Flawed premise belies `even-handed' claim
Making Sense of the Troubles
By David McKittrick and David McVea
The Blackstaff Press
£20 Hardback
For McKittrick and McVea, it seems that the key to Making Sense
of The Troubles, as they so optimistically put it, lies more or
less in an understanding of the conflict as essential tribal, a
simple case of two competing religious and national identities
with attendant rival claims on power and territory. For the
authors, this is no colonial war and indeed Britain is regarded
only as the ``third'' protagonist in the conflict, whose role is
presented as comparable to that of the Irish government, rather
than the primary cause from which all else springs. This
insistence on an elemental Protestant versus Catholic dialectic
is probably the book's greatest weakness.
There are others, however, the first being the book's structure.
Each chapter deals with an easily-digestible block of time,
beginning with 1921 until 1963 and thereafter decreasing to
discrete two-, three- or four-year periods up until 2000.
Granted, this does make the text more reader-friendly, but by
opting for this the authors have imposed an highly artificial
order on history which is not matched by reality. History,
particularly the history of Ireland, is not the perfectly
coherent, patterned narrative that McKittrick and McVea clearly
think it is - or would like it to be. This enforced tidiness has
a tendency to encourage clunking, laboured analogies bereft of
any useful observations or conclusions. For example, writing
about Terence O'Neill the authors observe that:
``By 1968 he had been in office for five years, yet his reform
proposals still seemed largely confined to the realms of
rhetoric. Nationalists debated whether he was a genuine reformer,
a cunningly disguised unreconstructed Unionist of the old sort,
or perhaps a well-intentioned man who was simply not in control
of his own party. Many Catholics saw O'Neillism as a distinctly
conditional advance in that at its heart lay an attempt to give
the Unionist party a more accommodating aspect without affecting
its hold on power.''
Oooh, just like David Trimble, we are no doubt meant to think.
And there is much more in a similar vein. But having thrown up
the similarities, the authors then leave the reader to wonder
what they actually make of a Unionist leader who behaves much
like his predecessor did almost half a century ago.
I suspect this lack of expansion is probably a conscious one,
since their own view is presented as entirely impartial -
``even-handed'' is the phrase they use themselves - but as a
journalist McKittrick in particular really ought to know that no
view is ever neutral or ideology-free; as Terry Eagleton once
observed, arguing as much only proves that another sort of
ideology is in play. And anyway, historiography without ideology
is simply chronicle; a list of dates and events which does not
inquire into causes or arrive at some kind of conclusion which
can be argued over by those of varying viewpoints is of very
limited interest. A truly neutral account of history is likely to
be extremely dull; we do not want to just know when, we want to
know why.
For all its faults, this is not a dull book, but in calling their
own view of the conflict neutral the authors are in danger of
placing themselves in the company of the ideologues of the
British state who, of course, are equally inclined to claim
even-handedness. Not pro-union but pro-choice. Yeah, right.
McKittrick and McVea do not question Britain s right to be in
Ireland and in not doing so they are adopting a specific
political agenda whether they care to acknowledge it or not.
The other serious flaw - and major irritation - is their
insistence that for those engaged, on all sides, of the conflict,
everything was and is a matter of ``perception''; Catholics only
``perceived'' themselves as profoundly disadvantaged; Unionists
``saw'' themselves as in danger of abandonment by Britain. Thus the
chapter dealing with 1980-1981 says that the tactic of hunger
strike had a ``chequered but revered place in republican history,
being regarded as close to the ultimate in self-sacrifice and
possible martyrdom''. Regarded? This comment is closely followed
by the statement that Margaret Thatcher saw ``the prison
confrontation as one between good and evil, democracy and
terrorism''. The authors choose not explore these diametrically
opposed views. No explanation is offered for why hunger strikes
are regarded in the way they are, nor do the authors mount any
sort of challenge to Thatcher's perception of herself as ``good''.
As it happens republicans also regard the prison struggle as a
confrontation between good and evil, democracy and terrorism, but
McKittrick and McVea are not interested in that particular
perception.
Further, this perception-theory is arrogant; it implies whilst
those most directly involved are mired in their own inability to
see the woods for the trees, the authors are able to rise
effortlessly above the mess and are possessed of some special
ability to see an objective truth to which others remain
pitifully blind.
Finally - and this may seem like a minor point - but there is the
question of academic or editorial laziness. The text does not
have accompanying notes on sources and newspaper quotes in
particular are almost always unattributed. Given the massively
differing political agendas of most of them, knowing which paper
says what is extremely important in evaluating what it has to say
about a given situation and, again, McKittrick should know this
better than most.
BY FERN LANE
Repelling the Yankees
Playa Girón: Bay of Pigs - Washington's first military defeat in
the Americas
By Fidel Castro and José Ramón Fernández,
New York: Pathfinder Press, 2001
£13.00
During Clinton's presidency, many in Ireland found it possible to
ignore the murderous nature of US foreign policy, despite its
glaring imperialist interventions, whether it be in Palestine,
the Balkans, East Timor, Iraq, Colombia or wherever. With George
W. Bush now resident in the White House, such duplicity is going
to be far more difficult, if only because of the crass nature of
his statements and actions.
Of course, there is one aspect of US foreign policy that has been
unchanging - its continuing attempt to destroy the Cuban
Revolution. Despite what is commonly believed, US aggression
towards Cuba intensified during the Clinton presidency, with the
40-year-old economic blockade tightened considerably. And yet,
the Cuban Revolution continues to defy all those who have been
predicting (hoping for) its downfall for well over three decades.
The accepted wisdom is that once Fidel Castro stands down the US
will move to exploit the expected political hiatus and the
Revolution will fall apart. One option that will already be
planned for is military invasion. If so, Bush's lackeys would be
well advised to read this book, Playa Girón, about the last time
such a move was attempted.
A varied collection of speeches, communiqués and testimonies from
the time, by those such as Fidel Castro and Ché Guevara, are
presented. These well catch the knife-edged political tension and
subsequent triumph of the momentous days in April 1961. Using
fascinating military maps, photographs and a full chronology of
the time, the book provides previously unpublished details
surrounding the CIA-backed invasion and the subsequent defeat of
the 1,500 US mercenaries at the Bay of Pigs.
The testimony to the People's Court in Havana two years ago by
José Ramón Fernández, who commanded the main column that repelled
the invaders and who is now Vice-President of the Cuban Council
of Ministers, forms the core of the book. It is here that one
gets a real feel for the bravery and conviction of the
revolutionary Cuban forces, and their willingness to defend the
socialist principles of the Revolution at any cost. As a result,
and as Fidel Castro said at the time, ``Yankee imperialism
suffered its first defeat in the Americas''. Is the Bush
administration stupid enough to let history repeat itself?
In a world of continuing US imperialism, dressed up as free-trade
globalisation, the Cuban Revolution is a unique and shining
example of socialist development. It needs to be defended by all
Irish socialist republicans. This book provides invaluable
inspiration.
BY DOUGLAS HAMILTON
Nutters at sea
A Voyage for Madmen
By Peter Nichols
Profile Books,
Hb £16.99
My editor dishes out books to be reviewed as he sees fit. There
is usually some sense to who gets what book to review. You can
usually see what his thought processes were at the time of
dishing out the book.
That was until he handed me this book about Nutters at sea. The
thing is I've never been at sea..... When I opened the book I
KNEW I wouldn't like reviewing this book, but not for the first
time, I was wrong.
Nonetheless, I doubt many of ye will want to buy this book, as
it's probably got a fairly narrow appeal to the sailing set. It
tells the tale of nine men who set out to race around the world
under sail as the USA were about to beat the USSR to land a man
on the moon. In an age before GPS and mobile phones this was
probably the last adventure of navigation on the planet.
In what became known as the Golden Globe Race, there were nine
competitors.
John Ridgway, British Army Captain.
Chay Blyth, Ridgway's transatlantic rowing partner-former British
Army sergeant.
Robin Knox-Johnston, British Merchant Marine Captain.
Bernard Moitessier, a French sailor-author.
Loick Fougeron, another Frenchman -a friend of Moitessier..
Bill King, a former British Navy submarine commander.
Nigel Tetley, a British navy Lieutenant commander.
Alex Carozzo, an Italian who had previously sailed alone across
the Pacific.
The final name on the list was the one that would define this
race. He was Donald Crowhurst, a 36-year-old English electronics
engineer. He would set out in his 40-foot ketch-rigged plywood
trimaran. This vessel would eventually be boarded by crew from
the Royal Mail vessel Picardy roughly in the middle of the
Atlantic. The craft was deserted. Crowhurst's body was never
found. At the time he was winning the race.
Robin Knox-Johnston became the default winner with the best time.
He donated his prize to the widow of Crowhurst.
This race couldn't happen today. A wristwatch device can tell you
where you are on the planet to within a few metres. These guys -
although I have a natural aversion to their British military
background - were the real deal. They were the last of a breed.
We won't see their likes again until someone starts a race to
Alpha Centauri. When that happens, you'll need people with the
mettle of these guys.
Had any of them been born in the Creggan or the Short Strand they
might well have embarked on a different type of arduous journey.
MICK DERRIG