Anarchist pieces on border issues or the Troubles in the North? (1 Viewer)

[nooleen]

cool, more about this!

http://www.operationphoenixrecords.com/mrrissue60_13ChumbawambainNorthernIrelandArticle.pdf
recommend right clicking and 'save target as', it's a big file

 

[wageslave]

I've been scanning a bunch of old Anarchist newspapers from Belfast through the 80's and can send you a pdf if ya like. It won't be very well formatted though.


(I'm planning on tidying things up an bit, getting someone to write an intro to the group / newspaper / write a bit of context and then put it all online.)

 

[W.]

I've been scanning a bunch of old Anarchist newspapers from Belfast through the 80's and can send you a pdf if ya like. It won't be very well formatted though.


(I'm planning on tidying things up an bit, getting someone to write an intro to the group / newspaper / write a bit of context and then put it all online.)

Some of them are already on the site, no?

http://www.wsm.ie/story/2350

http://www.wsm.ie/story/2284

 

[Corm]

Reading a history book by an author with a specific political agenda will leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Even if you agree with the author, surely you're looking for facts, not opinions?
Sure, why not read a history of Stalin by an economist?

A history of Stalin by an economist; which economist? A neo-liberal economist, a socialist economist, a government economist? Marx, whose politics Stalin's were based on, was an economist?

There's arguably no such thing as a historian without a specific political agenda; in fact, most historians who would claim such a position may be unconscious or unaware of what side they're taking, and even providing a balanced viewpoint involves an awareness of both sides' perspectives, which their personal proclivities would be unwittingly influenced by. At least when you read an ideologically-based historical treatment, you know where they're situating themselves.

 

[the strange guy]

Nice one for the link, Nooly.
I never get tired of reading shite about the troubles by people who count spending a 'long weekend' in Belfast with republicans as giving them the authority to 'speak from experience'.
Does anyone know where they handed out their leaflets?
I'm afraid I might shit myself laughing if they handed them out at a gig in Belfast.

Whenever anyone from outside the North tries to accurately describe the troubles... it's like watching David Brent dance around the office.

 

[nooleen]

any weekend in belfast is a long weekend. two days too long..

 

[the strange guy]

There's arguably no such thing as a historian without a specific political agenda; in fact, most historians who would claim such a position may be unconscious or unaware of what side they're taking, and even providing a balanced viewpoint involves an awareness of both sides' perspectives, which their personal proclivities would be unwittingly influenced by. At least when you read an ideologically-based historical treatment, you know where they're situating themselves.

I totally agree, but if you're looking for an unbiased view and pick up 'An Anarchists View On The Troubles' you better take it with a big pinch of salt.

 

[W.]

A history of Stalin by an economist; which economist? A neo-liberal economist, a socialist economist, a government economist? Marx, whose politics Stalin's were based on, was an economist?

There's arguably no such thing as a historian without a specific political agenda; in fact, most historians who would claim such a position may be unconscious or unaware of what side they're taking, and even providing a balanced viewpoint involves an awareness of both sides' perspectives, which their personal proclivities would be unwittingly influenced by. At least when you read an ideologically-based historical treatment, you know where they're situating themselves.

Stalin didn't base his ideas on Marx really. Apart from that you're right, oly seems to come from the scientific position that objectivity exists. I'd be more on derrida's side of the fence.

 

[W.]

This pamphlet by Attack International is pretty funny, completely uncritical analysis of the role of the ira from the civil rights movement on with a bit of hilarious back history.

 

[the strange guy]

At the very least you can try to be objective. A good, objective piece of writing uses evidence, sources, dates, numbers and facts while stringing them all together in easily understandable chunks. When you start adding theories, possibilities, guessing intentions or motives or using outside or incorrect sources you start getting unbalanced.

Objectivity exists, it's just gets harder to maintain once the situation becomes more complicated.

Anyway, all I was trying to say is that if you're sick of reading propaganda then the next place to look shouldn't be more history books with a strong political stance.

Having said that, I didn't know that Gambra is writing a paper; I thought it was just out of personal interest of the situation.

W.- Do you have a link for that Attack International article?

 

[W.]

Yeh, but for political creatures the job is not just to document history but to interpret it, hence we wouldnt pass off any of these pamphlets as purely historical.

An example would be the series of articles wsm produced around 1916 which were properly researched but also critically analyse the events from an anarchist perspective. Like so - http://www.wsm.ie/story/702 (no namedropper, proper example)

 

[W.]

W.- Do you have a link for that Attack International article?

You can't get it online, but it really is worth picking up. Same situation as the copenhagen kids worshipping FARC really. The guy who ran attack international used to be obsessed with violence then apparently become a buddhist, dickhead.

 

[the strange guy]

Yeh, but for political creatures the job is not just to document history but to interpret it

I agree, history is nothing without interpretation, but reading someone else's interpretation of history is like reading music reviews. Unless you're happy with being told what to think.

An example would be the series of articles wsm produced around 1916 which were properly researched but also critically analyse the events from an anarchist perspective. Like so - http://www.wsm.ie/story/702 (no namedropper, proper example)

So... the IRB wants to become the government of the future Irish free state and, together with a socialist trade union, stages an uprising against the British.

Is it mindblowingly ignorant for me to ask how anarchism fits into that?
It all seems fairly hierarchical to me.
Lads on top giving orders.
People dying left right and centre.
Was there a black bloc nobody mentioned?

 

[Scientician 0.8]

I agree, history is nothing without interpretation, but reading someone else's interpretation of history is like reading music reviews. Unless you're happy with being told what to think.

The analogy breaks down when you consider how hard it would be for a normal individual to collate primary sources or to witness historical events, someone else's interpretation of history is all you're going to get unless you become a historian yourself.

 

[the strange guy]

It all comes back to the 'Get a good history book and make your own mind up' or 'Pick up this history book with neo-liberal leanings'.

A good example might be if someone is curious about global trade, reading the Guardian and shovelling Chomsky into you like cornflakes will only have you quoting different sources than having a well formed, personal opinion.

Here, I figured out what I;ve been trying to say. 'You've got to reads all sorts of shit.'

YES!

 

[Scientician 0.8]

I agree.

 

[Corm]

Here, I figured out what I;ve been trying to say. 'You've got to reads all sorts of shit.'

YES!

Heheh, exactly, thanks for saving me the bother of replying

However, I do agree that objectivity in relation to history is a largely (perhaps intrinsically) elusive ideal; even when primary documentation exists, or first-hand witnesses remain, events become clouded by many factors -exaggeration, personal biases, zeitgeist, propaganda, etc.

As such, all history contains a considerable measure of fiction.

 

[Corm]

I'd be more on derrida's side of the fence.

The side of the fence where people are dropping their names all the time?

 

[CITY BABY]

a mate of mine who spent time in different anarchist groups in london in the 80s told me that they had two positions on the north.


1) if you are talking to a brit you defend the peoples right to forcefully eject an occupying force by any means nessassary.

2) if your talking to an Irish person you maintain that republicanism and nationalism are regressive ideologies which devide the working class.

perhaps this is all you need to know.

 

[nofunchee]

R.A. did have some links with the IRSP/INLA

ooh ah, up the R.A?