Go on, guess who...
From the SF (apparently San Francisco and not Sinn Fein) Examiner:
Gerry Adams, the Irish reunification advocate and president of the Sinn Fein party, spoke at St. Anne’s Church in San Francisco on Saturday. Adams, a Northern Ireland native who survived an assassination attempt in 1984, is credited with playing a key role in ending "The Troubles," a period of social unrest that lasted from 1968 to 1998.
Having read the sanitised questions to our "Irish reunification advocate", I suspect the "Examiner" side of the title is not one taken too seriously by the journalists working there, although Gerry bravely does attempt a slight bit of (re)-education:
Do you think there are any misconceptions prevalent about Sinn Fein?
I can’t speak for sure, but I think some people believe that this conflict is based on religion, which it’s not. This is about freedom for Ireland, and we’ve made huge progress toward that goal
No idea who could be included in those "some people, but the fact that the "Irish reunification advocate" has been forced across to the US and is speaking the usual old nonsense to the usual old crew is the best possible refutation of the last part of that answer.
5 comments:
Thing is, if Adams had allowed that connection to wither he would have bbeen pillored by almost everyone; the accusatioon that would have been levelled is that the US connections matter sonly in war and not in peace. So from a Nationalist persepctive, I think it is important to keep thos elinks up - even if you don't like what he is saying.
The recent conference they organised in the US was also a good idea. That got speakers outside their normal boxes and tried to inject some new thinking in an arena where it won't prove too controversial. But some of those ideas will shift across the Atlantic.
Cynicism is too easy.
What ideas, really innovative ideas have you heard from this tour? The last summing up from Gerry I heard was that Twitter could be an importnat tool and the possibilities of having referendums at a council level in the US should be investigated.
And it's not that I dislike what he's saying; the rewriting or more accurately the brushing over of Adam's and SF's past still irritates, but not so much as before, I really think they are only now propagandising to the converted. Having looked at the list of particpants (AOH, Irish national caucus, Friends of Ireland) it all just seems a bit echo-chamber and pointless. But that's not for me to worry about I guess.
One plus point, his creative writing's getting much better though!
If this was simply an exercise in platidtides, why would they get a speaker that said:
Also speaking at the conference, Prof Brendan O’Leary from the University of Pennsylvania agreed there was no strong appetite in the period ahead to pursue a united Ireland in the South. A united Ireland was a possibility in the long run and had been built into the institutions of the agreement. However, growth in the nationalist vote in Northern Ireland had stabilised and it was unlikely there would be a nationalist majority in the next 30 years to vote for such unity, he said.
http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/it-is-hardly-the-moment-to-press-claims-to-the-north-which-we-have-renounce/
That is a direct challenge to people to stop and think about the issues and problems.
And again - it is important to maintain relationships int e US that have served them over many years. Even if that is simply "preaching to the converted".
"Also speaking at the conference, Prof Brendan O’Leary from the University of Pennsylvania agreed there was no strong appetite in the period ahead to pursue a united Ireland in the South...etc"
It's not a SF Ard Fheis, they don't get to vet people's speeches beforehand. It would have been interesting to have been a fly on the wall afterwards to see the reaction however. Re the relations with the core base in the US, I can see why it's important but that's internal (for fundraising etc) reasons. The truth is that nothing they would have said would convince me to change my political beliefs- however there hasn't been anything said or done by SF or any other advocates for UI for a long time which has made me stop in my tracks and think "there's a definite point that needs addressing there". If Unionism isn't not being challenged intellectually (beyond the usual sterile cultural and sectarian arguments), then there is no hope of SF persuading those people who really need convincing, those without a firm conviction either way .
It's not a SF Ard Fheis, they don't get to vet people's speeches beforehand.
But they do get to pick the speakers.
And before you challenge your opponents intellectually, you have to chakllenge yourself.
Do you see?
Post a Comment