Humanities desk
< October 7	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 8

Gun fights between members of the Provisional IRA and loyalist paramilitaries

Did the republican and the loyalist paramilitaries ever fight a direct gun fight or something resembling a regular battle? --Belchman (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See Battle_of_St_Matthew's. Quest09 (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Protestants and Scotland

Why do Protestants living in Northern Ireland fanatically self-identify as British while separatism in their mother country Scotland is so popular? --Belchman (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"fanatically" is a matter of opinion. They identify as British because they are indeed British and agree that this is the right status quo, with Northern Ireland being a part of the UK. Otherwise they will call themselves Irish.

Separatism might be popular or not depending on how violent you are. People sympathize more with non-violent separatists. Quest09 (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I used the wrong word. Probably "fiercely" would be more appropriate. I meant that they're apparently very proud of their British identity. --Belchman (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a mistake to think that Presbyterians in Ireland were always Unionists or supporters of the (Episcopalian) Protestant Ascendancy. The Society of United Irishmen article would be worth reading in this regard. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an English Briton, it seems from this side of the water as though the Ulster Unionists cling to their British identity as a way of preventing themselves from being sidelined in a mainly Catholic and republican (ie anti-monarchist) island. To us, they seem to act in a very un-British way - marching through the streets under a forest of Union Jacks behind a fife and drum band is something that few English people would do. It is also astonishing to me that anyone calling themselves a Loyalist would consider throwing bricks at the Queen's police officers, but that has happened with depressing regularity during the Ulster "marching season". If there was an easy answer to the Irish conundrum, I expect it would have been found by now. Alansplodge (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a descendant of Irish Catholic immigrants in Liverpool (because we colonized them back!) the problems in Ireland have always been of interest to me. Alan's comment of this behaviour being very 'un-British', though, is slightly incorrect, as I have memories of my 1970s childhood, when we still had the Orange marches here in Liverpool (which we still do very occasionally), and my grandfather (ex-seargent major in his adopted country's army, and who fought in El-Alamein and Italy) plowing into the marching men and women with a big stick, along with hundreds of others. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's really interesting. I knew that the Orange Order was a big thing in Glasgow, but it's completely alien to us here in the south. In the 1990s I was staying in a bed-and-breakfast in Fort William and was given a lecture by a Glaswegian on how he hoped Manchester United woulldn't win the FA Cup because apparently they're a Catholic team. I was astonished that any football club in England would have a religious affiliation or that anyone would care. It makes no sense. Alansplodge (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everton FC and Liverpool FC were originally catholic and protestant, respectively. Everton supporters were (and mostly still are) Catholic, and Liverpool supporters were originally protestant. We have Catholic and Protestant schools here in Liverpool (and suburbs) - some of them right opposite each other, leading to massive brawls at home-time when we were kids, and in my early years I remember even having whole areas of suburbs being designated as 'proddie' (i.e. protestant) and were therefore no-go areas for us catholics. This was the 1970s, though. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first I've heard of any sectarian divide in football in Liverpool and I never detected any such issues when I lived in the city in the 1980s. Neither History of Liverpool F.C. nor History of Everton F.C. mention it either. Astronaut (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reference for it: "During the 1950s and 1960s Everton were coined as the Catholic club mainly as a result of successful Irish players Tommy Eglington, Peter Farrell and Jimmy O'Neill as well as manager Johnny Carey. This in turn caused Liverpool to be thought of as Protestant club, not signing an Irish Catholic until Ronnie Whelan in 1979. However, it should be noted that this notional divide was never seen as a basis for supporting a certain side as is the case with Celtic and Rangers. In truth both teams have strong support from all denominations as well as many fans from Presbyterian North Wales and Catholic Ireland. Most importantly, the actual clubs themselves did not act to strengthen sectarian divides and in fact both clubs stem from a Methodist origin." Alansplodge (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the OP get a copy of Dervla Murphy's excellent book A PLace Apart which she wrote after cycling around Northern Ireland in 1976 and 1977, and exploring the mentality of the locals. Her keen insights into the loyalist mindset and his/her wish to maintain his British identity is worth reading. Remember that the religious issues in Northern Ireland stem from the Draconian Penal Laws enacted by the English following William III's victory at the Battle of the Boyne and the subtle theocracy of the Catholic Church in Ireland. Both Catholics and Protestants in Ulster are reared on their own particular myths. I went to a party held by loyalists in a prosperous area in south Belfast and one drunken woman began lamenting about "the days of the Empire". That says a lot regarding the loyalist mindset.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a fair amount of confusion in these posts between "British" and "English". Although there may be some residual remnants of Protestant - Catholic sectarianism in Liverpool, elsewhere in England that simply no longer exists, so far as I'm aware. The overwhelming majority of English people have no interest in religion, and those that do have no interest in differentiation by denomination. But it certainly exists in Glasgow, and I suspect across wider areas of Scotland. As has been said, Northern Ireland was mainly colonised by Scots - who, if you look at a map, are just a few miles away - rather than by the English. Why, then, is the Ulster Protestant sentiment related to "Britain", rather than to Scotland? What would happen if Scotland became independent of England? Would Ulster Protestants then want to associate themselves with England rather than Scotland - and, if so, why? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a settlement from England, under the Earl Fitzwilliam, who took workers from his estates in West Yorkshire. At a guess, people descended from this settlement would wish to associate themselves with England - although if Yorkshire ever gained its independence, they might wish to go back to their real roots... --TammyMoet (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there were plenty of English settlements in Ulster, not to mention Cromwell's men who were given land as a reward for their (God-guided) military prowess, and many Protestants from Dublin who moved North following partition (these were mainly English). And let us not overlook the many English soldiers who remained in Northern Ireland and married Ulster women. Another thing; if one takes a look at the bios of these loyalists one can see the many connections Northern Ireland Protestants have with England: Billy Wright (loyalist) (born in Wolverhampton of Northern Irish parents; Davy Fogel, a Londoner and former British soldier who settled in Belfast; Gusty Spence English dad; Michael Stone (loyalist), allegedly born in England. The Orange Order was founded by the Anglican Church, not Presbyterian, as a means of uniting all Protestanst in Ulster against the Catholics. Another point: the enthusiastic flag-waving and church-going Ulstermen of today would not have been out of place in pre-war England, and whilst religion is no longer important to the average English person it sure as hell was before. After all, the UK is one of the few nations whose anthem contains the word "God". Like Voltaire said, England is the nation of one sauce and a hundred religions.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right in what you say Jeanne; my point is that behaving in a way that was abandoned 70 years ago (or more) in the rest of the country is not easily defensible, especially when the rest of the country is paying the bills for them to do it. Apologies for the rant; I'll take a deep breath now... Alansplodge (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I suggested that the OP get a copy of Dervla Murphy's book as she brings up your sentiments in her book. Many British soldiers in fact had felt outraged at the way the loyalists were using the Union Jack. On the other hand, once the PIRA started killing British soldiers, to avoid having to fight two battling paramiltary groups, many British soldiers had no choice but to take the side of the loyalists (or to make it appear that way). I always had a lot of sympathy for the British soldiers caught in the Ulster muddle. They were always friendly and polite to me whenever I went up North.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was in Manchester city centre on Saturday, three weeks ago, and was walking up Cross Street when I was rather surprised to come across a godawful racket which turned out to be an Orange Order march coming the other way with lots of pipes and drums. Most of the banners seemed to refer to lodges in Scotland, and a few from Liverpool and possibly one from Preston (though it may have been Prestonpans, depending on how the banner fell). In 53 years living in this country, it's the first time I've come across the Orange Order in the flesh. The local reaction seemed to be curiosity, combined with some annoyance that they were stopping people from crossing the street to Marks and Spencer for ten minutes on a Saturday afternoon! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's wrong to say that Unionists oppose devolution or decentralisation. They don't want to be part of a united Ireland and prefer to remain in the UK, but are happy to have control over their own land. Many Ulster Unionists have always supported devolution, providing it was on their terms: from the 1920s until the imposition of direct rule in 1972, Northern Ireland was run by a devolved Unionist-led government, and around the time of the Good Friday Agreement the then-dominant Ulster Unionist Party was keen on devolution. The DUP, now the main Unionist party, has also come to see the advantages.

Similarly, while Scots want some control over their own country, most do not want independence. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article may be of interest: Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to a comment at the top — not all Presbyterians in Northern Ireland, even in the present day, are pro-British or anti-British. The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland has always maintained, to the present day, a strict neutrality on the issue; in the past, it was because it dissented from the government, and today it's quite simply a practical way to avoid intentionally being targeted by militants on either side. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_Provisional_ Irish Republican Army

Why is the Provisional IRA called "Provisional"? The article on the PIRA says something about a "Provisional" Army Council but other than that, what's the reason? --Belchman (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original IRA broke up in 1969; the group that followed the original leadership became the Official Irish Republican Army, while the other group had to "scrape together" a leadership council, so became the "Provisional" IRA. The "Official" and "Provisional" appellations were originally rejected by both groups, who both considered themselves the legitimate successors to the original Irish Republican Army (1922–1969), they both just called themselves the "IRA". Historians and media came to differentiate the groups between those that remained with the original leadership and ideology (The Officials) and those that formed from the new leadership (The Provisionals). You can get the sense of this history at all three articles. --Jayron32 00:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "official" IRA from the 1920s ended up becoming pretty much a minor Trotskyite faction, without any real interest or capability in extralegal activities, so those who wanted a more actively confrontational grouping had to form their own organization. Nowadays we have the "Real IRA"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference between the Officials and the Provisionals is that the former were overtly Marxist and sought a political solution whereas the Provos modus operandi was to conduct a military campaign with the aim of ending partition on the island of Ireland, British occupation in Northern Ireland, and to establish a 32-county socialist republic based on the 1916 proclamation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Officials never turned Trotskyists. Rather they landed quite close to the CPSU line. The differences between the Officials (Workers Party) and the CPI is a quite interesting tale, as CPI was more supportive of the Provos. --Soman (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]