Periscope


Home Page > Blogs > News blogs > Periscope > Bobby Sands death was moment when all changed in Northern Ireland -- Turning point for ‘The Troubles’ reached 31 years ago this week
Periscope by Niall O'Dowd

Bobby Sands death was moment when all changed in Northern Ireland -- Turning point for ‘The Troubles’ reached 31 years ago this week

Posted on Sunday, May 06, 2012 at 08:57 AM
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail
comment on article 199 Comments
 

RSS


Recent Posts

Archives

submit to reddit

 


It was 31 years ago yesterday that Bobby Sands died on hunger strike in Northern Ireland.

I was living in San Francisco at the time, 6,000 miles from Ireland, but the anger was palpable among the Irish American community there.

We gathered outside the British consulate as a group walked behind a mock coffin chanting “Bobby Sands MP” in recognition that he had been an elected member of the British parliament.

In retrospect letting Bobby Sands die was one of the greatest mistakes the British made in the history of Northern Ireland.

His election before he died to the House of Commons showed the Sinn Fein leadership, still very much the junior partner to the IRA in 1981, that politics could actually work and bring tens of thousands out onto the streets and into polling booths.

Sinn Fein learned well and the political evolution began on that May night that the death of Sands was announced.

I for one, considered that the Sands death was a turning point in my beliefs.

Up to that point I had little time for the IRA, believing that the frequent atrocities and bombings were totally counterproductive in terms of building worldwide support for a united Ireland. John Hume’s “agreed Ireland” seemed a better concept.

I would not have been caught dead at an IRA man’s mock coffin demonstration outside a British consulate before Bobby Sands.

I saw many others like me on that night, people who had a deep ambivalence about the situation in Northern Ireland but who were utterly inflamed and upset at what Margaret Thatcher had just allowed to happen.

From Sands' death on, Sinn Fein began to take more and more prominence in the republican debate.

It is a long haul but there is a direct line from there to the peace process and the ultimate entry of Sinn Fein into shared power in Northern Ireland, an idea that would have been inconceivable that May evening 31 years ago.

But it happened, and the stage was set with the death of Bobby Sands.

As Yeats remarked, “all changed, changed utterly” from that point on.

 


print this article Print
email this articleE-mail

199 comments

Next Previous Page 2 of 14 pages
sirpeter | May 22, 2012, 07:59 PM EDT
Dano.Like the Native Americans every treaty signed by the Irish people was coercion due to the threat of war or the escalation of war or to ease violence in Ireland.The vast majority of any society are Uncle Toms because they would rather live with peace and injustice than fight and be free.Republican ideals were never rejected by the Irish people,but people fear violence against a superior power.Republican ideals are alive and well as can be seen by the rise of Sinn Fein.See Dano there still is a campaign for a United Ireland.It's just ballot box time again.When reunification comes and it will eventually.Because it makes economic sense.I don't believe the hardline loyalists will be strong enough to take up arms.They have too small an area and no support outside Ireland.They won't have the British army either.In saying that each loyalist who didn't sign up to the GFA can give it their best shot if they morally believe they are right.At least the paramilitaries in NI make an individual,informed moral choice to resist using violence or not as the case may be.Can the same be said of a conventional army?How can it be moral to draft a person for war or coerce that person to kill using lies as in the case of a million dead Iraqis.When a rich and powerful country use violence and lies to achieve their aims,thats fine.When the peasants get uppity they are terrorists,thugs,troublemakers,zealots,murders ect.Why? Just because the rich and powerful didn't give them the go ahead.And here we are again forced to sign a the fiscal treaty while our backs are against the wall under threat of financial doom for the country.I'm no Uncle Tom and I will be voting NO!!Because I didn't like the Irish no vote been ignored by Europe in the Lisbon treaty.Dano I'll fight.You can stay at home and mind the kids. ;))

Report abuse

seanomelb | May 22, 2012, 05:56 PM EDT
Dano there is nothing I can add to Sirpeter,s dissertation except to repeat you're anti Irish and use a puerile "tit for tat" styled argument to "weaken" your argument.Your like a child!! my gun is bigger than your gun!!your oppression is better than my oppression!!LOL

Report abuse

cynicus | May 22, 2012, 03:19 PM EDT
Sirpeter talks a lot of rot! I note he emulates the British practise of creating a 'Sir.' Is this for self-aggrandisement or to impress the 'troops?' Would his 'unsavoury instances' include the murder of women and children and the burying of murder victims in a bog? Or the murder of comrades on the false word of a British spy high up in the IRA ranks? A spy that is now as free as a bird? Or bombing two young boys to death? This sort of brutal fanaticism is the usual reason for dastardly deeds and unspeakable cruelty - all in the name of 'freeing Ireland.' Which freedom never happens, no matter what amount of murder is carried out. Ireland needs to be freed alright - especially from the hate-filled and bitter dinosaurs who still advocate murder in the name of Ireland. Your day has come and gone; the good people of Ireland do not care a fig for all the old bull***t that led to pointless murder and mayhem. Time to get over the old bitterness and get real. See how Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have grown up and accepted reality. A bit late, I admit, but that's the way with slow learners.

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | May 22, 2012, 12:27 PM EDT
Sirpete – Your rationale ‘if only one person wants to continue’ means that all future actions by these self-appointed ‘keepers of the republican flame’ are legitimised…this is despite the signing of the original treaty, the GFA and the fact that most Irishmen have rejected republican zealotry at all times since 1921… … de Valera, as elected head of Ireland, came down very hard on the wartime collaborationist IRA…the ending of sectarian unionist Stormont hegemony was the time to push for reunification, backed by a peaceful democratic pan-Irish campaign… Pushing any government worthy of the name to have its citizens coerced by the actions of unelected, unrepresentative minorities, no matter who or what they claim to represent was totally counterproductive… and the stark truth is that all the ‘so-called’ republican ‘campaigns’ have driven the two parts of Ireland further apart than any unionist could dream of…a legacy that will increasingly become apparent, even to the most fundamentalist of ‘so-called’ republican apologists

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | May 22, 2012, 12:21 PM EDT
Seano – It was a simple question…but you declined to give a straight answer…like many ‘so-called’ republicans, you have no problem with attacks on unionists, but can’t accept the consequences of those attacks…

Report abuse

chicksooze | May 22, 2012, 11:24 AM EDT
sirpeter has it right. abhainn, Irish Patriots hold Bobby Sands in high esteem as they should. He was a true Patriot/freedom fighter and stood up for what he believed in to the death. Thatcher was an evil **** for allowing him to die, so to hell with you.

Report abuse

seamus60 | May 22, 2012, 10:27 AM EDT
Well said sir Peter.

Report abuse

seamus60 | May 22, 2012, 10:00 AM EDT
Abhainn. Dresdon people will be glad to hear your first point. I will agree that the human bomb tactic used with Patsy Gillispie as the victim was orchastrated by brit intel and those within the RA who wanted the people to expess not in their name. As for cowards, is that what it takes to starve oneself to death for a belief ?

Report abuse

abhainn | May 22, 2012, 09:39 AM EDT
Seamus60, you must be easily confused because the easy distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists is that freedom fighters do not indiscriminately murder innocent civilian bystanders with bombs, nor do they deliberately target innocent civilians to strike fear and conformity into the community, nor do they force innocent drivers to convey massive bombs in their cars to army border checkpoints, and then detonate those bombs. The list of examples of evil IRA murderous thuggery stretches endlessly over more than 30 years; it is a litany of shame and horror. Freedom fighters are noble people; the IRA were sick and vicious cowards. True Irish patriots denounce the IRA for what they did to Ireland for so long, before they were defeated, so it was all futile. Nothing was achieved that could not have been gained by civil means. Nothing; and all the IRA have left us is a legacy of horror, profound personal and social damage, and deep pain. You are not an Irish patriot, Seamus60.

Report abuse

sirpeter | May 22, 2012, 06:24 AM EDT
Seano. That's what they always try and do. "muddy the waters" They will try and drag the argument into the dirty business that is fighting for human rights and freedom by picking unsavory instances that are bound to happen when an injustice occurs.Stick to the bigger picture when it comes to NI.The illegal partitioning of Ireland and the entrapment of Republicans in 1920 justifies all resistance to anyone who upholds British authority in NI.Even if only one person continues to resist.That person still has the moral right as an individual to try and achieve the reunification of Ireland and to free himself by any means that he sees fit.Irish people have made a "choice" to except the GFA.The question is would the Americans except the GFA if part of their country was partitioned.Like hell they would.NI would have got a dose of freedom and the Brits and anyone who didn't like it would have walked away.

Report abuse

seanomelb | May 21, 2012, 09:05 PM EDT
It's about the British lies that they did not have a policy and Stalker proved the opposite. Trying to "muddy the waters" Dano with your usual anti-Irish rhetoric.

Report abuse

DanOLoingsigh | May 21, 2012, 06:00 PM EDT
seanomelb - Let me get this right...if a cop kills a 'dissident' that's unlawful, but if a 'dissident' kills a cop, that's 'engaging the enemy'...is that your position?

Report abuse

aloistmartin | May 21, 2012, 05:34 PM EDT
If Bobby Sands were Alive Today Sinn Fein would be an Outlawed Political Party '

Report abuse

seamus60 | May 21, 2012, 12:14 PM EDT
Abhainn. Terrorists ???? would that be the ones patriots normally call freedom fighters.

Report abuse

seanomelb | May 20, 2012, 07:10 PM EDT
Realist either you're ignorant of the facts or proactively rewriting history.Stalker delivered his interim report stating that 5 dissidents were UNLAWFULLY killed. The British were furious with the findings and brought Sampson in to investigate Stalker(Stalker never worked with Sampson) and take over the investigation. Stalker was demonised by the British establishment and hounded by them for many years.Sampson's did his masters bidding and tabled the report they wanted, like a good little puppet. What else would you like to know I'm only to happy to broaden your horizons.

Report abuse

Next Previous Page 2 of 14 pages




Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account

or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail