Northern Ireland - who gets it
John McCormack
Throughout the history of most of the world up until fairly recent times
the system of government and land ownership has been "to the victor goes
the spoils". Ireland has been no different, continual warring between
clans and small kingdoms. On the occasions when there has been an Ard
Ri, the Ard Ri got his title by defeating a number of enemy kings and
claiming the Irish throne for himself, i.e became king through sheer
force. Under this system, the strongest ruled.
Then into Ireland came the English. Utilising the exact same system
the Irish kings used, they took most of the country, and what's more,
held it for 800 odd years. Brian Boru himself had no more right to the
Irish throne than did Cromwell. In parallel with the English invading
Ireland, they were slowly developing an alternative system of
government, democracy. Granted, it only applied to the English, and
only to some English at that, but like I said, it was and still is in
development. Recently, democracy has been gradually replacing the old
system of rule by force throughout the world, including in Ireland and
England. However, since most of the political boundries were formed
under the old system, some current political boundries do not match the
wishes of some of the population within those boundries. There are two
ways to correct this mismatch between the boundries and demographics;
1. Continue the old system and let them fight it out forever, or
until one side is dead
2. Accept the current situation and use the new system of democracy
to modify it to come to a comprise agreeable to all the demographics
involved.
In Irelands situation, England has a perfect right to continue ruling
Northern Ireland since they took on the Irish and won. To the victor
goes the spoils.
But since a sizeable majority in Ireland, North and South, don't like
the current situation they must take one of the two choices;
1. Fight it out. Isn't it time to give it up, ye bunch of barbarian
wankers and let the majority in each seperate part of Ireland decide
what's best for themselves. It's acceptable of course to take up arms
to protect the lives and civil rights of yourself and your community,
but only as a last resort, and the arms should be put down at the
earliest possible moment. But protecting yourself is a world away from
forcing your opinions on others by bombings and murders.
2. Democracy. Civilised dialogue, a vote, and acceptence of the
will of the majority.
In Ireland's case, the current situation is that the Irish government
rules the southern part of the island, and the English government rules
the northern part. The obvious and modern solution is for the people in
the North to vote on what they want. Then if they vote to join the
Republic, the people in the Republic must vote wheather they want the
North to join them or not. If the North votes to join England, the
English should vote on wheather or not they want Northern Ireland. If
the North votes to go it alone, or if neither Ireland or England wants
them, then they should go it alone. It's pretty simple really.
burd
Unbelievable: after all this time someone still believes there's a simplistic solution.
Wake up.
Peter Sheridan
John McCormack wrote in message <3509CA03...@otsi.com>...
>In Ireland's case, the current situation is that the Irish government
>rules the southern part of the island, and the English government rules
>the northern part. The obvious and modern solution is for the people in
>the North to vote on what they want. Then if they vote to join the
>Republic, the people in the Republic must vote wheather they want the
>North to join them or not
Dear John,
Go to your local library and ask for a book named "The Troubles" by Tim
Pat Coogan. Among other ugly truths detailed in this book you will find the
systematic perversion of democracy by the ruling majority of northern
Ireland. Fear and prejudice prevail, as recently as yesterday equality was
discussed in terms of unemployment. The Unionist's of course perceive no
problem. And no ground will be made on this issue because of them. If you
do not understand what I am talking about, You really had no business
posting.
Brendan Heading
In article <TUnO.25$B17.3...@typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca>, Peter Sheridan
<Pete...@digistar.mb.ca> writes
>
>John McCormack wrote in message <3509CA03...@otsi.com>...
>
>>In Ireland's case, the current situation is that the Irish government
>>rules the southern part of the island, and the English government rules
>>the northern part. The obvious and modern solution is for the people in
>>the North to vote on what they want. Then if they vote to join the
>>Republic, the people in the Republic must vote wheather they want the
>>North to join them or not
>
>Dear John,
> Go to your local library and ask for a book named "The Troubles" by Tim
>Pat Coogan. Among other ugly truths detailed in this book you will find the
>systematic perversion of democracy by the ruling majority of northern
>Ireland.
Tim Pat Coogan is a Republican. His books, whilst they make worthwhile
reading, should not be considered as a be-all-and-end-all authority on
Northern Irish politics. They only give one side of the story.
I think Paddy Devlin's book, "Straight Left", gives a fair account,
detailling the wrongs on *both* sides, and also of his attempts with his
colleagues to end the trouble.
> Fear and prejudice prevail, as recently as yesterday equality was
>discussed in terms of unemployment. The Unionist's of course perceive no
>problem. And no ground will be made on this issue because of them. If you
>do not understand what I am talking about, You really had no business
>posting.
Please do not make such authoratitive statements on a country after
having read a single (biased) book on the subject and tell other people
that they don't know what they're talking about.
--
Brendan Heading - brendan.heading *AT* cableol.co.uk
(Remove spamguard to reply - note change of mail address)
http://www.unite.co.uk/customers/alliance (Alliance Party Home)
(NB Opinions are mine only, and do not represent anyone else)
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov
Brendan Heading
In article <3509DA47...@tranet.com>, John McDonagh <John.McDonagh@
us.matranet.com> writes
>> 2. Democracy. Civilised dialogue, a vote, and acceptence of the
>> will of the majority.
>
>
>
>> rules the southern part of the island, and the English government rules
>> the northern part. The obvious and modern solution is for the people in
>> the North to vote on what they want. Then if they vote to join the
>> Republic, the people in the Republic must vote wheather they want the
>> English should vote on wheather or not they want Northern Ireland. If
>> the North votes to go it alone, or if neither Ireland or England wants
>> them, then they should go it alone. It's pretty simple really.
>
>
>You seem to regard modern democracy as being pure, highly sophisticated and the
>apex of human civilisation.
Got any better ideas ?
>Should every region/burrough/village in whatever country be allowed to hold it's
>own plebicite on devolution?
One that's been tearing itself apart for the past 30 odd years, the idea
holds some water.
>Anyway do you think that's all it's about you fucking retard?
Why don't you tell us what it's about, Mr.Nice-and-polite ?
Harry Merrick
John McCormack wrote:
2. Democracy. Civilised dialogue, a vote, and acceptence of the
will of the majority.
In Ireland's case, the current situation is that the Irish government
rules the southern part of the island, and the English government rules
the northern part. The obvious and modern solution is for the people in
the North to vote on what they want. Then if they vote to join the
Republic, the people in the Republic must vote wheather they want the
North to join them or not. If the North votes to join England, the
English should vote on wheather or not they want Northern Ireland. If
the North votes to go it alone, or if neither Ireland or England wants
them, then they should go it alone. It's pretty simple really.
No it's not. You have over simplified the whole thing out of all recognition. In any case, there WAS a vote, and because of the present day majority of Loyalists, they won!! This is completely unfair to the wishes and aspirations of the very large minority of Nationalists, which simply have got to be taken into consideration. Dialogue and civilised discussion on all points, followed by negotiated compromise is the ONLY possible way out of the quandary we find ourselves in. Taking up arms is completely unnecessary in present times.
By the way, I had rather thought that Ireland had never been conquered
by anyone, let alone the British? - Perhaps I am wrong, but even the Romans
were unable to do that, surely? I look forward to advice on that one!!
--
Harry.
ICQ# 2546277.
--
"No Problem Can Stand The Assault Of Sustained Thinking."
Voltaire.
Harry Merrick
Peter Sheridan wrote:
John McCormack wrote in message <3509CA03...@otsi.com>...
>In Ireland's case, the current situation is that the Irish government
>rules the southern part of the island, and the English government rules
>the northern part. The obvious and modern solution is for the people in
>the North to vote on what they want. Then if they vote to join the
>Republic, the people in the Republic must vote wheather they want the
>North to join them or not
Dear John,
Go to your local library and ask for a book named "The Troubles" by Tim
Pat Coogan. Among other ugly truths detailed in this book you will find the
systematic perversion of democracy by the ruling majority of northern
Ireland. Fear and prejudice prevail, as recently as yesterday equality was
discussed in terms of unemployment. The Unionist's of course perceive no
problem. And no ground will be made on this issue because of them. If you
do not understand what I am talking about, You really had no business
posting.
Hello Peter. Whilst agreeing in principle with some of what you say, I will just point out the following:
The Protestant Working Class in the past was just as much out of work/abused/manipulated etc. as the Catholic one was, only they thought, due to clever propaganda by their own employers, that they were better off. This was just not so in fact. The inequality was on both sides, and the cause was, in fact, the Upper Classes, which due to better education, more money etc. was able to do more or less what it wanted. This was true in the rest of the UK as well, and probably in the R. Of I. to some extent too.
The difference today is that the "majority" in NI, which is undoubtedly mostly Loyalist and Protestant, does NOT in fact rule anyone, per se! All "ruling" as such comes from Westminster, and that situation will remain that way until a fair solution is arrived at.
Hopefully, we may not be too far away from such a solution. I am far
less pessimistic than you of a peaceful settlement, and I disagree that
Unionists are unaware of any problem, of course they are! As for "fear
and prejudice", why, that I am convinced, applies to both sides equally,
surely?
Peter Sheridan
Brendan Heading wrote in message ...
>In article <TUnO.25$B17.3...@typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca>, Peter Sheridan
><Pete...@digistar.mb.ca> writes
>>
>>John McCormack wrote in message <3509CA03...@otsi.com>...
>>
>
>Please do not make such authoratitive statements on a country after
>having read a single (biased) book on the subject and tell other people
>that they don't know what they're talking about.
>--
>Brendan Heading - brendan.heading *AT* cableol.co.uk
>(Remove spamguard to reply - note change of mail address)
>
>http://www.unite.co.uk/customers/alliance (Alliance Party Home)
>(NB Opinions are mine only, and do not represent anyone else)
>
>"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov
I Look forward to reading Mr Devlin's book, I would like to say my opinions
are based not only on this one book. I lived and worked in the republic for
22 years covering this period. I look forward to a resolution of the
current situation and am happy that someone on the ground as you seem to be,
informs me of when I might overstate my personal experiences.
Unki O'Asimilation
John McCormack wrote:
> If the North votes to go it alone, or if neither Ireland or England
> wants them, then they should go it alone. It's pretty simple really.
Yes indeed like Roe v Wade, The Emacapation Proclamation, The Second
Ammmendant, the 39th Parallel, Bobby "I dreamed is all up" Ewing, 'There
is really no right way to eat a Reeses', "Yoko, I am just popping out
for some milk I will be right back", "It alright Mr. Koresh, the US
government would never resort to gassing and burning alive, 98 men,
women and children because of their religion", Does that colour of
mascara match the shade of your evening dress Mr Hoover?", We Hold These
Truths to be Self-Evident that All Men Are Created Equal*.
*Mr Jefferson's Shopping List
63 Nigger Slaves and a former Redskin Pad called Motecello
unki
--
begohra me banjo, suffer me patatie, puking O' the corn-beef and
cabbage, tipping O'clover, happy Saint Patty's Day!
Jerry Martín
>>Please do not make such authoratitive statements on a country after
>>having read a single (biased) book on the subject and tell other people
>>that they don't know what they're talking about.
>I Look forward to reading Mr Devlin's book, I would like to say my opinions
>are based not only on this one book. I lived and worked in the republic for
>22 years covering this period. I look forward to a resolution of the
Ooooo so you lived in a hostile country that is biased also. Well we
can really trust your impartial judgement then.
**********************************************
Jerry Martín
**********************************************
My tongue has a phenomenal pain threshold.
**********************************************
John McCormack
John McCormack wrote:In Ireland's case, the current situation is that the Irish government
rules the southern part of the island, and the English government rules
the northern part. The obvious and modern solution is for the people in
the North to vote on what they want. Then if they vote to join the
Republic, the people in the Republic must vote wheather they want the
North to join them or not. If the North votes to join England, the
English should vote on wheather or not they want Northern Ireland. If
the North votes to go it alone, or if neither Ireland or England wants
them, then they should go it alone. It's pretty simple really.
No it's not. You have over simplified the whole thing out of all recognition. In any case, there WAS a vote, and because of the present day majority of Loyalists, they won!! This is completely unfair to the wishes and aspirations of the very large minority of Nationalists, which simply have got to be taken into consideration. Dialogue and civilised discussion on all points, followed by negotiated compromise is the ONLY possible way out of the quandary we find ourselves in. Taking up arms is completely unnecessary in present times.
So if you let history alone, you're left with a part of an island with two conflicting cultures. It's up to them to sort it out. However much some people may dislike the current situation, the current situation still exists and has to be dealt with in it's present context, not in the context of 20 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 600 years ago. So if people had the balls to be themselves, we'd no longer have the green against the orange, we'd have some individuals who are trying to put down other individuals. Ok, there would still be some green against some orange, since there are always a few throwbacks in every crowd, but they'd be like the KKK in the US, sick people but people who no longer speak for or have any control over the rest of the people. The North can then concentrate on ensuring that the civil rights of every individual is protected. The best way we have to do this is is through democracy. And if the majority in the North is oppressing the minorities, it's still democracy (and widespread tv coverage) that will solve that.
The Northern situation IS simple. The North is a seperate entity from both England and from the Republic. Some people are living in the past and need to wake up and realise this. The civil rights of some people in the North are being trampled on. Everyone is entitled to equal rights. Some people want to join the Republic, some want to join England, some want to go it alone. Talk about it among yourselves. Then vote on it, and don't throw a tantrum if everyone doesn't want what you want.
So to all those angry people out there who say that I don't know what
I'm talking about, I say to you, when your mother says "Ooooooh, just look
what they did to your father", take a step back, take a deep breath, take
the blinkers off, and act as a thinking individual, not as your mother's
son.
Harry Merrick
I agree with most of that, it is still over simplified IMO! However
most of what you say is exactly what I too have been saying.
John McCormack
Harry Merrick wrote:
>
> I agree with most of that, it is still over simplified IMO! However
> most of what you say is exactly what I too have been saying.
>
Ok, bear with me for a moment. Imagine a smoker who wants to quit. The
best way is to pick a date a few weeks from now, and on that date, stop
smoking. It's a simple idea. The mind of the person trying to quit is
far from simple, one part of their mind will be trying to quit, another
part will be trying to convince the rest that it's ok to smoke. Their
bodies will be screaming for a cigarette, they might get headaches,
shakes, be very bad-tempered. Try to tell them that's it's simple and
they'll probably hit you. But it IS a simple idea. Just quit. And it
works. A nicotine patch or gum or a friend to support them would help,
but it's the quitting that does it. Before that day they were a smoker,
after that day they did not smoke.
Now compare that to Northern Ireland. Imagine if we picked a date a
year from now.
On that date everyone quit. Everyone started with what they had and who
they were and moved on from there. Before that date everyone was a
republician or a loyalist or whatever, after that date they are a
citizen of Northern Ireland and can rationally discuss the future with
everyone else. It IS a simple idea. It won't be simple for the guy
whose brother was shot dead by the British Army, or for the person who's
little sister was blown up by an IRA bomb, but it IS simple. Just try
to leave it all behind and move on. So the Northern situation is simple
but everyone complicates it by saying things like "in 1798, ..." or "in
1972, ..." or "In 1996, ..", "My family was ...", "They did ...", etc.
I know no-ones going to wave a magic wand and turn everyone into peace
loving hippies on a certain date, but if people stopped being so blindly
loyal to their culture, heritage and past, and acted as thinking
individuals the effect would be the same. We have to clearly seperate
the historic aspects of the situation from the present situation. Then
stop the "me me me" for a while. Those who want a united Ireland should
shut up for the moment. Those who want union with Britain, shut up for
the moment. Everyone accept the current situation, i.e the North is
seperate. Then make sure that everyone has equal rights. Once everyone
is satisified that all citizens of Northern Ireland have full and equal
rights, the paramilitaries should disband. No ifs or buts. There is
no reason for them to exist once everyone is equal. Then the people of
Northern Ireland can discuss the future of Northern Ireland and decide
what to do. I'm sure that some people lost in their culture and hatred
will dismiss this as crackpot idealism, but it isn't. I'm not saying
that we should pick that date and then just stop fighting, people need
time to change, so a solution will come about much more gradual than
that. But I am saying that the solution IS simple, forget history, look
at what we have today and try to improve it. If someone says for
example that they want a united Ireland, the answer to them has to be
that presently a united Ireland is impossible, it's extremely selfish
and immature to insist on one now, because it's dragging out the
conflict and causing the deaths of lots of people. They should accept
Northern Ireland for what is is now, try to fix it, then they can talk
about a united Ireland. Same for loyalists. So what exactly am I
simplifying ?.
Robin Popplestone
Brendan Heading says:
> Tim Pat Coogan is a Republican. His books, whilst they make worthwhile
> reading, should not be considered as a be-all-and-end-all authority on
> Northern Irish politics. They only give one side of the story.
However, I wish all US politicians who stick their noses into the affairs
of the Emerald Isle would read Coogan's book on the IRA. It's a pretty damning
indictment of that organisation, and of what he says it regards as its
sidekick, Sinn Fein
Robin.
Harry Merrick
John McCormack wrote:
A lovely idea, but you are being totally unrealistic IMO. All very well to
say all those things, but most people are not that logical, and Celts on all
sides are extremely emotional. I cannot see anyone being that easily shifted
from their positions. As it happens, as time goes on, it is becoming more
and more evident that the vast majority of ordinary citizens on both sides
are heartily sick of the whole caboodle, and would sue for a settlement at
almost any price. I am sure myself that a settlement will eventually be
negotiated, but probably not nearly as quickly as our beloved leaders seem
to think!
John McCormack
Harry Merrick wrote:
> A lovely idea, but you are being totally unrealistic IMO. All very well to
> say all those things, but most people are not that logical, and Celts on all
> sides are extremely emotional. I cannot see anyone being that easily shifted
> from their positions. As it happens, as time goes on, it is becoming more
> and more evident that the vast majority of ordinary citizens on both sides
> are heartily sick of the whole caboodle, and would sue for a settlement at
> almost any price. I am sure myself that a settlement will eventually be
> negotiated, but probably not nearly as quickly as our beloved leaders seem
> to think!
I agree with you about the reality of the situation. A settlement will be found
because everyone is just sick of the whole thing. The settlement won't be the
product of any high ideals, just a product of disgust. Not a great way to
start off a new chapter in the life of Northern Ireland, but it'll be better
than what we have now.But I think that people should still think and talk about
the way things should be, however unrealistic that way may be at the moment.
Because bascially, there is a certain standard that societies and individuals
should reach. One of those standards should be that if someone disagrees with
you, you discuss it, not kill the person. That's not a hard thing to ask of
anyone. If someone doesn't reach that standard we shouldn't be saying "Oh, well
he shot first", "he said this", "she did that". We should be saying "Stop", and
then ask them all why they fail to reach such a simple standard of behavior.
You don't throw away the standard just because someone fails to reach it, that
person has to change and then make a fresh start to try to reach it. If someone
cannot change, they should at least have the decency to stop what they are
doing, so that others may have a chance to reach that standard. We do have the
right to ask them to change, or at the very least stop, and we deserve an
explanation from those that don't stop. So I say that it's time to stop
bollocking around with the whys and hows and whens of the Northern situation and
start defining a standard that we can reach.
Harry Merrick
John McCormack wrote:
Yes, I agree with most of that in principle. But how do you make the small minority
on both sides toe the line and behave themselves so that a normal discussion of the
different values and aspirations can be held without fear of being killed? - I
personally am in favour of a big stick to deter all terrorists, thugs, muggers etc.
etc. A very much controlled and legally monitored Death Penalty is called for IMO.
That would deter most of the bully boys from killing, at least, and give the rest of
us a chance.
Neil Alasdair McEwan
Peter Sheridan (Pete...@digistar.mb.ca) wrote:
: Dear John,
: Go to your local library and ask for a book named "The Troubles" by Tim
: Pat Coogan. Among other ugly truths detailed in this book you will find the
: systematic perversion of democracy by the ruling majority of northern
: Ireland. Fear and prejudice prevail, as recently as yesterday equality was
: discussed in terms of unemployment. The Unionist's of course perceive no
: problem. And no ground will be made on this issue because of them. If you
: do not understand what I am talking about, You really had no business
: posting.
So says the man living 5000 miles away, and who's only read the one
book on the subject.
le meas
Neil
--
liv...@juniper.net
In article <3513AF2D...@agencies.dnet.co.uk>,
Harry Merrick <merr...@agencies.dnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Yes, I agree with most of that in principle. But how do you
> make the small minority on both sides toe the line and behave
> themselves so that a normal discussion of the different values
> and aspirations can be held without fear of being killed? -
You ask a key question. I don't think that getting the
minority of violent people on each side to toe the line
is a direct aim of the talks at all. The aim is to
marginalise them in such a way that everyone can agree
that they *are* out of line, and that they no longer
represent anyone *legitimately* even if they share their
aims.
That is, if you can get a democratically agreed compromise
that the constitutional parties will agree to, and the
voters will sign up for, then extremests will no longer
be able to claim that they are entitled to kill on behalf
of people who want either a United Ireland or the continuation
of the Union.
People will still want those two things, of course, but
by voting for a peaceful settlement, they will have
withdrawn the mandate that the extremists have claimed to
have.
And once veryone agrees that the extremists are out of
line, you can start to demand that people no longer fund
them on the excuse that "only violence works".
Personally, I would love to be able to reply to Americans
who come out with their "The British only understand
violence" line by saying that the NI voters don't agree.
> I personally am in favour of a big stick to deter all terrorists,
> thugs, muggers etc. etc. A very much controlled and legally
> monitored Death Penalty is called for IMO. That would deter
> most of the bully boys from killing, at least, and give the
> rest of us a chance.
I don't agree. A measured response is called for, but
extreme measures will simply give supporters of violence
another excuse to claim that only violence works.
It's actually *easier* for terrorists to produce intellectual
arguments in support of terrorism in states where terrorists
and their supporters are routinely killed.
jon.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
unki funki boots
liv...@juniper.net wrote:
> It's actually *easier* for terrorists to produce intellectual
> arguments in support of terrorism in states where terrorists
> and their supporters are routinely killed.
>
> jon.
I agree
from the Book of Unki:
The absence of revolutionary idealism in the art of this century
is what distinguishes Postmodernism from Modernism. At first
glance Confrontational Irony appears very postmodern but it is
actually an idealistic modernist movement based on the
examination of the repression of traumas that occur
whenever avantgardism is coopted by power and capital. Italian
Futurism, Russian Constructivism and German Expressionism are
prime examples of how modernist art movements in the service
of totalitarianism have contributed to sociopolitical catastrophes.
Confrontational Irony's manipulation of the iconography of
ideological domination attempts to subvert the cycle of co-option
not by developing any critical potentials but through organizational
fetishism and mimicry of the dominant system itself.
Unki Arthur - KNOW IT - USE IT - BE IT
liv...@juniper.net
In article <351431...@hotmail.com>,
unki funki boots <kfuz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>liv...@juniper.net wrote:
>
>> It's actually *easier* for terrorists to produce intellectual
>> arguments in support of terrorism in states where terrorists
>> and their supporters are routinely killed.
>
>
> The absence of revolutionary idealism in the art of this
> century is what distinguishes Postmodernism from Modernism.
> At first glance Confrontational Irony appears very postmodern
> but it is actually an idealistic modernist movement based on
> the examination of the repression of traumas that occur whenever
> avantgardism is coopted by power and capital. Italian Futurism,
> Russian Constructivism and German Expressionism are prime
> examples of how modernist art movements in the service of
> totalitarianism have contributed to sociopolitical catastrophes.
> Confrontational Irony's manipulation of the iconography of
> ideological domination attempts to subvert the cycle of
> co-option not by developing any critical potentials but through
> organizational fetishism and mimicry of the dominant system
> itself.
Yes and no. What you call the co-option of avantgardism by
power and capital actually breaks down into two distinct
processes. When capital co-opts avantgardism it does so by
buying it out. It corrupts artists by offering them the
temptation of accumulating wealth under cover of continuing
to taunt and/or satirise society. This is a powerful temptation
for any artist, because the acceptance of wealth can itself
be mistakenly seen as a subversive act. You can aid in your
own corruption by seeing taking money from the very people you
are portraying as keen satire up to the moment when it is
pointed out to you that the taking of money has changed the
artist him/herself in ways which are irreversible. As Blanket-
Duvet said "You can only stop eating caviar; you cannot never
have eaten it, if you once started".
On the other hand, when power co-opts art, for example when
Stalin did so, power corrupts artists by compelling art to
serve the power structure it ought to stand outside of. When
Stalin compelled artists to address issues such as "realism"
and drove poets like Mayakovskii to suicide by gradually
restricting his range of self-expression, he was only able to
do so because Mayakovskii had first made a public statement
of offering to serve the Revolution. Once Mayakovskii had
offered to serve the Revolution, the Revolution was able to
turn round and tell him in which ways it wanted to be served,
and when Stalin redefined the Revolution to suit himself,
Mayakovskii then found himself in a box gradually closing in
upon him as Stalin progressively redefined the Revolution to
be more and more whatever Stalin wanted. When artists
offered to serve "realism" the bureaucracy was then able to
define "realism" as pictures of tractors.
It's the difference between a Priest and a Valet. Both serve,
but the Priest serves God, while the Valet can be instructed
to do whatever a particular employer decides is service to
himself.
The valet can kid himself along for a while, telling the Young
Master that violet spats or a crimson cummerbund are really
not on, but in the end all that means is that the Valet is
appealing to the accumulated taste of previous generations of
Young Masters who grew old and conservative, which is, as you
say, not artistic freedom at all, but organizational fetishism
and mimicry of the dominant system itself.
As we know, Stalinism was only finally overthrown when Yeltsin
got up on a tank and refused to shoot its guns, making a speech
instead, thus symbolically rejecting the whole system.
And Stalinism was only firmly re-established when Yeltsin used
the same tanks to demolish the Parliament Building, an act which
if you notice may as well never have taken place at all, for all
the notice Russian artists took of it, so completely had Stalin
corrupted them.
After all, you can paint a picture of Yeltsin but you can't
paint a picture of a speech.
Peter Sheridan
Neil Alasdair McEwan wrote in message
> So says the man living 5000 miles away, and who's only read the one
>book on the subject.
>
>
>le meas
>
>Neil
Ok, listen bonehead, I'm Irish. I now live in canada. Last year I
spent the month of July in Bundoran, Co Donegal, half of Portadown was there
(well those who wanted some peace and quiet anyway). My family had the
pleasure of a bomb scare, I'm sure it's all irrelevant to you. Hey I even
went to Rossnowlough to watch the orange parade. I have always kept myself
informed of the situation in Northern Ireland.
I think this newsgroup is very informative. However some of the people
posting sound like perpetual victims, whose whole identities are central to
the "poor me and my situation" theme. I would ask these people to look
beyond any mistakes I make and maybe try and inform and communicate.
Gerard Cunningham
liv...@juniper.net wrote:
>In article <351431...@hotmail.com>,
>unki funki boots <kfuz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The absence of revolutionary idealism in the art of this
>> century is what distinguishes Postmodernism from Modernism.
>> At first glance Confrontational Irony appears very postmodern
etc.
>Yes and no. What you call the co-option of avantgardism by
>power and capital actually breaks down into two distinct
>processes. When capital co-opts avantgardism it does so by
>buying it out.
etc.
I give up. Who's kidding who?
-----
Gerard Cardinal Cunningham abardubh at wwa dot com
http://www.wwa.com/~abardubh/
"For a guide to what's really going on" -s.c.i. FAQ
Neil Alasdair McEwan
Peter Sheridan (Pete...@digistar.mb.ca) wrote:
: Neil Alasdair McEwan wrote in message
: > So says the man living 5000 miles away, and who's only read the one
: >book on the subject.
: Ok, listen bonehead, I'm Irish. I now live in canada.
The more fool you then, for believing that the unionists are the
obstacle to ultimate peace in NI and for recommending Tim Pat Coogan as an
impartial source. You don't even have the excuse of naivete.
le meas
Neil
--
unki (the world won't listen) arthur
liv...@juniper.net wrote:
>Yes and no. What you call the co-option of avantgardism by
>power and capital actually breaks down into two distinct
>processes. When capital co-opts avantgardism it does so by
>buying it out.
etc.
Ah, assuming of course that avantgardism is by it very nature, not
fundemental to it's primary motivatior, kapital.
One is making the common asseration that the co-optive process is
"sold-out" as it continues to be driven by the subversive qualities
inheirent in kapital and if one more correctly recognises the binary
nature of the two ideals as a sigular driving force, then the notion of
contradition evaporates. Art is one thing, comfort is another and
Confrantastal Irony co-exsists in a non-inductive, non-linear but
totally recognizable medium between the two plains.
--
"No Problem Pet, Modern Man and All That Shite"
unki
Modra Dubh
Peter Sheridan wrote:
>
> Neil Alasdair McEwan wrote in message
> > So says the man living 5000 miles away, and who's only read the one
> >book on the subject.
> >
> >
> >
> >Neil
>
> Ok, listen bonehead, I'm Irish.
Oops, Mister McEwen, oops! Caught leaping to conclusions again, have
we! Perhaps an apology might be in order? Do the gentlemanly thing?
(Only God, it would seem, is truly infailable. But then, he doesn't
talk all that much) ;-)
-Conmachain
Modra Dubh
unki (the world won't listen) arthur wrote:
> Ah, assuming of course that avantgardism is by it very nature, not
> fundemental to it's primary motivatior, kapital.
>
> One is making the common asseration that the co-optive process is
> "sold-out" as it continues to be driven by the subversive qualities
> inheirent in kapital and if one more correctly recognises the binary
> nature of the two ideals as a sigular driving force, then the notion of
> contradition evaporates. Art is one thing, comfort is another and
> Confrantastal Irony co-exsists in a non-inductive, non-linear but
> totally recognizable medium between the two plains.
May I have the author's permission to copy this and post it to my
'fridge?
Thank you very much.
-Conmachain
unki (the world won't listen) arthur
Modra Dubh wrote:
>
> unki (the world won't listen) arthur wrote:
>
> > Ah, assuming of course that avantgardism is by it very nature, not
> >
> > One is making the common asseration that the co-optive process is
> > "sold-out" as it continues to be driven by the subversive qualities
> > inheirent in kapital and if one more correctly recognises the binary
> > contradition evaporates. Art is one thing, comfort is another and
> > totally recognizable medium between the two plains.
>
> May I have the author's permission to copy this and post it to my
> 'fridge?
> Thank you very much.
> -Conmachain
of course.
liv...@juniper.net
In article <351487...@hotmail.com>,
unki (the world won't listen) arthur <kfuz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>liv...@juniper.net wrote:
>
>> Yes and no. What you call the co-option of avantgardism by
>> power and capital actually breaks down into two distinct
>> processes. When capital co-opts avantgardism it does so by
>> buying it out.
> etc.
>
It could be fundamental, and not be sold out. The author
is fundamental to the publisher, but if the publisher asks
him to write rubbish, he can refuse to. He doesn't have
be a piece of garbage, because no-one can send him to a
labour camp if he refuses to be one.
> One is making the common asseration that the co-optive process
> is "sold-out" as it continues to be driven by the subversive
> qualities inheirent in kapital and if one more correctly
> recognises the binary nature of the two ideals as a sigular
> driving force, then the notion of contradition evaporates.
Not so. Those who refuse to sell out to capitalists can find
other capitalists, or work for a living to support their art.
T. S. Eliot worked in a bank. You can't get much closer to
the capitalists than that, but I don't think it shows in his
work.
He didn't actually have to write greeting cards or hymns
to patriotic fervour, so he didn't.
> Art is one thing, comfort is another and Confrantastal
> Irony co-exsists in a non-inductive, non-linear but
> totally recognizable medium between the two plains.
I agree, but it is still the case that in selling out to
capitalism, you decide whether or not to eat the sacrificial
lamb. Under socialism, you *are* the lamb, and the pigs
decide when to eat you..
Neil Alasdair McEwan
Modra Dubh (**cca...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Oops, Mister McEwen, oops! Caught leaping to conclusions again, have
: we! Perhaps an apology might be in order? Do the gentlemanly thing?
I'll make you a deal. I'll apologize for whatever you like if you stop
pretending that you're a Gael. How's that?
le meas
Neil
--
John McCormack
Harry Merrick wrote:
> Yes, I agree with most of that in principle. But how do you make the small minority
> on both sides toe the line and behave themselves so that a normal discussion of the
> different values and aspirations can be held without fear of being killed?
By separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak. When everyone is clamoring for a
united this or an Irish that, or a British other, it leads to a lot of confusion and
arguing. All that confusion and arguing creates the climate where small groups of
people can use violence and claim that it is necessary. Then everyone else adds more to
the confusion by arguing about the killing and why is was done. Most of the arguments
are not very important in the face of all these murders, but are responsible for
creating the conditions that these murders take place. So they should be set aside for
a while until things settle down. Everyone should say "Ok, Northern Ireland is
currently NOT part of the Republic and NOT part of Britain". Everyone knows that some
people want it to be one or the other, but leave it alone for the moment. Britain
should drop any claims on the North, and so should the Republic. Then come up with a
simple statement like
1. We disagree with the use of violence to achieve a goal
2. We wish the paramilitaries to disarm and disband immediately
3. We wish all parties to stop discussion on the future of Northern Ireland for a period
of one year and to concentrate instead on ensuring that the safety and civil rights of
all citizens of Northern Ireland are guaranteed
4. After the period of one year is over, we wish to discuss and come to a rational
agreement on the future of Northern Ireland
Then everyone in the North votes on on it, yes or no. Everyone gets a clear
understanding on where the people of the North stand. Politicians from all sides
should state clearly if they vote yes or no to the statement. That separates the wheat
from the chaff. It may not stop the murders but it does remove the conditions that they
thrive on. So then we'll be left with the people who agree to the statement and those
that don't. Those people who continue to rant about a United Ireland or Union with
Britain etc, or use violence, during that year will clearly not give a damn about the
people of Northern Ireland and so will lose any influence that they have. At the end of
the year, there will be far fewer nuts holding influence and so talks on the North will
have a much greater chance of success.