, British soldiers are 'expendable'. That is, the Br itish government, in the war of oppression against Northern Irish Catholics, is prepared to sacrifice the lives of a few of their mi litary personnel. In a war soldiers are expendable. 0   «IP10,10»'The last week of August 1979, will be remembered almost as much as the first week of August 1969. Not because eighteen sol diers were killed by the IRA—Soldiers are expendable and since sixteen of them were from the ill-famed 2nd Parachute Regiment who shot fourteen innocent people on Bloody Sunday, the propaganda value of their death is limited'.  «IP0,0»  One can now add Bloody Sunday, to the events of Derry, August 1969 and the British army to the 'Loyalist mob' in the oppression of t he Catholic population. Further, within Republican discourse, those events are not 'civil disturbances' but graphic proof of th e war with Britain. The official discourse does not and cannot describe events in Northern Ireland as a war. The sheet continues by outlining two innocent Catholic victims of this war and then suggests that the official discourse blames the IRA for these deaths by
using a kind of perverse logic: 0   «IP10,10»'It will not be remembered because a Catholic father of ten was shot on his doorstep, or the other Catholic man named Malve nny shot in the shop where he worked. It has been admitted and broadcasted that these were sectarian killings to be seen in the ligh t of revenge. The reporting of these two killings was delivered with an air of acceptance and understanding of revenge; thereby excu sing the perpetrators and placing the onus of that too, on the IRA'. «»8«»

«IP0,0»   «IP4,0»The newsheet then, widens and expands on the conspiracy against Republicanism and Catholics in Northern Ireland:

'Nor will the week be remembered by the statement of one of Ulster's purveyors of hate, ie John Taylor, EMP. In that statem ent he told Protestant paramilitaries that if they feel forced to use violence, they should do so by bombing in the twenty-six count ies (Eire), and although there is a law against incitement we know that John Taylor will never come under the rigours of the law'.  «IP0,0»  John Taylor is making a distinction between Eire and Northern Ireland in his statement but the Republican discourse enjoins these tw o entities, thus Eire becomes 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland. The law in Northern Ireland, within the Republican discourse is not merely 'ineffectual', as discrimination laws are very often seen, but actively worsens the position of the Republican population. Th e text develops this point by suggesting that John Taylor is not the first nor the last to make such suggestions. There are man y Loyalist politicians whose 'tongues have pulled many a trigger and lit many a fuse'. The text then elaborates the implications of such statements for the Catholic population: 0   «IP10,10»'John Taylor's statement seems already to have given a new opening to that mysterious body calling itself the UFF. Mysterio us because nobody from such an organisation has ever been charged. Mysterious also because many of their victims are found close to British army posts. In one of the most recent reportings the killers would have had to pass two army check points to and from their mission, which was carried out within earshot of the army check point. The wide belief that the UFF is all part of their SAS involve ment is hardly surprising. The 200 death list of IRA suspects and supporters which the so called UFF presented to the press this wee k could only have come from the British army or the RUC and even if that threat is carried out, the killing of 200 Catholics will li ke all the others, fade into oblivion ...' «IP0,0»

It is the structure of the text that provides information as to the status of the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF). It is a 'mysterious body' which calls itself, that is, it is not really, but merely calls itself, the UFF. It is mysterious because nobody from such an organisation has ever been charged. 'Such an organisation' is a particular choice of words made which unlike a more direct possible form such as 'this organisation', suggests that no one has been charged because 'such an organisation does not exist'. The text is suggesting 'there is nobody from such an organisation', 'there is no such organisation'. The audience of this local newsheet will be familiar with the statement 'No British soldier has served a day in prison for killing Irish people in Northern Ireland'. This very statement is often used when discussing the law in Northern Ireland as merely another aspect of the war with the British. There is an unmentioned subject within the sentence 'mysterious because nobody ...  has ever been charged'; the British army. The next sentence makes this reference clear. 'The UFF are mysterious also because many of their victims are found close to the British army posts'. Having suggested that the UFF are not what they appear, that they are probably another body merely calling themselves the UFF, that they share at least one characteristic with another organisation—the unmentioned British Army—immunity from prosecution,the text then proceeds to further implicate the British army. Not only does the text mention the British army explicitly and at a critical moment that is, at the head of accusations surrounding the mystery of the UFF, but it states that 'victims are found close to British army posts'. The next sentence not only strengthens the implication of a connection between the UFF and the British army but states that the UFF are 'killers'. The next sentence links the UFF and the Special Air Service (SAS). It is 'hardly surprising' that this linkage takes place in the light of the 'evidence' presented previously. The text ends with 'proof' that such a connection is justifiable and justified. Given the nature of SAS operations, covert and undercover work for the most part, the 'mystery' of the UFF is resolved. The British army, the SAS, the 'killers', the UFF and even the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) are enjoined in a conspiracy against the Catholic people of Ireland. A conspiracy which once more reflects a policy of discrimination in death:

'and so the week that was will be remembered only because of the death of Lord Mountbatten. He was a royal—a life valued over a thousand British soldiers or a million Irishmen. His death has filled the newspapers and broadcasts every day. Previous interviews and tales of his exploits in the war were televised. These revealed him a charming but very ruthless man. The perfect qualifications for the leading diplomat and supreme commander combined, which indeed he was. Judging by his own words, he had little regard for the sanctity of life'.

There is a class and ethnic allusion in this text. A thousand British soldiers, a million Irishmen or one 'royal'. Irishmen's lives are less important to the British press than British soldiers but these soldiers are  not more valuable than one 'royal' within this discourse. The vast scale differences in the relative worth of each group or person is important. It underlines the strength of the accusation. This mixture of class discourse and ethnic discourse is used throughout the rest of the newsheet to discuss the death of Lord Mountbatten.

'In all the furore about Lord Mountbatten there was one death that was barely mentioned, that was the Englishman shot by the British army in mistake for an IRA man. It was announced that he was an employee of Buckingham Place, and that was the last that was heard of him ...'
'... Amidst the outcry there were tales of Lord Mountbatten's charm and his love for Ireland. He did not love Ireland: he enjoyed Ireland, and who wouldn't if they owned 2,000 acres of our beautiful country. He recognised and exploited the servility of some of the local natives who were beguiled by his charm, and in their naivete felt honoured by his patronage ...'
'... It never occurred to these people that he was chief advisor to the Queen of England, who decorated Col Wilford for his Bloody Sunday efforts and note that Wilford was the man that gave direct firing orders on that day which left us with fourteen dead and 26 wounded most of whom were shot in the back running blind from CS gas. He was also chief advisor to the British army and no doubt his experience of guerrilla warfare in the heady days of the British Empire made a contribution to the formulation of British army policy in Northern Ireland, which includes the covert operations of the SAS. Our eyes have witnessed the victims of the SAS. in Derry we see shot down in the streets, ... dying bodies ... too numerous to mention'.

These paragraphs of the above text are re-emphasising the class and ethnic implications of the official discourse. A single Englishman's death, when compared to that of Lord Mountbatten, is barely worth mentioning. Lord Mountbatten merely enjoyed, rather than loved Ireland. The use of 'our' country places Mountbatten on the outside of Ireland and Irishness. The final paragraph makes Mountbatten's enemy status explicit by according him an important position on the side of the enemy, in the war against the British. In this light then, Mountbatten cannot be regarded as a well-liked old soldier and loving grandfather, an innocent victim of IRA terrorism—the precise characterisation within the official discourse and the British media. Within the Republican discourse then, Mountbatten is a man, who may certainly have been a man of many parts, but was a ruthless soldier responsible for much of the killing of innocent people:

'The guilt of these atrocities cannot be erased from the life of Lord Mountbatten. He was a man of many parts, and wore each hat but impeccably, except one ...
The cap of the innocent old man. It just doesn't fit'.

The Mountbatten text is then, a clear example of the discursive struggle over Northern Ireland between Republican discourse and that of the British state. The dialogism of the statement about Mountbatten's innocence is worth noting. To suggest the cap of 'innocence' 'just doesn't fit' clearly implies an alternative discourse which suggests that it might, or does fit. This implied discourse is, equally clearly that of the British state. Mountbatten was old, retired, on holiday, he had children and family with him. All of these features understandable and coherent to Republican communities. It is crucial for the Republican statement then to disarticulate and re-articulate the 'meaning' of Mountbatten for its audience. The whole statement on the death of Mountbatten and the weeks 'other' news strives precisely for such re-articulations. The death of Mountbatten is, in the final instance, within Republican discourse, like all the week's other events, simply a feature of an ongoing war.
Nowhere is the discursive struggle in Northern Ireland more clearly illustrated than in the prisons and it is with an analysis of H-Block that this chapter will conclude. Here again a central feature of the discursive conflict is the dialogic heteroglossia, the interaction of two quite different discursive formations. The British government classifies the prisoners as criminals. The Republican discourse, therefore, must not only contradict this, but disarticulate the imputed criminality and pronounce the ultra-just, goodness, morality and Irishness of the prisoners.4.6  Summary: H-Block—The Struggle in the Prisons

'He has chosen death:
Refusing to eat or drink, that he may bring
Disgrace upon me; for there is a custom, that if a man
be wronged, or think that he is wronged, and starve
upon another's threshold til he die,
The common people for all time to come,
Will raise a heavy cry against that threshold,
Even though it be the King's' (Yeats).
'Any word of your husband Sadie?'
'In service darling, doing his bit for Ireland'
(Ruby in the Rain, BBC1, 24th November 1981).

The H-Blocks are the new blocks of the prison formally known by the British state as Long Kesh, now as the Maze. It is still known as Long Kesh by Republicans. The prison has eight blocks shaped in the letter H each capable of containing 200 prisoners. The bar joining the two stems of the H contains two classrooms and an administration office.      In March 1976 'special category status' was abolished. In June 1972 prisoners convicted of 'political' crimes, Republicans and Loyalists, had been given special category status, allowing them more visits, the right not to do prison work and certain other privileges over 'ordinary' prisoners. This status was withdrawn in March 1976. The H-Block protest began on 14th September 1976 when Keiran Nugent, the first person convicted  under the new regulations refused either to do prison work or wear prison clothes. His refusal began the 'blanket protest' and he was soon joined by other Republican, and some Loyalist prisoners. All Loyalist prisoners left the blanket protest in July 1978, By which time, in their view, the issue had become very much a Republican cause. Andy Tyrie, the Supreme Commander of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) reveals some of the particular ambivalences of the Loyalists in respect of the prison issue. Loyalists, like Republicans, want paramilitary prisoners to be regarded as 'special cases'. Tyrie, however, cannot allow from a Loyalist position, that the paramilitary activity is a war of national liberation—he is caught then, as Loyalist discourse often seems to be, in a situation of agreeing with (being able to speak from) neither the official discourse of the state nor the oppositional discourse of PIRA.      Q  'What is your attitude to the H-Block situation?'     Tyrie    'I think  the men in there sincerely believe in 6

      what they are fighting for, a United Ireland. I also have people in there  who sincerely believe what they're fighting for. The only difference is that one lot are trying to overthrow the state, while the other lot is trying to maintain it. They're a mirror image of one another. They are not criminals ...
We don't believe in political status; we certainly support special category status. After all, its special courts that try them, special laws, special prisons. They're special prisoners'
(Tyrie, interview with B Fitzpatrick, Crane Bag, 1980-81: 21).

The blanket protest was escalated in 1978 to the 'dirty' protest and subsequently to the hunger strikes of October 1980 and finally of March 1981 when the commanding officer of PIRA within the prison, Bobby Sands, began the hunger strike which was to see ten strikers dead and Northern Ireland as the centre of world attention 9.     There is some debate as to whether the 'dirty protest' was initiated by the Republican prisoners or the prison warders. The protest involved the refusal to 'slop-out' and the plastering of excrement on the walls of the H-block cells. Tim Pat Coogan in his well-researched account of the H-blocks comments,

'He (Nugent) violently disagreed with being branded as a criminal instead of a prisoner of war ... he refused to wear the prison clothes and embarked on the now familiar routine of surviving on a concrete floor from 7.30 am to 8.30 pm each day with no mattress, bed or reading material. His bible was removed after a period and the food deteriorated from the commencement of the protest. The only furniture in his cell was a chamber pot. With the benefit of hindsight it is obvious how symbolically and psychologically this article of furniture would take on a significance of its own as matters progressed.
Nugent also made a point which the other prisoners also corroborated—as have visitors to the prison—that the initial slopping of faeces and urine on the cells was done not by the prisoners but by the wardens. The routine was that a trolley came around with the food for the prisoners' meals, followed by another one for their slops. The routine was food in, slops out. But the prisoners claimed that what happened was that the wardens started returning the blanket men's pots half full, sometimes kicking them over the floors. So this, say the protesters, is why it became necessary to throw the faeces out of the window in the first place. Later it was daubed on the walls to get it off the floors where the men slept: 'We had to put it somewhere so it was better on the walls than on the floors" (Coogan, TP, 1980: 80).

Coogan's explanation is feasible enough, but the crucial point for this thesis is not whether the prisoners or the wardens started the protest, but what were the consequences of the protest and in what ways was the protest mobilised in, particularly the official discourse of the British state and in Republican discourse.
In Republican discourse the terrible state of affairs is inflicted on the prisoners by a barbaric invader. Thus an H-block pamphlet issued by Sinn Fein beings,

'More than 350 Irish
Republican political prisoners are today imprisoned by the British inside the H-Blocks of Long kesh in conditions which are not even fit for animals.
The unfortunate prisoners, who are kept totally naked (except for a blanket which they clutch around them) are locked in their cells 24 hours a day. Their cells contain nothing except damp mattresses upon which the bedraggled 'blanket men' lie surrounded by rotting mounds of maggot-infested filth, from which there rises a terrible stench.
Although people are increasingly aware of the blanket men's barbaric conditions, what is not so widely known nor understood, is exactly how their nightmarish plight came about and why it is that these men suffer such horrific treatment when only a few yards away, hundreds of their comrades have been granted political status and are held in normal prisoner-of-war type huts within compounds'
(Smash H-Block, Sinn Fein, 1979a: 1)

In the official discourse, however, it is the prisoners who are to blame for their situation,

'It is by their own decision that the protesting prisoners go on living in conditions which must be offensive to all civilised people. Nevertheless the government has always recognised a responsibility to minimise the risks to the prisoners' health resulting from their own actions. In pursuance of their objective and acknowledging the ECHR's 10 injunction that the requirement on the government to exercise their custodial authority to safeguard the health and well-being of all prisoners, including protesters, makes it necessary for the prison authorities to keep under constant review their reaction to recalcitrant prisoners engaged in a developing and protracted protest. The government has in the course of this year taken the following steps but with until very recently little or no response from these prisoners.
1  On  26 March the protesting prisoners who
4
by their failure to conform with prison rules have forfeited the privileges afforded to conforming prisoners were nevertheless offered exercise in sports gear, 3 letters in and out each month in addition to their statutory monthly letter, and 2 visits a month instead of 1.

2  Since the late  summer the protesting 4
prisoners have been offered:
(a)  an hour's physical exercise a week;
(b) one evening  association a week in      prison uniform;
(c)  access to books and newspapers (which
9
are available in the cell blocks but not taken) in the rooms where masses are held on Sundays;
4
(d)  'closed' visits  (ie in which the
9
prisoner is physically separated from his visitor) as an alternative to a body search;
4
(e)  compassionate home leave on the same
9
basis as conforming prisoners.

3  The cells  are steam cleaned by prison
4
staff every few days and repainted regularly.

4  The protesting prisoners have  never been
4
denied their daily hours exercise nor have they ever been denied access to toilets'

(H Atkins, Press Notice, Northern Ireland Information Service (NIIS), 24th October 1980: 2-3—first emphasis mine, second emphasis in original).

The prisoners then, according to the British state, chose freely—for whatever reason—to live in conditions not fit for animals.
Once againthen,  official discourse portrays the British state bending over backwards to do the right thing, frustrated by the recalcitrant Irish. The voluntarism given to the actions of the IRA by the official discourse is the subject of further discussion below. The press notice above was issued in response to the 'five demands' by the prisoners. The five demands were;

 

1   The right for the men to wear their own clothes2   The right to refrain from prison work3   The right to free association amongst political prisoners 4  The right  to organise their own recreation and education facilities and receive one visit, letter and parcel per week 5   Resoration of full remission of sentences
It was in order to try to force the British state to concede these five demands that the first hunger strike began in October 1980. Seven prisoners vowed to go on hunger strike to the death. The protest ended on 18th December 1980 amid some confusion over what had or had not been agreed 11. The National H-Block/Armagh Committee (NHAC) was formed in October 1979 and included representatives of the Relatives Action Committee (RAC), Sinn Fein, Irish Republican Socialist party (IRSP), People's Democracy, the Trade Union Campaign Against Repression, Women Against Imperialism and a variety of other smaller groups including the Peace People. (Kelley 1982: 317). The NHAC issued a statement which talked of the 'stubborn intransigence' of the British government. In a statement headed National Smash H-Block Committee—Hunger Strike Bulletin, the NHAC stated,

'The facts are that Britain cynically manipulated the situation on 18th December in a calculated act of political expediency. In order to defuse the situation they told the prisoners one thing, and the public another. To the prisoners, they said they were conceding 'the substance of their five demands'. They told the public there had been 'no concessions'
The prisoners while seeking to bring an end to the prison protest in a principled way, are not prepared to accept the hallmarks of Britain's 'criminalisation' policy.
... A statement from the prisoners on 4th February points out ...
'Our last hunger strikers were morally blackmailed by a number of people and politicians who called upon them to end their fast and allow the resolution of the protest. The hunger strike ended seven weeks ago and we have not heard from these people since'
Such people must now state publicly that Britain reneged on her agreement with the prisoners and that the responsibility for the new hunger strike rests squarely on the shoulders of the British government'
      (NHAC, march 1981—my emphasis)
According to the press release then,

'The decision by the prisoners to embark upon a new hunger strike has been forced upon them by Britain's refusal to implement its pre-Christmas agreement which satisfied the prisoners five demands' (NHAC, March 1981—my emphasis).

The second hunger strike was a period of intense conflict in Northern Ireland and attention on the Province from the media of the world produced severe public relations problems for the British state (see earlier comments at the end of the previous chapter). Even the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), a group who have made their opposition to PIRA quite open, declared a concern about the prison situation from a 'purely humanitarian point of view'.

'It is tragic that Paisleyism has produced its mirror image in the minority community. The aim in both cases is to impose by force the will of a tiny minority upon the rest of us. The method in both cases is violence and thuggery. The leaders of this rampant fascism will get the answer they deserve from the people—if they ever screw up the courage to face the people in an election
The SDLP does not accept that there is any political justification for the vicious campaign of murder being carried on by the Provisional IRA and other paramilitaries. However, the current protest being waged by the prisoners in 'H' Block has apparently led to serious infringement of their basic human rights as prisoners 12 and these conditions would need to be investigated. On this point it must be said that the British government's approach to the problem has been an extremely punitive one and often tinged with vindictiveness'

(SDLP Executive Committee Statement, 1979: 2-3). 13

The statement continues,

'The key to the situation in the 'H' block is the operation of the Emergency Provisions Act. There is serious public disquiet about the legal procedures established by that Act, and particularly about the interrogation methods sanctioned by it. The government cannot maintain such extraordinary and repressive legislation on the one hand, and yet maintain on the other hand that the present troubles are simply an escalation of criminality. While that contradictory attitude is maintained by the government, the status of prisoners convicted under the Act will continue to give rise to controversy. We have recently called publicly for the dismantling of the Emergency Provisions Act. We now repeat that call'

(SDLP Executive committee Statement, September 1979: 5).

This particular way of responding to the H-block issue was not uncommon outside of Ireland, particularly in America. It attempts to create a third position, somewhere in the middle of IRA and British intransigence by producing a continuum, then placing itself in the middle of the continuum. As a group committed to the parliamentary process, however, the SDLP must speak significantly within the official discourse of the British state. I am not for one moment suggesting that SDLP politicians do not speak as representatives of, or without knowledge of the Catholic community of Northern Ireland. Their position, however, in the political machinery of the state makes it impossible to consider what is at stake in the H-Block issue. It would be naive to suggest that the prisoners on hunger strike were starving themselves to death in order to improve the conditions of daily life for their colleagues. There are then, absent centres of the discourse. What is at stake is precisely the whole justification of the Republican (IRA) struggle and the legitimacy of the British action in Ireland. This is the reason, for example, that the concession by the British government for prisoners to wear civilian-type clothing—when the request was for civilian clothes—is no 'concession' at all. Had the matter been one simply of comfort, civilian-type clothing and civilian clothes would be indistinguishable.      Roy Ashbury (1987) in his article on the coverage of the funeral of Bobby Sands illustrates how the British press coverage of Northern Ireland, which may be considered a popular mediation of the official discourse of the British State, cannot discuss what is at stake in the hunger strike from the Republican position. Within the discourse of the British State, the IRA, the situation in Northern Ireland, the hungerstrike and the support for Sands can only be presented as a pathological conundrum. Ashbury's account of the front page of the Daily Star reflects this (1981). The central features of the front page are three photographs and the oppositional headings volunteer and victim (see Figure 4.5).      On 7th May 1981 the funeral of Robert Sands MP took place and on the same day Ian Paisley held a remembrance service for the 'victims' of 'the Troubles', that is, the Protestant victims of the IRA. Also on 7th May an RUC man, Philip Ellis was shot and killed. The Daily Star's reporting of 8th May shows how all these events amount to a certain ideological account of crucial political events in Northern Ireland, that is, an account of the discursive formation of Northern Ireland. An account which coincides with and reproduces a mediated version of the official discourse of the British state. Ashbury points out that the text constructs two key oppositions.
1   VOLUNTEER (Sands)     VICTIM (Ellis)
(deliberately starved (gunned down, quietly doing
himself to death, suicide)   his duty)

2   PUBLICITY      PRIVACY
(implying unjust attention)  (implying unjustly forgotten)(blaze of publicity,  (in private, Paula and her
50,000 marched)three children)

What the text shows depends on what it does not show, what it says on what it does not say. For example the construction of Sands as a 'terrorist' requires a silence about his personal history and how that fits into the discursive formation of Northern Ireland. To personalise the tragedy of Ellis, that is, to construct him as a victim requires the place of the RUC in that wider struggle to be deleted or denied. This central opposition is then, the happy smiling 'volunteer' (Sands photo, top right) and the serious faced 'victim' (Ellis, photo bottom left) 14. The central photo—dominated by masked military men (PIRA), in berets and camouflaged jackets and a coffin draped in the Irish tricolour—mediates textually and ideologically between the two, as a concretization of the problem of Northern Ireland as terrorist activity, exclusively. The Daily Star article constructs an explanation and connects the wilful pathology of Sands and his kind to the tragic consequences for Ellis and his kind.

Figure 4.5

The first paragraphs of the written text dispel any possible ambiguity:

'Trouble-torn Ulster wept for two of its lost sons yesterday.
One was Bobby Sands, the Provo-terrorist who deliberately starved himself to death in the Maze [note 15] prison.
The other was Philip Ellis, a 33 year old policeman killed by two high-velocity bullets as he quietly did his duty in a Belfast street' (Daily Star, 8th May 1987:1).

Ashbury details the characters in the plot:

Bobby Sands—He is classified as a VOLUNTEER. Ashbury rightly points out that this is a term also existing, but with rather different meanings, in Republican discourse. In the latter context it means 'Republican soldier' in the Daily Star's article it means a person who chooses to commit suicide. The Daily Star's usage thus permits the opposition with VICTIM—Ellis the policeman [16] who did not choose to die. Sands then deliberately chose to starve himself to death as, the British press were subsequently to suggest, did all the hunger strikers. No other agents bear any responsibility for the situation. This perverse desire is explained by the description terrorist which occurs in the same sentence. Terrorists within the official discourse and its form mediated by the press are 'perverse and pathological'.
It is finally mentioned on page three that Sands 'died ... after a ... hunger strike for political status' but this is immediately followed by 'he was serving 14 years for his second arms offence', which thus criminalises Sands and the struggle for political status in accord with the official discourse.

Figure 4.6A and B reproduced by Ashbury, 1981, C reproduced by Hickey, 1981

Sands, moreover, is never described as a 'former MP'. Contrary to the Guardian editorial on the announcement of Sands' election success (as MP for Fermanagh South-Tyrone) 'years of myth-making' (about the pathology of and lack of community support for, the IRA) did NOT ... 'go out of the window'. After announcing Sands' new-found status, it is forgotten. The extremist perverse IRA characterised in this text, in the media (and official discourse) generally cannot be related to being a Member of Parliament so R Sands MP becomes or at least remains 'Bobby Sands' (the IRA epitomised). The death of whom is merely yet another instance of mindless IRA violence.

Gerald Sands—As the son of Sands, Gerald becomes another 'raw material' of the text's discursive operation. The boy is foregrounded both linguistically and visually in a specific way. The mediating photo, (the central one on the front page), referred to earlier has the boy as a centre-piece, flanked by the PIRA soldiers on the left and the coffin and tricolour on the right. His position at the bottom of the frame emphasises his diminutiveness. Ashbury points out in his discussion that the angle from which the photograph in the Daily Star was taken also conceals the fact that he is holding the hand of Bobby Sands' sister Marcella who is almost completely hidden by the IRA soldier closest to Gerald. The caption,

'Little Gerald Sands, escorted by hooded IRA men, walks behind his father's coffin',

reinforces this visual reading. He is the central object and theme. The IRA are escorting him not the coffin. The lexical choices which follow in the text develop the theme; 'little', 'pathetic', Gerald is a 'pawn' in the IRA's cruel publicity stunt'. The photographs in Figure 4.6 demonstrate how different camera angles and cropping practices effect possible meanings for this photographic text.

Members of the IRA—They are 'hooded IRA men', 'IRA gunmen', 'the Provos', 'masked Provos' and 'hooded gunmen'. They are evil pathological criminals, their facial concealment (for 'security reasons') becomes a proof of their evil. It also enables a comparison with those who have no need to hide their face in shame, or those who have no desire to hide in cowardice, the security forces, both the British army and the RUC.
The Daily Star then, has drained the funeral of any positive human or political content.

The Mourners, blurred out of focus in the photograph are never described either as human beings, Catholics or Nationalists; they remain 'fifty thousand', 'thousands'. The text suggests—'conducted in a blaze of publicity', 'the Provos excelled'—that they were manipulated onto the streets. Sands committed suicide, and the IRA engineered the turn-out exploiting the little boy in the process.

All this is contrasted with and put in opposition to the death of Philip Ellis, the RUC man. He is constructed as the VICTIM. Instead of 'died on duty', one has what Ashbury terms the 'more morally purposive 'doing his duty', which he did 'quietly', that is, unobstrusively, not causing any offence. He is then, a victim because he had no choice in his death.

The mourning of his death is starkly contrasted with that of Sands. The Star reveals a small fatherless family grouping grieving, 'in private' (Ashbury notes that the 50,000 did not 'grieve'). Ellis then, was unjustly forgotten, his wife, introduced as 'Paula' is allowed to speak as an individual:

'All he (her husband) wanted to do was serve the community and end the fear on either side'.

Apart from the obvious ideological/political stance in this statement—the role of the RUC, the threat (of the IRA) to both 'sides' of 'the community'—this treatment of Paula gives her an individuality which must be contrasted starkly with the,

'blurred mass of mourners marching to Miltown cemetery to 'see Sands buried', as mere spectators' (Ashbury, Camerawork, No 23, December 1981).

The sadness of a bereaved wife is easy to understand. 50,000 people attending a funeral requires a context that is unexplained or unexplainable in this press account [17].

An analysis of a pamphlet issued by Sinn Fein, H-Block: The Conveyer Belt (1979b) will give some indication of what is 'missing' from the above account and demonstrate clearly the conflict between the British state and the Republican discourse, the former policing an emergency situation, the latter, engaged in a war of national liberation (see Figure 4.8).
The front cover of the H-block pamphlet explains both pictorially and verbally not only what this particular pamphlet's subject matter concerns, but also a whole series of intertextual

Figure 4.7
Calendar—H-Block, 1982 (Belfast: Sinn Fein)
Figure 4.8
Sinn Fein, 1979b

relations congruent with Republican discourse, The 'H-block Conveyer Belt' is not only the title of this particular pamphlet but a discursive centrality within Republican discourse, that is, the H-block as the final destination of a 'Conveyer belt system of justice'. The image is common in Republican literature. (For a further example see Figure 4.9). The title of the text, The H-Block Conveyer Belt, physically encapsulates the written and pictorial explanation of its content. 'The H-Block' is separated from 'Conveyer Belt' by both the written and pictorial statements.
The page then, consists of a title, which frames the text, a picture of the conveyer belt and a series of words which signpost the journey along the various stages of the conveyer belt. There are a number of separate articulations within the text all helping to construct the discursive reality the text implies. The title, the picture or the signposts (Castlereagh, Crumlin Road, Courts, H-Block) are clear enough on their own.  The text, however, gives the message a greater effectivity through allowing a series of connections to be made between picture, title and words. This feature is what media analysts refer to as redundancy. On this level there are at least eight separate articulations—picture, words, title, title plus words, words plus picture, title plus picture, picture plus words plus title, and finally the total effect of all these separate articulations.
The heteroglossic, thematic and interactional systems set up by the verbal and visual text are all directing the reader

Figure 4.9
The Heart of the Matter, Derry RAC, 1979: 4

towards a particular subjectivity in relation to the H-block issue. It is noteworthy that the figures on the conveyer belt seem as if they are coming towards the reader. The H-block as a conveyer belt is a central feature of Republican discourse, but the text does not merely rely on a discursive history, what Pecheux would call 'preconstructed' meanings, but this particular text works to produce within itself a justification of what it is saying, here Pecheux uses the term 'articulated meaning' [18]. Furthermore, such justifications are supported in more than one fashion.

The front page of this pamphlet then prepares its audience for what is to come. There are a series of sub-headings throughout the pamphlet which reiterate the connections made on the front cover. They are in thick bold print, separated from the text, they summarise and emphasise the contents of the text. The headings are:

The conveyer belt (is a) shuttle service (consisting of) torture centres, Internment by remand, arraignment, (and) Diplock Courts, (for instance the Michelle Booth Case). H-Block (is a ) policy of torture. Determination (is needed to achieve) political status now. (Sinn Fein, 1979b: 1—the actual headings are underlined)

 

It is the pamphlet itself, in the text, that explains the discursive location of the H-blocks:

'The H-Blocks at Long Kesh are not something isolated, existing on their own but are the end product of the British manipulated legal system geared to the needs of its War machine in the occupied Six Counties ...' (Sinn Fein, 1979b: 1).

There is an ideological coherence, a discursive regularity in the conveyer belt sequence; it is not as the official discourse portrays it 'due process of law' and all that that implies, it is rather an aspect of the struggle of the colonial war and the rights of nations to self-determination and all that that implies. The law in this case is 'merely' a means of justifying the imprisonment of Irish prisoners of war. The law sustains but is not the British imperial war machine. If the language used in this opening sentence is examined in more detail, one can see how this ideological element of the discursive strategy is constructed.

'The H-blocks at LONG KESH ... are not isolated ... they are the end product of BRITISH MANIPULATED legal system ... geared to the needs of its WAR MACHINE ... in the OCCUPIED ... SIX COUNTIES ...

The capital-lettered words all represent pre-constructed elements of the utterance, part of the thematic system of naming and relating. In everyday parlance they are 'loaded words' from the Republican vocabulary, the discourse implicits.

The H-Blocks must be at LONG KESH and all that that implies, otherwise they would be the 'H' Blocks of the MAZE and all that that implies. The name of the prison where the protest is occurring then is not simply part of a 'war of words', nor even simply the reflection of a differing ideological stance. It is an aspect of the discursive mechanism by which the text produces meaning, ideology. Catholic Republicans, and sometimes Loyalist paramilitary people, call the prison 'Long Kesh', the British government calls it the Maze. The former actually write H-Block whereas the latter write 'H' Block which refers to the shape of the cell blocks and is not an 'official name'. H-Block has come to symbolise, to connect discursively, a situation where the role of the British state is at least open to question. 'The H-blocks at Long Kesh' then has already connected two marked Republican elements and these are then related to others.
The use of British is a further marked or preconstructed element, given the location of the utterance. It is British THEM, the enemy, as opposed to IRISH, us, the people, the downtrodden. This kind of phenomenon is an example of the way in which words in the same language change their meaning depending on their discursive location. Foucault refers to this phenomenon as the 'rule of tactical polyvalence' (Foucault, 1976). British' is an interesting example because there is a related word which is extensively used and emphasises beyond doubt the two different, British state-Catholic Republican usages of 'British'. The enemy in Republican discourse, British soldiers, are called 'BRITS'. 'Brit' used in Northern Ireland is a derogatory explicit [19]. It is a derogatory reference to imperialist 'British Bulldog' image. The 'confusion' between British and English is also relevant here. This 'confusion' is very prevalent in the British Isles and has already been mentioned in connection with nationalist politics in Wales [21].
It is necessary and 'natural' that the BRITISH legal system will be MANIPULATED and furthermore that the conveyer belt system is one aspect of this manipulation, which is, in turn one aspect of the wider struggle. It is necessary that this manipulation be geared to a 'WAR MACHINE' because that is what 'BRITISH' refers to, an Imperial War Machine. The last few words give us the location of the action and in doing so support the already articulated claims. It is happening in the SIX COUNTIES—which are OCCUPIED  by the foreign, imperialist, Brits. The SIX COUNTIES is a Republican name for the province and therefore one, within this strategy, which must necessarily conceive of (it) them as being occupied.

Ulster, the north of Ireland, Northern Ireland, the Province, the Six Counties, the Statelet are all names by which the entity is known. 'Officially' it is termed 'Northern Ireland', the most Republican name is 'The Six Counties', referring to the fact that the six counties plus three more 'left out' at the Partition together comprise the nine counties of the ancient province of Ulster [22]. It is then referring to the 32 counties of Ireland, the whole island, its corollary being Eire/the 26 counties. A slightly less 'obvious' but nevertheless Republican name would be the north of Ireland, thus merely referring to a geographical entity—this has the 'inaccuracy' of also referring, however, to Donegal—which although the most northerly part of the island is in the South (Eire). Such 'confusions' are well-documented in books about Northern Ireland [23]. The important point to note, which is usually unstated or omitted, due to a failure to adequately theorise the discursive construction of reality, is that they are not merely different words; nor even different words reflecting different ideological positions but that in being placed in differing discourses they construct (sometimes radically) different subjects and 'mean' (sometimes radically) different things. This is a crucial point to grasp, especially given the strong hold on theorising that the concept of place./, as a non-discursive, has in social theory (see for example, the comments on ethnography at the beginning of the following chapter).

The rest of this H-Block pamphlet continues to explain in more detail the sequence of the conveyer belt. This somewhat different interpretation of the due process of law has a historical, coherent structure within the Catholic Republican strategy, a discursive regularity.

'The Republican Movement has struggled in the tradition of Theobald Wolf Tone to break the connection with England and to establish an Irish Republic' (Sinn Fein, 1979b: 3).

The continuity of the struggle, and thus the discursive coherence of the strategy, is expressed within a 'mythologised' past—a feature also common to the British state which has recourse to the history of the 'most democratic country in the world' with a 'sense of fair play' and greatness. (The reverse of the imperialist characteristics emphasised in Catholic Republican strategy).

Kieran Nugent, the first 'Blanket Man' states that:

'I achieved what I set out to do when I was put in—not to be classed as a criminal. The men's attitude (in Long Kesh) is the same as it was years ago and there will be no movement away from it. The Struggle./ will not be criminalised.
... We have let the world know that there is a war situation in the north of Ireland and that political prisoners are being held no matter what the Brits say'
(Nugent, Derry Journal./, 1979).

He is referring to an 800 year struggle and placing his actions, and the H-Block action within that struggle. The contemporary sequence of events within this '800 years of struggle' are clearly expressed in a statement by Bernadette McAliskey, formerly Devlin, on behalf of the 'National Smash H-Block Committee' (also known as the National H-block and Armagh Committee).

'In 1968 we asked for justice and paid for it with Bombay Street, which was burned to the ground by the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the 'B' Specials, and the Bogside, where an attempted RUC invasion was only resisted by popular uprising ...
In 1971 we resisted internment and paid for it with Bloody Sunday (when 14 unarmed civilians were shot dead by the British army) ...
Since 1976 we have demanded justice for our political prisoners and Bobby Sands has paid for it with his life'
(Mcaliskey, Socialist Worker./, 9th May 1981: 3)

The H-Block struggle, and the case of Bobby Sands in particular, illustrates some of the particular discursive features of the struggle for hegemony between these opposing strategies. It should already be clear then, that the whole basis of argument of each side is built on normally opposing implicits and histories. The simplest way to sum this up is to refer to the opposition—War/Emergency situation. The Provisional IRA is fighting a war, whilst the British government is dealing with an emergency situation. The discourse of the IRA then is one of war./—hence the use of POW, concentration camp, active service unit, brigade, army, legitimate target; political status./ must be seen in this light. Thus, the British government is involved in an 'emergency situation' and talks of 'policing criminals' and 'aiding the civil power'. This then is the very crux of the British government's 'Ulsterization/Criminalization' policy. This is the reason why 'political status' cannot be conceded. The reason why political status would be a 'licence to kill' (Guardian./, 6th June 1981). It is also the reason then why the blanket men are prepared to die for two words. It explains both the stubbornness of the British government and the 'intransigence of the IRA'. The battle in the prisons of Northern Ireland lies at the centre of the struggle for hegemony. (Remember as the British state has recourse to the international terrorist discourse, so does the IRA./, 'propaganda' in this sense then is international).

The Republican position is summed up thus:

'... To achieve their 'normality' the central tactic in the Brits' overall strategy of Ulsterization is that of Criminalization. To dub all those actively opposing Brit rule as 'criminals'.
This means denying Republican prisoners of war political status and covering-up internment with the legal fiction of 'normal' processes of 'law and order'.
Short-term internment is by 'remand in custody'.
Long-term internment is by a legalised conveyer belt transporting people from the streets of the six counties, through the signed confessions of Castlereagh, under the rubber-stamp of the Diplock Courts and into the Hell holes of Long Kesh'
(Republican News./, 22nd April 1978: IV).
'The Brits falsely assert that the 'nature' of the violence has changed since status was granted. But in fact all that has changed is Brit policy. Their policy of 'Ulsterization' ... involves 'criminalization' of Republican prisoners of war'
(Republican News./, 22nd April 1978: 1).

For the British government, however, there cannot be,

'one regime for those who claim a political motive for their crimes./ and another for those who do not'
(H Atkins, Press Notice, Northern Ireland Information Service (NIIS), 24 October 1980: 3—my emphasis).

Thus, in the official discourse,

'terrorists will carry their determination to disrupt society to any lengths. Once again we have a hunger strike at the Maze prison in the quest for what they call political status. There is no such thing as political murder, political bombing or political violence. There is only criminal murder, criminal bombing and criminal violence. We will not compromise this ... there will be no political status. Of course, those convicted of serious crimes./ and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment should serve their sentences in humane conditions. We will continue to maintain and, if we can, to improve the high standards, which Northern Ireland prisons already provide'
         (H Atkins, 1981).

The British government cannot concede political status because,

'The demand for 'political status' requires the government to concede the principle that those who have killed or wounded and destroyed property for what they claim are 'political' motives are not culpable in the way that murderers, arsonists and other violent men and women are ordinarily regarded as culpable by society.
The government will not and cannot make any concessions whatever on the principle of political status for prisoners who claim a political motive for their crimes. All have been convicted of criminal acts by due process of law./'
(H Atkins, Press Notice, NIIS, 24th October 1980: 1—emphasis in original0.

The total denial of any 'political' dimension is interesting if only for its extreme nature. Coming from a country which has recently fought two world wars, the Faulklands/Malvinas War, and has a fairly long 'battle record', invoked quite forcefully by M Thatcher in the recent general election campaign of June 1987, the statement about there being only 'criminal murder', 'criminal bombing' and 'criminal violence' might seem to need further explanation. The answer is, of course, that one does not 'murder' in a war, one kills the enemy, silences resistance and so forth. The British state in peace time uses legitimate force not violence (and this only when 'necessary'). the context of the utterance then, within the terrorist discourse of Northern Ireland gives it its coherence.
One only has 'wars' between legitimate political states. The discourse of the IRA then is precisely a discourse of war. Hence the talk of prisoners of war, legitimate targets, concentration camps, active service brigades and so forth. This is massively in contrast with the discourse of the British State which refuses a 'war' but admits an 'emergency situation'. It was the hunger strike campaign over political status which demonstrated, for those who did not already know, just how radically divergent these two understandings of the 'Northern Ireland Problem' were. Coogan illustrates one example of the consequences of this divergent reality. Coogan discusses the shooting of Governor Myles, the Governor of the prison, in 1978. Quoting Nugent, Coogan records,

'I remember Governor Myles', he said, 'We are going to break you' (the prisoners). He stood there shouting at me (Nugent). Gave me a slap in the face and then he stood back and watched the other wardens beat me up. When he was shot on 20th December 1978, that was a great morale booster. Nugent's view of this shooting was but one more graphic example of how differently the prisoners, and the IRA (and to an increasing degree now the prisoners' relatives and friends as the protest progresses) view the killing of wardens as compared with the shock and revulsion of the general public. Governor Myles had been on television a short while earlier and had expressed a humane and professional attitude towards the prisoners which had won him widespread respect' (Coogan, 1980: 81). ./24./

Coogan ends his commentary on Nugent and 'how it started' with a disturbing question,

'Nugent comes from a family of ten brothers and sisters. He hasn't slept at home once since being released after his three and a half years on the blanket. He has no chance of picking up a trade due to his activities and is banned from America and England which probably in effect means Australia and many other likely points of emigration. But he plans to get married later this year. One wonders what his children will be like by the time they are twenty-two, if the north of Ireland Problem is not ended by then' (Coogan, 1980: 83).

Footnotes to Chapter 4

1   Kearney notes the  importance of the 'Fianna' myth to the Republican movement, in name and inspiration. Na Fianna is the name of the junior wing of the PIRA.
2   For an  interesting and extended account of Ireland, women and Catholicism see Moral Monopoly: The Catholic church and Modern Irish Society./ (Inglis, 1987). Akin to this thesis what is examined in this work is a 'formation of competing discourses'.
3    I noted with interest that during the post-result speech of thanks in the 1987 general elections in Britain that Gerry Adams, John Hume and Ken Livingstone all failed to mention specifically the police in their speeches. It is customary to thank the election officials and the police. These three all performed this duty as required, but all without specifically mentioning the police. They used formulas such as 'Mr ... and all his staff and everyone else connected with the smooth running of the election'.
4   'The Mother'  was written just before his execution in 1916. Here he associates the mother of an Irish nationalist with the mother of Jesus at the foot of the cross (see Figure 4.2).
5    Caitlin in  Houlihan was a female figure in Irish mythology, representing the earth goddess Eire of pre-Christian Ireland. In many stories she appears disguised as an old woman and is magically transformed into a young and beautiful girl. W B Yeats celebrated her as a symbol of the Irish cause in a play of the same title produced during the Celtic Revival in 1902. In this version it is the act of blood sacrifice for the Irish cause which transforms the old woman into a young girl with the 'walk of a queen'.
6    The  important point here, is that certain discourses allow more movement than others in answering the question 'how much community support does the IRA have?' This thesis has already suggested that the British state's discourse can only allow a catholic community which is a terrorist and/or terrorised community.
7    CF The Battle of the Bogside./, Stetler, 1970.
8    In this light it  is interesting to note the following account of Mary Holland, after the Ballykelly bombing.
'One of the uglier lessons of Ballykelly, not least for the Provos, is that bombs still make more impact on British politicians than does political action.

There are other lessons which have not been lost on the two communities in Northern Ireland. The first is that British lives of British soldiers, still count for an awful lot more than Irish ones. Over and over again in Belfast last week, people wondered aloud if the reaction in Britain would have been the same if it had been 16 UDR men or even civilians who had been killed. The death toll at Ballykelly was particularly horrific, but before it happened 26 people had been killed in Northern Ireland in a little over two months, and their deaths had provoked no outraged demands from Tory MPs that Mr Prior abandon his present political initiative./ (Holland, 1982, 17-22nd December: 9).
9   Although  only PIRA is referred to here, the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) also had members taking part in the prison protest and three of the ten hunger strike deaths were INLA members. A number of female Republicans in Armagh jail were also involved in the prison protest.
10   ECHR refers to the European Commission for Human Rights.
11   Some of the  features of argument were quite subtle, for example, the IRA asked for 'civilian clothes', the British state offered 'civilian-type' clothing.
12   In the light  of the comments below about the normally 'marked' nature of H-block/'H' Block the usage here is interesting, as, of course, is the somewhat ironic comment on elections.
13   Consider for example, the following account published in New Society./.
Patrick wanted to be a teacher, but his education ended when, at 16, he was interned. He was held for nine months. A year after he was released, and four days after his eighteenth birthday, he was once again arrested. This time he was charged.
In a trial that lasted one and a half days, Patrick was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for alleged membership of the IRA, and possession of an Armalite rifle. No weapon was ever found on him or in his home, none was produced in court. Indeed, the police offered no evidence at all. They simply said that Patrick had verbally confessed to them during his three day interrogation.
Patrick is just one of the staggering percentage (the law department at Queen's University, Belfast, estimate it to be 80 per cent) who are convicted in the special 'Diplock' no-jury courts on the basis of statements alone—statements made by the police, or signed by prisoners, sometimes after days of questioning and even, allegedly, torture'
(Fairweather, 1981: 219).
14  Ashbury's sequence  volunteer/victim and private/public is replicated in many accounts of the official discourse. (see Robinson, Overleaf).
15   Note 'Maze' not 'Long Kesh'.
16   The significance, in Britain, of Ellis being referred to as a policeman./ rather than RUC./ man should be noted.
17  Ashbury (1987)  also notes in his article that Paisley's service, designed expressly to draw attention away from the funeral of Sands, is reported fairly uncritically. His view of Northern Ireland's problems as being solely due to the mindless IRA violence, to the evil men of the bomb and the bullet, coinciding closely with those of the Daily Star./, and one can add, once more, to Ashbury's comments, the official discourse and its concomitant populist version mediated by the British press.
18  Where this  analysis generally uses the scheme primarily outlined by Lemke (1984, 1985). Pecheux uses the terms intra and inter-discourse and the notion of preconstructed and articulated meanings.

'The term preconstructed./ refers to that part of an utterance which is anterior, exterior, and independent as opposed to that which is 'constructed' in its production'
'... Articulation./, as the ongoing movement of a discourse originates in the syntagmatization of the Transverse-discourse into the axis of 'intra-discourse".
(That is, it 'articulates' a meaning from combining with the pre-constructed elements).

'... intra-discourse thus being the functioning of the discourse in relation to itself' Pecheux, cited in Woods, 1977: 62-63).
If Pecheux's own example is changed slightly to illustrate:
'in view of the threat to democracy from terrorism, repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act would be criminal'./.
The statement has a coherent logic which is built internally. The logic of the first statement allows the latter, and together they are congruent, and thus reflect the history and intersection of previous discourses. As Pecheux remarks:

Source: Robinson, DUP, undated, pp 18-19

'No 'concrete' discourse is the product of single determinate conditions, that is, its production is always determined by inter-discourse (the 'complex whole-in-dominance' of discursive formations)' (Pecheux, cited in Woods, 1977: 680.
Although the Lemkean model is most useful, Pecheux's formulation reminds one of the necessity to relate./ the interactional and thematic and heteroglossic systems.
19   I myself as an Englishman living in Derry, was known in the DYCW as a 'pet Brit'.
20   It might  also be noted that this term is 'spreading' to other discourses in mainland U.K., firstly to leftist discussions of 'Brit Imperialism'—merely borrowing the reference from Northern Ireland and using it in a similar way—but lately, to things as diverse as sports coverage by BBC commentators. In this context, the 'original meaning' has been turned on its head to suggest 'We Great British'—thus completing the circle. Sometimes this 'borrowing' is a deliberate attempt to take over (appropriate) particular words or ideas. It is not necessarily limited merely to single or groups of words. The successful appropriation of enough key facets of a particular discourse may alter, even destroy a particular opposing strategy. The experience of governmental bilingualism in Wales has important contributions to suggest on this particular point (see Williams, G, 1981).
21  Again  see Williams, G, 1981. I should also mention an election poster issued by the Derry Relatives Action Committee in 1979. It wanted to persuade British voters to spoil their vote by putting an 'H' instead of an 'X' on their ballot as a protest about the prison situation. It was titled 'An appeal to the voters of Britain and Scotland./'. My own field work experience in Derry reveals a further subtlety. I was born in England, have an English accent, but came to Derry from a University in North Wales. I made no secret of any of these facts, yet was mostly known as a 'Welshman'. Anthropologists and ethnographers particularly should note that ethnicity is not necessarily a static or fixed category.
22   The ancient provinces  of Ireland were Ulster, Muster, Leinister and Connacht.
The province of Ulster consisted of Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Armagh, Down , Antrim and Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal. Modern 'Ulster' comprises only the first six of these counties. Provisional Sinn Fein in Dublin actually produced a one-page hand-out (undated) which gives a list of Republican vocabulary explaining the 6, 26 and 32 counties along with other terms such as Dail Eireann and Soarstat Eireann.
23   Such conflicts  over the politics of naming also apply of course to Londonderry/Derry. I discuss this in the following chapter. But one might note the commentary on this in the official guide-book published by Derry City Council and referred to by Darby (1976) who comments that the council booklet 'somewhat misleadingly says of Londonderry/Derry that 'both names are used freely". The important point here is that although Darby himself comments on this, and the multitude of names for the Province, along with most other writers, he cannot deduce the major importance of this fact because of his inadequate theory of language, power and the social.
24  I was in Derry when Airey Neave was killed by an INLA car bomb as he drove from the House of Commons garage. As this was announced on the news in the room I was in, a loud cheer went up and one person near me said 'that's one war-mongering bastard less'.

Freotopia

This page incorporates material from Garry Gillard's Freotopia website, that he started in 2014 and the contents of which he donated to Wikimedia Australia in 2024. The content was originally created on 31 July, 2014 and hosted at freotopia.org/people/alanmansfield/ch4.html (it was last updated on 27 March, 2021). The donated data is also preserved in the Internet Archive's collection.