The main theme that we have discussed and seen in class is divide and conflict, whether it be the divide between groups of people or the divide within oneself and their own beliefs and actions. Both the novel and film versions of The Informer provide great illustrations of such conflict, whether it be between the groups or within the individuals themselves. In his letters, MLK also spoke of the divide and conflicts not only between white people and African Americans but also within the revolutionary group. In its entirety, 1968 is a year comprised of different divides becoming increasingly more contentious and eventually explosive.
There have been many blog posts about history repeating itself and questions and theories as to why this is true. One I’d like to propose is that we, as a species, feel the need to categorize and group this, usually to help us understand things better. It was thus inevitable that we would begin to do this with ourselves. In a class I took last semester called ‘Race and Racism’, we learned and spoke about race being a social construct and being (incorrectly) used to explain differences in physical appearances within the human species and then (once again, incorrectly) projected to ‘inherent’ qualities and differences between the man-made groupings. The way of dividing has resulted in animosity festering between the said groups. The main reason I thought of this was because of a quote I read in War on an Irish Town which stated: “A Unionist minister would reply…if the situation was reversed Catholics would do the same thing to Protestants,” (McCann 52). I wonder if Eamonn agrees with this sentiment? Perhaps the man would’ve been correct, everything around us seems to be a power struggle, especially between the groups that have been created in our society: gay, straight, white, Black, Asian, man, woman, nonbinary, etc. Then again, it also seems like a convenient excuse to continue subjugating others without feeling as guilty.
So what of my previous blog post speaking of the role of love in a revolution? MLK and Maya Angelou both seemed to agree that the key ingredient to any successful revolution is love, more specifically agape according to MLK. Yet, as we see the cracks in our society and the different sides of different movements, there seems to be more of a love to hate than anything else. Do we naturally divide and do these divides inevitably create the conflicts we have been discussing in class and witnessing today? Where is the love?
Identity Formation in Ireland and Irish America
In reading the excerpt from War and an Irish Town and listening to our class conversation on Monday, I was struck by Eamonn’s telling of his childhood experience with Irish Protestants in Derry. The matter-of-fact way he talked about never having really encountered any Protestants until starting college but being raised in an environment where he was taught to regard them with contempt was a reminder to me about how profoundly sad prejudice and systematic hatred are.
This is not only something I’ve experienced in the context of Eamonn’s story. My family is Irish-American and Catholic. The popular comedic trope about the racist (or misogynistic, or whatever the case may be) old relative that we all have is fulfilled in the case of my family in the older generations and their persisting bitterness toward Protestants. I grew up in an environment where it took me a long time to even realize that being Catholic wasn’t the typical American experience; it didn’t even occur to me until I was in maybe 5th grade that going to Catholic mass and Sunday School every weekend was unusual. I grew up so entrenched in this Irish-American Catholic identity that it skewed my understanding of my surroundings. Of course, young children are the products of the environments in which they exist; I thought being Catholic was normal because that is all I knew. It was difficult for me to understand that historically, being Catholic was seen as bad. That idea was so biblical to me. Religious martyrdom (literally and psychologically) was something that happened hundreds of years ago, how could it be something that dragged people down in a supposedly civilized world, in my life time? As a result of this upbringing, there is this internal wound that flares up when I encounter reminders of the wrongs committed, which perpetuates this bitterness toward the wrongdoers. And my family left Ireland like 150 years ago; my relatives didn’t even suffer the injustices of the 20th century in Ireland.
So this makes me sad. In the grand scheme of the history of the world, two peoples can’t be much more similar than Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants living in the same town. And yet the divide feels enormous. In the breakout room discussions on Wednesday, my group talked about how religious beliefs inform value systems, which play in a significant role in identity formation. From this perspective, the divide between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland seems almost absurd. Two groups of the same race, from the same country, both practicing Christianity should have so much in common in terms of identity. But faith was weaponized and used as a tool for subjugation, and now we are unsure if the world will ever see a united and free Ireland.
Irish Catholics: Standing in Solidarity with African Americans
Our discussions in class thus far paired with the reading and conversations with Eamonn McCann has made me realize how truly different Irish Americans are from those who still live in Ireland. Of course, one can expect that when people emigrate from a country, their ideals and habits may change as they find themselves in a new country and a new culture. However, in the case of Irish Americans, there are very stark differences between the two groups. For example, when Eamonn traveled to America to talk about Irish civil liberties, he came into contact with the Black Panthers. This was frowned upon by Irish Americans, and his talks were canceled. The following quotation clearly displays the differences in ideology between the two groups:
“The argument of the Left was that our natural allies in the United States ought surely to be those who, like us, were fighting against oppression. The counter-argument, not just from Irish Americans but from many civil rights ‘moderates’ at home, too, was that it made no sense to alienate powerful US interests, that to gratuitously introduce issues of injustice in the US would, as one prominent Bogside Repiblucan put it to me, ‘split our support’” (McCann 4).
Of course, not every Catholic person in Ireland held the same ideology. There were plenty of those with conservative beliefs who aligned with Irish Americans. After listening to Eamonn talk about his life in Ireland, I think there are distinct differences in people’s everyday lives that created this divide in ideology. In America, the Irish did not experience extreme persecution. They were free to practice their religion, and their ability to speak English enabled them to prosper in the new culture. Catholics in Ireland, on the other hand, faced extreme persecution from the Protestants. Of course, this treatment was not on the same level as the dehumanization that occurred in America with African Americans, but Catholics were definitely treated as belonging to a lower class than the Protestants. Those that were actively persecuted were able to see the connection between their struggles and those of African Americans. To those in Ireland, it made sense to ally themselves with people in America who were able to understand their struggles. Both African Americans and Irish Catholics had the same overall goal: an increase in civil liberties for those who had been oppressed.
Towards the end of class, I began to think about the fight for African American civil liberties that is still ongoing today. I thought to myself, “I wonder if there are parallels in the Irish community today. Surely Catholics in Ireland would support the BLM movement as they had supported the civil rights movement years ago.” However, according to Eamonn, those in Derry who attempted to participate in BLM protests were warned that they could go to jail for their actions. When people attempted to express their solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement, police would begin to question them: “Why are you here? What is your name? You could get in trouble for this.” The goal of the police was clearly to disrupt the event. Eamonn told the class that he has seen many protests in Derry and none of them have had the same resistance from the police that occurred for the BLM protest. I found this very interesting, especially since I had thought that Ireland would be more sympathetic to the BLM cause. After doing some research, I found that although there isn’t persecution of Catholics in Ireland today as there was in the 1960s, there is still prejudice present. The peace walls that divided the Protestants and Catholics are not completely torn down. For those of you that read this post, my question to you is this: Why do you think that Derry had such a negative reaction to the BLM movement when plenty of left Irish Catholics supported the civil rights movement? This question is something I’ve been asking myself over the course of the week and I have yet to formulate a satisfying answer.
Blame- Who Gets It?
One question that got me thinking in class today was whether there was anyone to blame for the violence that occurred in Derry, and what role did the different groups involved in it play? I think the conclusion was that no one definite could really be blamed because there were smaller events leading up to the big displays of violence, and all of the groups were involved in that so we couldn’t necessarily point the finger at one particular group. I found it interesting that Eamonn McCann, though, quite blatantly seemed to blame those who were in higher positions for the massacre of Bloody Sunday. The soldiers who got blamed and did the time for it claimed that they were just following orders that were given to them by people who were higher up, but I wonder how far these orders can be traced back? Will they be able to find who, in the end, was the one sole person to give the direct order? Was there one sole person, or was it a group decision? I find that it is growing more and more difficult to find exact people to blame in today’s movements and displays of violence, because no one is in charge. This can also go back to our talk about movements having a central leader, and whether that is important or not when making a movement. I myself am not entirely sure of a leader’s importance in a movement, but a leader is very important for the opposing side, mainly because then there is someone to blame, whether it is right or wrong to blame them.
How are we supposed to assign blame to anybody in movements today or back in the movements, protests, revolutions of 1968 and beyond? I don’t think it is entirely possible in either case. If the Civil Rights movement under Dr. King had become incredibly violent against his wishes and many people had been hurt or killed, would he still have been to blame? He was the leader, so it seems that that is the obvious answer, but we all know it is not. The people who did the violent acts should have been blamed and punished, but is it the same for the Black Panthers, whose leader preached violence? Because they were violent in the name of Malcolm X, should he have been blamed and punished for every crime committed? How about the soldiers in Derry who were just following orders? Should the people they say ordered them to do it be blamed and punished? I think the idea of blame in this context can get a bit blurry. Should it still be that the people who committed the violent acts are the ones that get punished? Is there a sort of primary and secondary blame that should be observed? The soldiers were just doing what they were told, but could they have chosen not to pull the triggers, not to further the violence? It seems to me that the primary blame should be placed on those that give the orders for violence, but a secondary blame should still be placed on those that committed the acts, because we all have the free will to choose not to do something we know isn’t right, so there is still a conscious choice on our part to commit the violent act. Blame is a tricky thing to assign to people, but people always want to do it.
Change Comes From Below
“In every struggle for liberty and justice, we are weakened when we shape our strategy to keep powerful interests onside.” I believe this quote, from the introduction of Eamonn McCann’s War and an Irish Town, perfectly exemplifies why true change is so difficult to come by in our society. The whole point of social change – to disrupt something powerfully ingrained in our lives – is nullified because our society is structured to protect power. Power makes reputations, furthers careers, and writes paychecks. Although powerful people are highly scrutinized, they are also protected from mainstream society because of the power that defines them. To ask someone to give up their power (whether politically, financially, or other) is to ask them to put down their shield. However, social change is impossible without someone losing some type of power. Something has to give.
In the early 1900s when Ireland separated from Britain, Britain didn’t budge on granting the six counties of Northern Ireland independence. Many believe this reluctance was influenced by Belfast being a valuable port city. Belfast rewarded the British power in the form of profit, and regardless of the social upheaval that the partition of Ireland caused, the British had interests that they deemed worthy of defense. Today we see something similar in many struggles for social change, including with gun laws in the United States. Despite horrific mass shooting, the intertwined web of interests at the top level of the country has prevented major change from ever occurring. Which is why, as Emory Douglas stated, and quoted by McCann, “real change, if it comes, will come from below.” The power struggle at the top will never sort itself out in time for social change to happen. As a result, it’s the people who don’t have these competing interests that need to lead the charge.
People don’t want fiery rhetoric thrown at them with nothing to back it up. Mr. McCann likened it in our class discussion to being at a Bruce Springsteen concert by yourself; it would be terrible, because so much of the experience is being alongside others feeling the same excitement. People don’t want to be told that they, as an individual, have the powerful politicians on their side. They want freedom and liberty, and to experience these alongside their peers. In order for this to ever happen, we must recognize that those with power might not be the strongest allies.
Spearheads Gone Too Fast
From all three works that we have looked at this week as well as Vinen’s 1968, it seems quite clear that most of the revolutionaries were enthusiastic young people, pushing a rigid organizational machine forward with strict rules, an unquestionable ideology, and unrelenting force. The “Organization” in each of the three works based on The Informer’s story is quite like spearheads. They were sharp—most never hesitated to use lethal force for the sake of the movement. They were fast—it was less than two days from hearing about Frankie’s death to killing Gypo. They were rigid—to join the movement was to effectively pledge for life. Such an organization closely resembles a military and should in principle have immense power to penetrate the existing status quo. However, it is perhaps exactly its overwhelming force that takes it too far, and in turn causes the movement to fall short in achieving its goals.
Liam O’Flaherty expresses the shortcoming of such organization in The Informer, a bleak portrayal of the Irish Civil War and the future of Ireland. The rigidity of structure and dogmatism of the Revolutionary Organization often turns on itself. Because of the “rules,” Gypo and Frankie were kicked out of the Organization and left without support. This is the main underlying cause of all that unfolded in the story. Gypo, in desperation, informed on Frankie just for 20 pounds. Again, based on the principle that betrayers must die, Gallagher hunted down Gypo and sentenced him to death. But Gypo, victimized by the rule and locked up in the cell, had to fight for survival, so he escaped. Gallagher fell into panic, and it could not be more clear that all his rambling of political theories is intended to ridicule the singular ideology of the Organization. The rigidity of the Organization put itself in grave danger, as Gypo got the chance to inform on Gallagher.
However, John Ford’s movie of the same name paints a completely different picture, praising the movement and inciting hope. He purposefully moved the timeframe to the Irish War of Independence to avoid any negative implications brought on by the Irish Civil War. The film portrays Gallagher as a calm, intelligent, and determined figure, fighting for the justice of the Irish people. The power of the organization is highly praised at the end, as Gallagher firmly refutes Katie’s plead to spare Gypo and says, “For Ireland!” This seems like a contradiction to O’Flaherty’s message, but one needs to look no further than John Ford’s biography to understand why. John Ford is Catholic and Irish American, so it makes perfect sense for him as an outsider to romanticize the War of Independence, and subsequently the IRA. However, in changing the story’s setting to the War of Independence, an important point is neglected: The War of Independence led to the split of the IRA into two factions, and precisely because of its militant and unyielding nature, led to the bloody Civil War.
The message of Uptight clearly does not shed positive light on the rising violent movement of Black America following King’s death. The addition of characters such as the old black leader who supports nonviolent protests and Teddy conveys another grave side effect of powerful militant organizations: lack of diversity. This not only refers to lack of tolerance for its members, such as Frankie and Gypo, but also to members of the general society. The old black leader desperately wanted to work with B. G., but only because of his opposition to violence they rejected him. Teddy was outright rejected simply because he was white, as “that’s the policy.” The racial struggle and the Irish Civil War certainly had many differences, but I think Jules Dassin was trying to make a point that diversity matters in all revolutions, especially immediately following King’s death. O’Flaherty’s novel touches on diversity, as Frankie’s father himself was a Socialist but wanted nonviolence. But Uptight’s emphasis on diversity was on a new level. King’s movement was unique; it was an enthusiastic youth movement, but also possessed many distinct qualities: nonviolence, diversity, tolerance, engagement, etc. There was hope that the spearheads of the radical youth would slow down just enough to gain traction with the society at large and bring about actual change. But King was murdered. The spearheads shot forward and the story repeated that of Ireland in the early 1920s: violence, killing, rejection of one’s own members, rejecting any outside voice.
Dassin saw hope in King’s approach. But that hope was quickly extinguished as King was murdered, leaving an almost helpless message in Uptight. The fire of revolution spread fast in 68’, rounding up young spearheads across the Atlantic. But perhaps that precise mechanism of rounding people up into ideology-driven, intolerant, fast-moving organizations caused their downfall. Slowing down and allowing the inflow of ideas and people might have got them closer to their goals in the first place.
Violence and Leadership
A lingering question that I have had on my mind after this week has been the question “Why does turning to violence become something we do even if we know it doesn’t work?” I’ve also been thinking about this in conjunction with our discussions over how a central figure/leader of a movement can affect and impact the actions that one takes during a movement and how desperation can lead to violence.
I wonder if the lack of a leader can permit more violence because without a central figure, those without leadership or direction might resort to actions and choices that are destructive to the cause itself. When there is no leadership, it is easy to split off and have different sub-groups that each have their own priorities and intentions in a movement. When this is the case, it is easy to see how some might turn to violence for their own gain. Although it is important to clarify that not all violence is a product of placing self-interest before the interests of a group, it is interesting to think how the representation of a group as a whole is changed by the actions of a few. I offer the thought that a central leader or figure might help to sort through these separate interests and re-align the group with their original intentions and goals.
Similarly, just as desperation is possible in any movement, when there is no central figure to help unite and continue to push the interests and concerns of the group, it is possible that desperation could cause the parts of the group to go their own way and resort to violence to help make their concerns known. I think it is interesting how the human mind works and how when we want or need something, we often do whatever it takes to get that thing. I think personally we often need someone to help guide and lead us in our decision making and process of making a plan and similarly, I think movements need this person as someone to help redirect and aid in the choices that a movement makes. Without this, violence becomes an option rather than something to try to avoid.
History is Still Repeating Itself
When we talked about the similarities of civil movements between 1968 and 2020, it became clear that history repeats itself. The ability for the story of The Informer, both the novel and film, to be uprooted with a and set to a totally different country and context in Uptight, and still use a similar plot and underlying themes, and have it still be very applicable, stood out to me even more. History definitely repeats itself. Watching Uptight, it was shocking for me to understand how a story about two former Irish Republican Army members, and their story about ideology, betrayal, and poverty be so applicable to two black revolutionaries in Cleveland, Ohio almost 30 years later. If you watched Uptight without knowing about its creation, you would not even be able to tell that it was an updated version of the Informer. You would think it was original story based on the protests after the assassination of MLK. The Afro-American and Irish situations were not the same, however, there were shocking similarities. Every country is connected, making it inevitable for history to repeat itself.
The hopelessness of Afro-Americans felt in Uptight, I believe, is still felt today. MLK was the leader of The Civil Rights movement in 1969, at least as how history and media portrays it. I believe there is hopelessness in the current BLM movement, because there is no ‘face’ of the movement. The protests nation wide, beginning with the death of George Floyd has seen very little success in instilling any kind of long-lasting policy change. We see police violence against blacks and deaths of protesters everyday, and it is heartbreaking to say that it surprises no one. While social media has been instrumental in informing the world about the BLM movement and the injustices felt by Afro-Americans currently, social media cannot be the leader of the BLM movement. There have been many influential people to speak up about the importance of ending racial injustice in America, but there seems to be no change. It saddens me that in the current political climate, leaders of the country are more interested in being re-elected than addressing and correcting the racial injustices plaguing Afro-Americans.
If no policy changes occur to aid the BLM, history will keep repeating itself.
Dark Mirrors
Mirrors reflect the attributes of their subjects. Dark mirrors, then, reflect the negative aspects. We saw, this week, revolutionary groups in action in both Ireland and the U.S. as they grappled with themselves and their enemies. After watching and discussing these movies I believe Uptight specifically displayed that this kind of dark mirror is present both between the movie’s black revolutionaries and the IRA, as well as between the movie’s underground government and the very governments it meant to oppose. These dark mirrors reflect not only the historical recurrence of violence between the different revolutionary groups, but it also how revolutionary groups, in their opposition to governments, begin to take the form of the very government they rebel against.
I have talked about the historical repetition of violence before, but that was in reference to ’68 and today. What Uptight shows, however, is that ’68 itself reflects violence even prior to itself. Even back in 1922, the IRA was a group that, fed up with peaceful compromises to their goals, resorted to violence to achieve them. The black revolutionaries in Uptight were exactly the same way, stealing guns and preparing for armed rebellion in response to the perceived failure of peaceful compromise. From this, we can see ’68 is an inheritor of a legacy of revolutionary violence. In this sense, a dark mirror of violence as a means for change is made between the IRA and black revolutionaries.
Perhaps most interesting is the reflection between the black revolutionary underground government, and the government it hoped to oppose. The black revolutionaries saw the American system they found themselves in as corrupt and systemically opposed to them. A kind of society where blacks were excluded as not wanted, and violence was used to suppress them. However, they respond in turn the exact same way as their oppressors. The revolutionaries start to exclude white allies, and plan to use violence to achieve their goals. They even hold mock court to try members they believe committed betrayal organizing just like a government would. Here, there exists a dark mirror between the group and the very entity it wants to oppose.
Ultimately, I think these movies have better contextualized ’68. Both in relation to other revolutionary times, as well as attitudes toward governmental authority. I am excited to further explore ’68 and find what other dark mirrors exist within it.
The Need For a Leader
This past week we debated whether or not the BLM movement had or needed a central leader. The question was raised whether or not social media and its ability to connect millions across the country with information instantaneously had replaced the need for a leader. When comparing the BLM movement with the civil rights movement I think that a central leader is not needed nearly as much today because of social media, but that’s not to say that a leader is not needed.
One thing I’ve noticed about the BLM movement in comparison to the civil rights movement is that there is less consistency when it comes to the approach protesters have taken. The civil rights movement for the most part utilized nonviolence under the guidance of Martin Luther King. BLM has had a large number of peaceful protests, but also a number of protests with widespread looting. These occurrences of looting have been met with criticism which not only has been used to focus attention away from the issues they are protesting about but has turned some people off from the movement. Perhaps if they had a central leader to organize protests and the approach they were taking consistency would reached and the movement would be stronger. On the other hand, social media has given way for a multitude of people to be a leader of the movement. I know that numerous NBA stars such as Lebron James, Chris Paul, and Jaylen Brown have been vocal in their support of the movement with Brown specifically driving 15 hours from Boston to lead a march in Atlanta. It is up to the people with power on social media to use their platform to promote change and perhaps find a consistent approach. I do not think that there is a definitive answer as to whether or not a leader is needed.