The Stars and Bars

(As far as the anti-bigotry part of this blog, I decided at some point early on that I wanted to work around the edges of battling bigotry, offering ideas and information that most people are unaware of but which might help them here and there with anti-bigotry work. So that’s why there are a lot of posts that seem a little weird, including this one)

This is about the left, (what I call) the populist far right, the Confederate Flag, Nazi skinheads, and the Civil War (I actually worked in a very small N. Ireland connection, and could have added one more but decided not to). But first I need to spend 2 paragraphs explaining some relevant things.

UPDATE 2/28/09 I just realized that when I say militia, it might be more appropriate to say Patriot movement.

I do a lot of thinking, and often think about things from my past. There's one thing I've been thinking about that came up in the period 1999-2001 when I was doing left-wing activism (at the time I wasn't doing hardly any N. Ireland activism). The big thing about the Confederate flag and this skinhead woman I'll refer to towards the end I only learned recently, but the rest I basically knew at the time. Unlike 10-15 other times in the last 15 or so years, I don't think my failure to say this stuff at the time involved my brain freezing, I think that after the first time it came up (and I did some research into it at that point), it only came up one other time with the student group I'll refer to, and it was kind of questionable whether or not I should have said anything. There were two other times when it came up and I said something, plus I sent an email to some people, plus one more time it came up and it would have been maybe a little inappropriate for me to say something (this thing where my brain freezes and I don't say stuff I need to probably happened more with me than it does for most people, but it only happened something like 1-10% of the time depending on how you look at it, and I think there's a good chance now that it's gone, since I'm more aware of it).

As you'll see, part of this post is about 9 years too late, but it's probably still relevant, and I like telling stories about my activism, even when it involves me admitting that I was significantly less than 100% (of my organizing abilities) (for the most part I was probably about 50%-75%, depending on how you look at it).On average, my N. Ireland stuff had about 25 people at each event, my non-NI stuff was about 175 on average each event (that figure is ignoring several events I did, for example, in Denver or the dorms) and in some other ways I was often mildly-very successful with my activism) (also, there have been several things which weren't my fault that held me back here and there) (this is all about the period 1994-2004 and in 2003 I organized an event where 1,500 showed up) (I was about 50-100% responsible for about 30 events total during that time, plus about 10 more I was about 25%-50% responsible for).

Anyway, here's the background. In the late 1990s until about early 2001, there was a very large successful student organization at the University of Colorado at Boulder, called WAAKE-UP, World Awareness and Action Koalition of Equal United Progressives. I think the main organizations involved were Stop Hate On Campus (an independent CU-Boulder group), the CU-Boulder Student Environmental Action Coalition, and CU-Boulder Amnesty International (I think I might be missing 1-2 main or semi-main organizations). Although we were a very tiny part of it, my group Students for Justice in N. Ireland, I THINK was officially a member in 1998-1999. In 1999 until the coalition faded, my other group, the CU-Boulder Young Democratic Socialists were a small but not tiny part of it, I went to a few meetings and did some minor stuff. WAAKE-UP was founded by Scott Silber (who was the main figure the first two years), an amazing activist. WAAKE-UP did a LOT of very good work, the information on that wikipedia page seems pretty complete and accurate, although I believe they also did some anti-racist work, and even considered adding a bunch of diversity related demands to their sweatshop campaign but decided not to, probably because the sweatshop campaign was going to be enough work (which it was, it required a huge amount of effort). They probably did some other social justice stuff here and there too.

On April 15th 2000, in connection with the A16 activities worldwide in protest of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, WAAKE-UP had a major demonstration. They had me give a 5 minute speech as a rep of YDS-CU and the CO Democratic Socialists of America. Another DSAer told me that at some point a WAAKE-UP member mentioned various groups that were there in support, and mentioned a group called the Tyranny Response Team, the local chapter (well, I think they were mostly from outside Boulder, primarily as far as I can tell, a nearby city called Longmont which is pretty awesome, and overall almost as liberal as Boulder, but I'm not surprised that there would be a TRT chapter there). This other DSAer had heard about them, and what he said prompted me to do some research.

I looked at the national web-site of the TRT, which had links to local chapter web-sites (or different parts of the national web-site, I can't remember). I got the impression that, aside from the web-site, there was no national structure, and if there was, it was VERY decentralized. But if they share a national web-site and a common name, they have to take some small degree of responsibility for what the other groups are doing, and it's safe to assume that the politics of the other groups and the politics of the national web-site were more or less reflected in the local group.

The TRT are more or less in the militia tradition, although probably different from most groups that were militias. At one point, in Longmont they showed up at a pro-gun control meeting (it was not a public event, it was a planning meeting) to videotape and intimidate people. On the web-site, it talked about a TRT chapter in New England, it was almost definitely VT or NH, that was protesting some move towards gay marriage. Another TRT chapter in the South (and you can bet that all the Southern chapters did the same thing) was demonstrating in favor of the Confederate flag, which I'll get back to in a second. I remember other stuff indicating opposition to Affirmative Action.

Although this guy might not have been with the TRT, I wouldn't be surprised if he was. Around 1996 there was a guy who was more or less militia in Boulder whose politics I'd like to describe. One night when I was volunteering at a left-wing bookstore, he came by because he wanted to know what the lefties were saying about some significant curbing of civil liberties at the time. At one point he said that the unions were collaborating with the corporations to force multi-culturalism on America. Another time, at a rally in support of Mumia Abu-Jamal, he indicated that he thought supporting Mumia was ridiculous.

More generally, I get the impression that the militia types and this probably goes for the TRT, are more or less capitalist in the sense that they believe strongly in private enterprise and oppose regulation and taxes, and are also anti-union. What attracts some of them to progressives and some progressives to them (there was another time when a leading member of WAAKE-UP indicated she liked TRT)? It's possible the local TRT had some tendencies uncommon for that movement (I heard that one of them had earlier been involved in some progressive movement), but I'm pretty sure it's these two things- anti-globalization, and hostility towards government (at that point, probably somewhere around half of WAAKE-UP would have been anarchists).

Although I didn't say anything to WAAKE-UP directly, and I think I only mentioned their name in connection with this problem once (it's not just WAAKE-UP on the left that flirts/flirted with the less offensive parts of what I call the populist far-right), if it had come up more substantially I would have said something directly to them, even if it was a day late, as it might have been. But in any case, the left should not be working with those organizations. Organizationally (talking with them as individuals is a very good idea), the best approach is isolating them (winning support from people in that community, not giving them legitimacy (through, for example, welcoming them at your events), MAYBE trying to prevent them from holding meetings, etc.). After that, it might be appropriate to smash them organizationally. This could take the form of a law-suit, or getting the police to investigate criminal activities by the group and/or it’s members, or something else similar. (UPDATE 2/4/12 I having been meaning to further develop my thoughts about isolating and smashing, but for now this paragraph is what I believe)

(UPDATE 5/5/10- I just remembered that once (or twice) I DID say something to WAAKE-UP people that was critical of the TRT) (UPDATE 6/30/11 Of course I also recently remembered that the WAAKE-UPer (in response to me) said something even more offensive than his initial comment, and I failed to respond!!!)

So, in general, we shouldn't work with them. But now I want to come back to the Confederate flag, and why the association of the TRT with that flag and support for that flag in general is major problem.

First, I'm okay with it in certain areas- museums, plays/movies/etc. Civil War re-creations, and Civil War battlefields, I'm pretty sure that's it. I'm not okay with it as part of state flags or being flown at state capitols or anything like that, and when people display it at their homes or on their cars, or at rallies in support of it in general, including rallies that are not explicitly white supremacist. The thing is, that flag is drenched in white supremacy and slavery, and I'm not just saying that because the white supremacists have been using it. Although there were other factors with the Civil War, it's no coincidence that the South (and the vast majority of the slave states) broke off after the election of someone who was close to being an abolitionist. Also, towards the end of the war, the Confederacy considered ending slavery because it might improve their odds of winning, since it would affect European opinion in their favor. They decided not to, evidence that preserving slavery was more important to them than being independent of Washington D.C. (UPDATE 7/8/15 There's more about what the Confederacy was really about here)

So that flag is steeped in white supremacy and racism. We also know that, to one degree or another, people who display that flag (with the exceptions that I mentioned above and probably a hand-full of individual cases) are racists.

Here's another reason why it's not a good idea to legitimize the general use of that flag. In the Winter 2007 issue of the Southern Poverty Law Center's publication, it talked about a woman who was a Nazi skinhead for about three years until she had a falling out and they almost killed her. The relevant part is where the article explains what led her to become a Nazi skinhead. It seems that very shortly before she became a Nazi skinhead, there was an incident at her school that the article strongly implies contributed to her becoming a Nazi, although clearly she was already mildly racist. Her school was 76% Hispanic and there were Mexican flags all over the place. She placed a Confederate battle flag pin on her back-pack and was reprimanded by school officials. She felt persecuted- all the Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans could display their flag, why couldn't she display the Confederate flag? She'd been given the impression that it was a legitimate symbol, and the article didn't say anything about her parents being racist, so the odds are that to one degree or another she got that idea from people who, to one degree or another, weren't racist. I mean, in the 2000 Republican Primaries John McCain (and probably most of the other candidates) expressed support for the Confederate flag, although he later retracted that. There is probably some small number of people who aren't racist but who support that flag. And in at least one case, it lead to someone becoming a Nazi skinhead- although based on the article, this woman didn't do anything horrible, but at the very least she gave comfort and encouragement to those who did, she probably spread hatred, and she may have recruited people.

I'm not saying Mexico is above criticism, and it's possible that if the Confederacy had lasted hundreds of years like Mexico, the history associated with that flag might have been less than 100% bad (slavery might have ended after a couple generations), but all we have is five years during which the Confederacy fought to (almost) the death (when I said "almost," I was acknowledging that they did surrender, not every rebel solider or sailor fought to the death) to defend slavery, and singled out Black Union troops captured for hanging. The Mexican flag is not at all comparable to the Confederate flag.

The Confederate flag stands for something about 90% as bad as what the Nazi swastika stands for. And no one says that the Swastika is an appropriate symbol for the German people, even though it represents a larger chunk of German history, and on average, things for non-Jewish Germans during those years were probably better than things were for White Southerners during the five years of the Confederacy. But even with those two things, no one argues that the Nazi flag is an appropriate symbol for people to use. That is, overall it would make as much sense to use the Nazi flag as it would to use the Confederate flag- so if people think it's very inappropriate to use the former, why do they think it's so okay to use the latter?

UPDATE 12/10/15 I found an important article (via a link from the blog of the Southern Poverty Law Center) about why so many Americans have a messed up opinion of the Confederacy. It's here. 



Which leads me to the last point I want to make. In about 2002 or 2003, I was at some rally, I think it was anti-war. One speaker said something about how the Civil War was the one good war America fought (I'd add WWII, and to a small degree Yugoslavia in the 90s, maybe the Revolution and I guess the War of 1812, to a small degree the original invasion of Afghanistan (I've believed since about 2003 that we should get out) I'm pretty sure that's about it). Someone in the audience booed. The odds that the person was anywhere near being a White Supremacist are very low. Much more likely he was an idiot. The likelihood is that his opposition to war and/or government is greater than his opposition to slavery and racism. The odds are that slavery was going to continue for at least a couple more generations in the Confederacy if they had been allowed to secede, and it might have possibly continued for a similar amount of time in the Border states that did not secede if the issue hadn't been forced by the Civil War. Early in the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation resulted in what turned out to be permanent freedom for thousands of slaves immediately, with more freed every day as Confederate territory was taken by the Union Army. There was reason to believe that this would happen, based on Lincoln's' attitude towards slavery which went right up to the point of being an abolitionist (without actually being one), and the fact that after the 1860 election, the leader of the Republicans in the House, which had a large Republican majority, was a Radical. In fact, in July 1862, something similar to emancipation was passed by the Congress and signed by Lincoln. Anyway, with hindsight, the Civil War ended slavery and that makes it a good war, although as I often make clear, even "good" wars are still horrible, but some things are worth horrible things.

UPDATE 2/23/09 I found a national web-site for the TRT, odds are it's newer than the one I looked at 9 years ago (I actually found 2, but they seem to be the same group of people). On chapter sites, I found the following links:
1. Free Republic. A very conservative/right-wing web-site.
2. Those Shirts. I provide a link because the shirts are interesting and it provides some idea of the TRT's politics (it's kind of a right-wing version of snorg-tees, and last time I checked, most of their shirts were pretty cool). About Those Shirts:
A: About 1/3 are only mildly-moderately offensive (1/2 aren't offensive, just right-wing), but they indicate politics that the Left should not be working with.
B: The one about the Buerau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is kind of funny, even though I have roughly zero interest in those three things.
C: One shirt contains a quote from Ann Coulter right after 9/11 in which she said,. about Muslims "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to christianity."
D: Another shirt says "I'd rather be waterboarding."
E: Another shirt shows 5 days of weather, at the top it says Mecca Weather Forecast. The last day's weather forecast shows a mushroom cloud, and at the bottom it says "Partial Sunnis, Scattered Shiites."
F: Another shirt has a list of slogans for the US military abraod. The first one is "We don't like collateral damage, but it helps to stay the @#$% out of our way."
G: There's a few other shirts with material roughly as offensive as those four.

Cool Image and two more songs

The image I found on the web-site of Irish Anti-Fascist Action. Frank Ryan was an Irish Republican leader of the anti-Fascist foreign volunteers in the Spanish Civil War. The words are taken from a song by The Pogues, who seem progressive. (Blackshirts were Italian fascists who were in the Spanish Civil War)

Below are two new songs. They're both based on that crap I listen to. For more of an explanation, see this. The rest of the songs/poems can be found by clicking on the "lyrics" label (there are at least two pages worth of posts, so click on the "older posts" at the bottom of the first page).

"Always Stupid" based on "Always Near (For Ian Stuart)" by Brutal Attack, original lyrics are here.

In 1993 Ian Stuart (also known as Ian Stuart Donaldson) was killed in a car accident. He had been the leader of the world-wide Nazi skinhead music scene, and every year there are memorial concerts in his name. I've found three songs in his memory, there's probably more. There's another anti- song I did on one of the other lyrics posts.

1. I wouldn't say the skinhead scene was perfect before the Nazis became a big part of it in the late 1970s UK, but it certainly got worse with them, and if you first get rid of the Nazis, and then with the rest remove the fairly universal homophobia, common hostility towards immigrants, common hostility towards hippies, and probably a tiny amount of unjustified violence, the skinhead thing is kind of cool. It's about working-class pride, good music, friends, drinking, an interesting look, fighting when appropriate- there's nothing wrong with that.
2. I read somewhere about another fatal accident that took something like 3/4 of a Nazi band.
3. I'm not quite sure this was appropriate, but apparently I've developed a habit of referring to Seamus Costello in my songs about Ian Stuart. In this one I thought it'd be better to refer to Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey, but fortunately she's still alive. The instant she dies, change "Seamus" to "Bernadette."
4. Henry Rollins, who seems to have excellent anti-racist credentials, has said that Ian Stuart was a good singer, and I've heard other people say that minus the fascsim, Skrewdriver was a good band.
5. I'm not sure "crooner" is the right word.
6. The Starry Plough is the flag of republican socialism (it's shared by many Irish groups, the Irish Republican Socialist Movement is one).
7. The line about Nazis driving is inspired by a professional anti-Ian Stuart song by MDC called "Nazis Shouldn't Drive."
**8. 52% of this version is me, 48% is the original.
9. I give this song/poem two out of five stars.
10. This is similar to my poems about anti-racist skinheads and the "smashing the struggle" would be a lot less than 100% non-violent.

Now I sit alone and as I write this song
I think about how everything you did was wrong
You screwed up the skinhead scene, and ruined lives
Fortunately for us, Nazis don't know how to drive

Chorus:
This happiness I feel is oh so great
The death of Ian Stuart is so very easy to take
Remembering all his shit oh so crystal clear
And I know Seamus' strength is always near

Now some say absence makes the heart grow fonder
But not with Ian Stuart, his talent he did squander
Why is life so unfair, why didn't he die years sooner
We would have been a lot better off without that crooner

Our hatred for you will never be allowed to fade
We will continue to smash the struggle on which your life was made
I don't know all the answers, but I will stand up true
In all my anti-fascist actions Ian, I will think of you

Now Seamus, inspire me like the starry plough you unfurled
So I do what is right while I fight for our world
Steer me safe along the path that's destiny
To the ultimate goal when we are all free

*****

"Lanford" based "White Kid's Gonna Fight" by Bully Boys, original lyrics are here.

1. Lanford is the name of the large town in the late 80s/mid- 90s TV show "Roseanne." It's one of my favorite shows. It's hilarious, and it's about a working class family that's liberal across the board. "Roseanne" had one semi-main character who was gay, another who came out towards the end of the series, and a third that was in about 33 episodes. The show was also very anti-racist, and they had a fairly good attitude towards religion. Besides the politics, it was an amazing show. Also, the guy who played Mark is from Ireland.
2. The original is about demographic change in a small town, this version is about conservatives taking over a town and economic recession at roughly the same time, connected to a large degree. I suppose it's a large town or even a small city.
3. In general I don't like changing lyrics without a good reason. The original says Susan instead of Roseanne and I'm not sure exactly what it means. In my version, I guess it refers to Roseanne slightly breaking under the strain of the conservative nonsense that's taking over her town, which means that there's a lot of that nonsense, because it takes a lot to have that effect on Roseanne.
4. Considering that this is about a town being taken over by conservatives (and the rape line was already there, I didn't add it) I should say that it's probably not accurate to say that rapes would increase with an influx of conservatives, although it seems possible it would, more possible than with an influx of liberals. The main point though, is that, as evidenced by Sarah Palin and the rape kits (see this), and some other things I have heard, conservatives, including conservative women, are less likely than liberals to have the appropriate attitude about rape.
5. The darkened streets are the result of people not able to pay their power bills and/or the town/city cutting back on things like street-lights.
6. The words "porno store" were there with the original, but it almost makes sense the way I have it re-written for my version. Also, when I first read the original lyrics, I didn't know what a "porno store" was, a friend had to explain it to me, I had never heard of that kind of place.
7. In my version, the fighting is meant at least 99% non-violently. Also, although the quality isn't as great as I thought it would be, and I'm not sure how singable it is, it's possible this could be used to inspire people doing canvassing and get-out-the-vote efforts. UPDATE 2/23/09 I've changed my mind about the quality, and have been singing the altered version as I listen to the original, and it's awesome.
**8. 29% of this version is me, 71% is the original.
9. I give this song/poem five out of five stars.

UPDATES 3/31/09
1) The line about the porno store. I could have gone with the original and changed it to "Fred's old diner is now a gun store," but I'm pretty sure, based on some stuff in the show, that the Conner family on "roseanne" would have been more upset about the porno store closing than a gun store opening, and although it's close (I'm in the middle on guns) I would feel the same way.
2) Cops were portrayed pretty positively on the show, but it's fairly possible in a fairly liberal working-class town like Lanford that there could be no problem with police brutality (until the influx of conservatives) so that could explain why the cops were portrayed the way they were.
3) There was one tiny element that was also pro-prison.
4) Obviously I'm not a liberal, but I said "liberal" because it might be more accurate to call the Conners liberal than progressive, and they certainly weren't socialist.
5) The last season, the family gets rich from the lottery, but that season also includes by far the most anti-capitalist element of the show when Jackie and Roseanne use some of their money to help workers at a factory buy it- it becomes an employee-owned factory.
6) I think the cops, prisons, and the lottery wealth are the only elements that undermine the idea that it was solidly liberal (I guess I mean so liberal that you could almost call it progressive (but it's not like it advocated for single-payer; and although there are progressives fond of small business, the show was pro-small business and that's more of a liberal thing than a progressive thing)).

This used to be where I belonged
Now where have all the liberal kids gone?
The working-class built this fucking town
Now the damn place is going down
Well, Roseanne's looking a little beat
The homophobes just moved onto Karl St.
The cops shot miguel at 8th and Main
And Kate got raped, but who's to blame

Chorus:
Darkened streets and smashed dreams
My hometown is torn at the seams
But I won't leave without a fight
I've got just one chance to make things right... fight!

The union hall is now all we've got
There's Republicans in every parking lot
The employers have declared class war
The Puritans closed down the porno store
I think I know just who's to blame
But I won't play their crying game
The GOP still wants to turn back the clock
I'm gonna fight this block by block



One last note: Even with the songs that are only about 10% me (and at the upper end, one is 75% me), I have a request, although I don't have strong feelings or expectations about this. First, I want credit for these songs. Second, I'd appreciate it if the notes follow the lyrics around the internet. If you modify the lyrics further, please either make some notes for the changes if you leave some of my changes, or just provide a link to this URL so people can see my version. Although I'm not sure how many people will like what I'm doing with the lyrics, to one degree or another (depending on how much I changed them) I'm proud of these songs- and at the risk of getting a little personal, if people like the songs, I could really use the extra boost of getting credit for them right now (or if you don't like them, they were all written by Sarah Palin- that fascist, what kind of sick person enjoys altering racist lyrics?).

Joint Sovreignty Assembly

This is a slightly edited version of something I typed up in 2005 and showed to a small number of people. Before, as, or after you read this, you might want to read "Catholic Protestant and Dissenter."

Below is a proposal for a solution to the Northern Ireland conflict which will result in a United Ireland in such a way that a Unionist backlash is unlikely. It is also based on the idea that the way the GFA institutionalizes sectarian identities is very unhelpful and inhibits the development of normal politics in the North even more than is already the case with partition. Members of the Assembly have to identify as Nationalist, Unionist or Other, and on crucial votes regarding power-sharing, there has to be a majority of both Nationalists and Unionists (or 60% overall and at least 40% of each side). In general, this probably does institutionalize sectarian divisons, although it t does prevent a Unionist-only government and it makes it unlikely SF will be excluded.

But there is a better way.

What follows is based on the idea of shifting sovreignty over the North towards Dublin, with the end result a guaranteed United Ireland, but the JSA part could, without changing the composition of it and without the other things that move towards a United Ireland as described below, be used to govern the North in a way that avoids institutionalizing sectarian identities.

********

I have always believed that Ireland's reunification cannot and shouldn't be done "overnight" (that is, within one year). The process should be gradual but with the end result of a United Ireland guaranteed by treaty between Dublin and London. The process should also involve a lot of neutral elements and make an effort to partly balance the over-all trend towards a United Ireland with some relatively harmless concessions to Unionists.

The Irish and British governments would sign a treaty outlining a series of three stages over 30 years that result in Dublin having full sovreignty over all 32 Counties of Ireland. The following are some suggestions as to what should be in the Treaty. ** indicates my explanation and justification of each section above those paragraphs.

Also, I'm not an expert on this stuff, so I'm leaving out a lot of technical details, and if this were adopted, I wouldn't be surprised if some things I recommend just have to be done differently.


The Treaty will establish three stages, each lasting 10 years, plus some conditions to last after the end of Stage 3 until amended by the Irish and/or British parliaments. The central element of this solution will be a Joint Sovreignty Assembly that will govern Northern Ireland.

** I think 30+ years period will be helpful. Easing unionists into a United Ireland will probably lessen the total amount of negative response by the unionists. It's kind of like how if you put a frog in water and then heat up the water gradually, the frog will not jump out of the water (and will die). When the first stage starts, I can't see there being a massive backlash, as the changes would be small. There would be 10 years for them to get used to the South having a significant input into N. Ireland government. Basically the same with the second stage, the third stage, and the Six-County assembly after stage 3.

** Although many would probably suggest that a joint sovreignty government should be based on an executive made up of appointees from Dublin and London, perhaps with some Northern Ireland dimension, I think it would make more sense and certainly be more democratic to establish an Assembly with members elected from the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Great Britain, from which a cabinet would be formed and to which the cabinet would be accountable. An executive made up of Dublin and London appointees which completely excludes NI politicians obviously would not work. If NI politicians were to be included at the discretion of London and Dublin, that would make them accountable to London and Dublin, not any constituencies in NI. Even if NI politicians in the executive were drawn from a NI Assembly, the British and Irish Cabinet members would still be accountable to London and Dublin. A Joint Sovreignty Assembly as I'm proposing it would mean a unified Cabinet drawn from and accountable to the same Assembly so there would be a lot more consistency and coherency in government policy, and Assembly members, especially those elected from NI, would be accountable to voters. This would, temporarily, result in more election boundaries being drawn and more elections being organized, but it would be worth it if it lasts only thirty years and results in a resoluton of the conflict in NI.

** Some republicans and nationalists might complain about people elected from Britain being in the Assembly, but I have gotten the impression that they feel good about joint sovreignty of the normal sort as a step towards a United Ireland, and that would involve people from Britain.

At every stage, representation in the Assembly will be weighted towards NI, and to a lesser degree, the Republic. There will be no designation of members as Unionist, Nationalist, or Other, nor any requirements on cross-community support for an executive or anything else.

** There is almost no chance that a unionist majority could exclude nationalists from the executive and return to the old days of Stormont. The only way that could happen is if, in the first stage, the British Conservatives got more than 30 seats out of 50 in Britain, and that's unlikely. Very few of the parties that would be in the Joint Sovreignty Assembly would tolerate even the exclusion of SF, although it's slightly possible SF might end up in the opposition anyway, but that would probably not be as bad as it would be under the current situation, where an Executive without SF would have a very large Unionist majority.

Stage One- Years 1-10

The JSA will be made up of 50 members elected from NI, 50 members elected from GB, and 10 members elected from The Republic. There's no reason why the elections in NI and The Republic couldn't be based on Proportional Representation with Single Transferable Vote, but it would probably be acceptable if the election in GB were conducted on a First-Past-the-Post basis. It will function on a parliamentary basis and elections will be held at least once every 5 years. Powersharing across sectarian lines would not be required, coalition governments would be formed the same way they are in Dublin, London, and elsewhere.

** The voluntary nature of coalition governments would faciliate the development of normal politics.

** Someone wrote a piece about joint sovreignty here. It's a good idea and I'm open-minded about a NI-only Assembly instead of what I propose in this post, although I'm not sure how it'll work if either London or Dublin don't give laws passed by the Assembly legal effect.

The JSA Treasury will pay for everything except UN-affiliated operations, and will get 45% of it's revenue from NI taxes, 10% from Dublin, and 45% from London. Initially all laws which had been applied from London to NI would continue but could be repealed or altered by the JSA. Laws and policies adopted by the JSA need not be in line with British laws, but the ultimate authority of the British constitution and House of Lords (or a Supreme Court) would continue.

The electoral quota for Westminster seats in NI would be doubled, while NI would elect members to the Dail with an electoral quota three times what it is in the rest of Ireland.

** This sounds kind of messy, as it will be altered two more times, but if the experts think it works, it should be done, although the important part is the joint sovreignty and the shifting of sovreignty to Dublin.

The British Army in NI will not exceed 10,000 and will be confined to barracks except in certain circumstances. A UN Peace-Keeping force (excluding British and Irish forces) of about 20,000 would be established. All UN forces will be under the command of a General (who is neither Irish nor British) approved by the Treaty Commission (whose members will be agreed by the Irish and British governments, and once appointed can not be forced to resign). The commander will be accountable on a day-to-day basis to a Defense Committee made up of the JSA Home Affairs Minister, a senior figure from the British MOD and one from the Irish MOD. The British Army can be deployed on the word of the UN Commander, but within twelve hours it must be approved by all 3 members of the Defense Committee and must be approved every 12 hrs. after that.

** SF and probably all other republicans do not like the idea of UN Peace-keepers in the North. Here's why I include that anyway. Even if this is done the right way, there will be a Unionist/Loyalist backlash, and the local police might not be up to it. On the other hand, using the British Army is unnatractive because A) we don't want them on the streets of the North, considering their history, and B) we can't be certain they'll consistently go after the loyalist paramilitaries, given their history. On the other hand, compared to UN Peace-Keepers, the Irish Army might just piss of the Unionists a little bit more- not because the IA would be brutal with civilians, they probably wouldn't, but because, until the Unionists have been eased into a United Ireland and realize that they have nothing to fear, they will likely react worse to the IA than to the UN.

The PSNI would, based on criteria drawn up by a Policing and Cease-Fire Commission (whose membership will be agreed by the British and Irish governments), purge itself of officers who are sectarian and/or have colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries. The vacated positions will be temporarily filled by officers organized by the UN (but excluding British and Irish Officers). Plastic bullets (and rubber bullets) would be banned (neither the police, Army, nor UN forces may use them). A Chief Constable would be appointed by the JSA Home Affairs Minister, and the CC would continue to be accountable to the Policing Board and District Policing Boards. Police will be unarmed but may be accompanied by UN Peace-Keepers when neccessary.

** UN forces would very liklely be made up of military units trained to use force only when absolutely neccessary, and their rules of engagement would reflect this, meaning that shooting unarmed civilians would be a lot less likely. While some Unionists/Loyalists might be hostile towards them as enforcers of the Treaty, they would probably be a lot less hostile to UN forces than they would be to the Irish Army. Nationalists and Republicans, because the Treaty is a victorty for them and because they largely support the UN, would probably be very unlikely to come into conflict with the Peace-Keepers. It is concieveable that, especially during the Marching Season, sometimes the UN forces might be briefly overwhelmed in specific geographic areas. In such cases it would make sense to briefly deploy the British Army rather than see rioting or paramilitary attacks. Ideally the officials involved would be smart enough to deploy the BA only in loyalist-only disturbances (or maybe that should be in the Treaty itself), to avoid the possibility of a return to republican-BA conflict.

** A purge of those PSNI officers who are sectarian and/or have colluded with loyalist paramilitaries will greatly increase the number of Nationalists willing to join the police, but in the meantime filling vacancies with officers organized by the UN would help maintain the PSNI's operational abilities and at the same time develop a human rights culture in the force. The continuation of plastic bullets would be unacceptable, whoever they might be used against. Considering police in the Republic and most police in GB are unarmed, disarming the PSNI is not unreasonable and would lessen the liklihood that the police would provoke violence as they have before. On the other hand, there would be many neighborhoods, both Loyalist and Republican, where unarmed police would be at risk, so it would make sense for them to be accompanied by armed UN Peace-Keepers. (I'm not sure if I'm wedded to the idea of unarmed police in the early part of this process)

** On purging the police, the more time that goes by, the likely that is to be neccessary if trends on Catholics joining the police continue- the more Catholics, the more the sectarians will leave.

Parades would continue to be determined by the Parades Commission, whose members will be agreed by the Irish and British governments. Security for controverisal parades will be provided only by UN Peace-Keepers.

The Republic would re-join the British Commonwealth.

** Although I'm not familiar with the Commonwealth, it seems like it has no real power over members, and requires few committments from it's members, so it really doesn't place the 26-Counties back under British rule at all, but being in the Commonwealth might have some special meaning for a lot of Unionists so this might make the transition to a United Ireland easier.

The Treaty Commission will consider any ambiguities in the Treaty and make any adjustments such as extending the time period for a Stage or an aspect of a Stage. It will also have responsibility for approving the Commander of UN forces. It's 7 members will be agreed by the Irish and British governments, should be composed of international affairs experts, former senior politicians from across the world, and include only one person from the Republic, one from GB, and one from NI. It's decisions can be vetoed by either a 75% vote of the JSA, or a majority of both Westminster and the Dail.

** I'm sure that even with a Treaty drafted by experienced people there will be at least some ambiguities and there will be some need for minor adjustments. Such changes should be made by people with at least no direct interest in Northern Ireland politcs (although the total exclusion of Irish, British, and Northern Irish people would be a mistake) but who have experience in international affairs. This way they're decisions will probably be accepted by most as being fair. If such a body has some degree of control over the peace-keeping forces, that will probably result in them being accepted more than they normally would. On the other hand, it would be somewhat undemocratic to have their decisions be completely final, so the three representative bodies should have veto power.

The Policing and Cease-Fire Commission's members will be agreed by the Irish and British governments. They should be people from across the globe with experience in human rights, criminal justice, conflict resolution and related fields and it's 7 members should include only one person from the Republic, one from GB, and one from NI. It's first job will be to establish criteria by which the JSA Home Affairs Minister will dismiss those Police Officers who are sectarian and/or have colluded with Loyalists. After that, the Commission will be charged with determining which organizations are on cease-fire. Towards the end of Stage Two they will help determine the relation between the Six-County Gardai, Dublin, the JSA Home Affairs Ministry, and the Policing Boards that will be used in Stage Three.

** Creating objective criteria for purging the police will probably be tricky and should be done by a group that can be seen as detached from the conflict so that the criteria will be seen as fair. And while determining the status of paramilitary cease-fires will be incredibly important, it is equally important that such determinations be and be seen as fair and objective. The details of integrating the PSNI into the Gardai while maintaining the power of the Policing Boards will need to be done by experts in such fields as policing.

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission will be established, it's members agreed by the Irish and British governments. They should be people from across the globe with experience in human rights, criminal law, conflict resolution and related fields and their 7 members should include only one person from the Republic, one from GB, and one from NI. They will review every incident since 1966 chronologically and make decisions on amnesty for those who have not been sentenced or haven't completed their original sentence.

Paramilitary organizations that are on cease-fire but are believed to still have weapons and explosives will be targets of searches for weapons and explosives. Anyone arrested in connection to such searches whose only crime is possession of weapons and explosives and membership of an illegal organization will be quickly released without charge. Organizations that are not on cease-fire will be subject to both searches, arrests and charges. Those who have been charged with paramiltary-related offenses will be given political status whether jailed in NI, The Republic, or GB.

** It is very likely that large chunks of the loyalist paramilitaries, and probably a very small number of dissident republicans, will engage in armed actions. It'll be neccessary to deal with those organizations, but arresting members of organizations that are on cease-fire would almost certainly just push them into ending their cease-fires, so it would make sense to create some kind of legal mechanism so that arms and explosives can be seized from cease-fire groups without having to detain their members for more than a day. POW status should also be given to members of paramilitary groups in jail- to do otherwise would invite more resistance.

STAGE TWO Years 11-20

At the beginning of this Stage (or between years 9 and 12 as decided by the Treaty Commission) representation in the Assembly will be changed to the following: 50 from NI, 30 from GB, and 30 from the Republic. Correspondingly the financial contributions will be changed to 44% from NI taxes, 28% from the Irish government, and 28% from the British government. NI representation in Westminster will be at three times the normal electoral quota, and NI representation in the Dail will be at twice the normal electoral quota.

** It makes sense to gradually shift representation to the Irish Republic and away from the UK.

The Irish Constitution and Supreme Court would replace their British equivelants, but laws and policies adopted by the JSA wouldn't have to be in line with Irish laws.

The British Army would be withdrawn from NI, their barracks occupied by Irish Army units. However, the IA would be confined to barracks in the same way the BA units were. All other security arrangements would remain the same as they had been in Stage One.

** Again, these measures would gradually shift NI towards integration with the Republic. The confinement to barracks of Irish troops would lessen the negative reaction of loyalists.

At this point Loyal Order marches will be allowed anywhere they want to go, provided the security for such marches is exclusively UN Peace-Keepers. The Parades Commision will still regulate some aspects of parades in NI.

** This is based partly on the fact that at least one Orange Order parade takes place every year in the Republic with little security, and without incident. As NI moves towards integration with the Republic, Loyal Order parades should be more acceptable to nationalist residents. And such a move would lessen unionist opposition to being eased into a United Ireland.

** In general, I stand by this, but it might be better saved for Stage Three, unless dramatic progress has been made on equality for Catholics- for example, how many years has it been since Catholics were significantly more likely to be unemployed than Protestants, how many sectarian murders of Catholics have taken place, etc. This is something that should be dealt with by the Treaty Commission.

STAGE THREE Years 21-30

At the begginning of this Stage (or between years 19 and 22 as decided by the Treaty Commission) representation in the Assembly will be changed to the following: 50 from NI, 10 from GB, and 50 from the Republic. Correspondingly the financial contributions will be changed to 45% from NI taxes, 45% from the Irish government, and 10% from the British government. NI representation at Westminster will end, NI will be fully represented in the Dail.

** I'm not quite sure what I was thinking with completely ending representation at Westminster, although it largely makes sense, maybe this should be tweaked so that there's still something like 1-3 MPs.

The Irish Army will replace the UN military forces who will be withdrawn from NI. A Six-County Irish Army commander must be approved by the Treaty Commission and on a day-to-day basis will answer to a Defense Committe made up of a representative from the British MOD, JSA Home Affairs Minister, and a representative from the UN Secretary-General. Police provided by the UN will be replaced by Gardai. The PSNI will be integrated into the Gardai and the Chief Constable will be appointed from Dublin but will still be answerable to the Policing Boards.

** Twenty years should be enough time to significantly reduce tensions and the paramilitary presence so that there will be little or no military presence needed on the streets; and whatever presence is needed should be provided by the Irish Army at this point, although they would still have some supervison from Britain, the UN, and the JSA Home Affairs Minister (who would, to some degree, be answerable to Unionists in the Assembly). By that time the PSNI should be fairly representative of the communities it polices (there should be a large Catholic element of the force) and there should also be a strong human rights culture in the force, so UN officers won't be needed. And it will be time for the PSNI to be almost completely integrated into the Gardai, with the Policing Boards as a local check.

POST STAGE THREE

The Six-County area will now be under the complete sovreignty of the Dublin State. The JSA will be dissolved. A Six-County Assembly with limted devolved powers determined by the Dail will be established and will last for at least 10 years. The Assembly will function as any other such body, without a requirement for members to designate as Unionist, Nationalist, or Other, or a requirement of cross-community support for an Executive.

** Although unionists really don't have anything to be concerned about, the fact is that even after 30 years there will still be some anxiety for them as they are finally cut off from the UK. A Six-County Assembly with at least limited autonomy will make this easier, as they will probably still have a small majority in the Six-Counties.

** Even without a power-sharing requirement (which it shouldn't have) there's no way this will result in a return to Stormont (the sectarian, Unionist-dominated government that existed from the early 20s until 1972)- even if the unionists try, the National government in Dublin will have authority to block such a move. This is also why a Six-County Assembly won't be a dilution of republican goals, as Dublin will have ultimate authority and the UK will have no formal influence at all. The idea that such an Assembly should include all nine counties of Ulster I think is a mistake. In a nine county area, unionists would probably be a small minority- certainly nowhere near as small a minority as they would be in all 32 counties, but still such a small minority that the effect of making them feel less ovrwhelmed would be negated. And I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that the Six-County area is different from the rest of Ireland. And there's a good chance that "normal" politics will have taken hold there by then, especially as the main "southern" parties will almost certainly be organizing there (actually, at this point, all but one of them are).

** At this point, even in a Six-County Assembly, the odds of a return to the old days of Orange rule are very low. Even if the Executive is solidly Unionist, A) Unionism will probably have changed enough that they will not try to impose Orange rule on the Six-County area and B) if they do head in that direction, the Government in Dublin will have various means to check them. With that in mind, it is important that "normal" left-right, Labour-Tory politics develop which will focus on things like social and economic justice and encourage people to focus less on their national and religious identities and more as workers (or socialists, or middle-class, or whatever).

British pass-ports will remain available to anyone in the Six-County area and the Common Travel area between Ireland and the UK will remain, although they can both be ended by Westminster and/or the Dail.

** This will simply contribute a bit to making unionists feel comfortable asserting some kind of new British-Irish identity.


 UPDATE 8/16/15 Very shortly after the end of Stage 3 a constitutional convention will be held for all of Ireland, organized by the international community.

**At some point in the past for at least a year or two and probably a decade or two, Sinn Fein called for a constitutional convention to be part of a future unification of Ireland. I think it’s a great idea that should be revived as it would probably make the northern Protestants feel like they have a very big say in what kind of Ireland they’re being added to (and they’d be right- they’d be on the same level as everyone else).


(I always knew that with two aspects of this (possibly others, I haven't read it in a while, but for now I'm gonna go with two) I was aiming for the extremes. 30 years is at the upper end of how long this process should last. It might make more sense to aim for 5 years instead of 10 for each phase, with some flexibility as described above. The other area is security force levels, but letting the BA stay around during the first phase makes sense in terms of making the process easier on the Unionists, and having the IA move in before the UN leaves more or less makes sense)

The Brown and The Green

Before or after you read this, you should read the post "Catholic, Protestant And Dissenter," and if you feel like it, "Anti-Racism and Republicans," "The Spirit of Robert Briscoe," and "Invisible Comrades."

This is mostly an addition to the post "Fuck Fascism Before It Fucks You," In that post I refer to a statement by the then-leader of the Irish Labour Party that accused Sinn Fein of being fascist, that compared SF's nationalism to that of the French National Front, or the kinds of nationalism that led to the two world wars. My response to that is in a letter-to-the-editor which is found about 2/3 the way through the post I'm now updating.

I just found a paper by someone at the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University, written in 2006- it appears to be by a grad student. So far I've only read a small amount and am going to post this probably before I finish reading, so either there will be a lot of updates, or I'll make a note and simply replace the original draft with the updated version. It refers to the ILP Leader's statement and also a statement in 1996 by an leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SF;s moderate rival) that SF was fascist. Also, about 10 years ago, someone who had been a fellow co-chair in my group Students for Justice in N. Ireland, and who was VERY familiar with N. Ireland (and also someone who was semi-friendly to SF and who I respect a lot), said that since SF was both Nationalist and Socialist, it wasn't too far off to call them National Socialist (fascist) (I don't think she was more than half-serious). At the time, well, it was probably some combination of shock/my brain freezing, and not having quite as much knowledge as I needed to effectively respond, so I didn't say anything.

First, the idea that combining Nationalism with Socialism means SF are fascist. First, SF largely derides the idea that they are a NATIONALIST PARTY, although clearly in the North every member of SF would consider themselves part of the nationalist community, in the sense that they support a United Ireland. They assert that there are differences between republicanism and nationalism. First, republicanism tends to be much more secular than Irish Nationalism. The SDLP are frequently described as being very close to the Catholic Church, whereas in most parts of the North, the Church is very hostile to republicans. Republicanism also tends to be more left-wing, throughout this blog there's evidence of that, especially if you read the post "Stoop Down Low Party." The old Nationalist Party, which was more or less replaced by the SDLP in the early 1970s and which the SDLP can sort of be compared to, were very Catholic, and often fairly sectarian- in one case, when a Catholic conservative slum-lord was competing for Catholic votes with a Protestant, anti-sectarian Labour candidate, the religion of the Labourite was emphasized to the voters. Also, in Derry, campaigners for Nationalist candidates would tell Catholic voters that the Protestants were all voting for the Labour candidate, suggesting that the Labourite was on the side of the Protestants. Now, the SDLP seem to be a lot less sectarian- in the 1970s, one of their most senior members was a Protestant (in the movie Bloody Sunday, which I reccommend, he's the main character).

Beyond the fact that calling them nationalists isn't that accurate, the idea that all nationalism is fascist (as the ILP leader suggested), is ridiculous, Many expressions of nationalism are legitimate responses to actual oppression, and and many that are not connected to actual oppression are nonetheless not that negative- that is, they don't result in hatred of others. I mean, Scottish nationalism, as far as I can tell, is not a response to actual oppression, but is harmless.

And the idea that nationalism + socialism = national socialism is, most of the time, not true. For example, I know that, at least around 2001, there were socialist tendencies in MEChA, the Mexican-American/Chicano Nationalist student group, and I know that those tendencies did not add up to fascism because they invited the National Organizer of the Young Democratic Socialists to speak at a National Conference. It also seems to me that the Black Panther Party were influenced by nationalism, and socialism, and although they are not above criticism (neither is MEChA), they were far from fascist- they worked very closely with mostly/exclusively white left organizations, with other people of color, and in general they were not hostile towards democracy. You could sort of say something similar about the African National Congress, and lots of other groups.

At this point you might want to read the other posts, but let me briefly say:
1) SF is overwhelmingly not anti-Protestant (see "Catholic, Protestant, and Dissenter").
2) They are overwhelmingly anti-racist (see "Anti-racism and Republicans").
3) They are overwhelmingly against anti-Semitism (see "The Spirit of Robert Briscoe").
4) They are overwhelmingly against homophobia (see "Invisible Comrades").
5) Although they're obviously not pacifists, they are generally anti-war and believe that when possible, disputes should be settled without violence, and they're very consistent about that.

Do they believe in democracy? Although the evidence on this isn't solid, they do. Their rejection of the Southern state until 1948 was not totally consistent, and in 1948, either shortly before or right after the Republic was declared by the Irish Parliament, the IRA issued a General Order that force was not to be used against the Southern state- although it's not 100% clear the Provisional IRA (now known as the IRA) maintained this policy, and if they did they were not 100% consistent about it, but they were close. The order amounted to de facto recognition of the State, and in 1986 SF decided that if their members got elected to Parliament they would take their seats in Dublin. Their earlier hostility towards the southern State, I'm convinced was not based on hostility towards democracy (well, throughout the last 100 years of republican history, probably something like 10% have been hostile from the Left and something like 5% from the Right, but that's it) and was semi-legitimate, especially in the early years after the Civil War. The Civil War was between those who accepted the Treaty with the British and those who did not. Although in hind-sight I say that I would have RELUCTANTLY supported the anti-treaty side, the Treaty was horrible, and the southern State was based on the Treaty, not to mention the victorious pro-Treaty side executed a lot of the prisoners they took. Although it would have been a good idea earlier, SF indicated it's interest in democracy when they started contesting elections and taking their seats on local councils in the early 1980s. Before that you have to understand that the events of the late 1960s and the 1970s kind of justify and explain their total rejection of the British State in Ireland and everything connected to it. More recently, their participation in the Executive of the N. Ireland Assembly confirms their democratic credentials.

Another thing that people bring up is how the IRA policed Nationalist Communities. The thing is, between 1970 and about 2004 (this didn't end overnight) and to some degree before that, there was basically no support for the police in the Nationalist community. SF's more moderate rival, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, almost always, during the conflict refused to support the police- it was a big thing when they endorsed the new Police Service of N. Ireland in 2002. According to Eamon McCann, sometime around 1990, in an SDLP area of Derry, the local community had the IRA deal with a serial child molester. The molester had an "apprentice," a young boy, and the locals begged the IRA to take care of him too- they would rather see a child killed than go to the police about it. In 2001 the Gaelic Athletics Association dropped a rule that prohibited members of the N. Ireland security forces from being members of the GAA. However, when they voted, five of the six counties that make up the North, voted to retain it. The GAA in the North is overwhelmingly based in the Nationalist community and almost as overwhelmingly Catholic, and it would be safe to say that around 2/3-5/6 of that community did not believe the police were reformed enough that they could be allowed in. Three years earlier, 99% of the Nationalist community voted in favor of the Good Friday Agreement, so it's safe to say their votes were not sectarian.

On the other hand, I should say that I don't think the republican movement handled things perfectly. They didn't do much at all in terms of restorative justice until around the same time as the GFA. On the other hand, that probably would have taken care of only some very tiny minority of cases that came up. I also get the impression that probably some large majority of the time they either shouldn't have done anything or they went too far. But to one degree or another, most of the time something had to be done.

The paper I'm responding to specifically refers to the IRA going after women fraternizing with British Army soliders. Well, if we look at what happened in occupied Western Europe after the Allies liberated areas, women who had been friendly to German soldiers were treated very poorly. And in those countries, it's probably safe to say that, unless you were Jewish, German occupation wasn't as bad as British occupation was in the North in the 1970s or 80s, although in the 90s it might not have been any worse than during WWII with the Germans. UPDATE 3/1/09 I want to slightly change this- in the first two decades it was probably just as bad, in the third it was probably not quite as bad, but still, if it happened in France etc. it really isn't that bad in the North.

The paper also refers to the use of flags. Yes, those Shinners love their flags. And Nazis certainly do too, so that proves it, SF is fascist. Actually, it doesn't. If the author of that paper is going to accuse the Irish Republican Socialist Movement of being fascist, I'll give him points for consistency. Same thing for Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans (have you ever seen so many flags?). This genius also points out that republicans, at certain events, favor black berets and dark glasses. Once again, I refer to the Black Panthers.

This guy also points to SF ministers in the Northern Executive using partial privitisation of public services as evidence. He can point to that as evidence that their not socialist, but that's hardly evidence that they're fascist. And as I explain elsewhere, the budget for NI is significantly out of the hands of the Executive, and SF are only about 1/3 of the Executive and only about 1/4 of the Assembly, and do not have total control over their departments.

The paper then says that SF wants to return to the past, to the "status quo ante," and refers to SF's envisoning of a gaelic Ireland. There's nothing fascist about wanting to encourage the Irish language and culture. First, I'm waiting for the author to lecture Mexican Americans for using Spanish in parts of American that were never part of Mexico, since he's lecturing SF about the Irish language in Ireland (I have no problem with the Spanish language being used as far from Mexico as Maine- si se puede!). Also, SF's idea of a Gaelic Ireland includes gay rights, multi-culturalism, some access to abortion, feminism in general, and a secular state guaranteeing religious freedom.

(in all fairness, the author sometimes says one thing that's ridiculous and then 1-2 paragraphs later says something which contributes to the idea that it was ridiculous- I'm not going to respond to every paragrapgh and acknowledge every time he does that)

He says that SF's opposition to war is inexplicable, which makes sense, because all republicans are blood-thirsty psychos who want nothing but constant death and destruction. But then there's that thing where they've been on cease-fire since 1997 (this paper was written in 2006) and the republican movement has bent over backwards to make the Peace Process work. You can support war in some cases and not in other cases without being a hypocrite or something- depending on the specifics (Irish-Americans who supported the IRA but not the ANC's military wing in S. Africa (and I'm sure there were many) were, obviously, racists). In some situations, war is between justified and neccessary. N. Ireland is one such case. There were enough problems with the invasion of Iraq (no link to Al-Qaeda, serious doubt over WMDs, the lack of a threat to Iraq's neighbors, it seemed like there was only luke-warm support among the Kurds for an invasion (that's from the BBC and I'm partly adjusting for what the Kurds have done since the invasion started) almost universal opposition throughout the world, the liklihood that the US military would behave badly during and after the invasion (it seems like the first part they weren't so bad, but they've been horrible during the occupation), the liklihood that the Bush administration would be horrible during the occupation (check), the fact that US policy in the Middle East and more generally in the world would likely result in serious opposition during the occupation, the likelihood that a secular dictatorship that treated woman almost as horribly as everyone else would be replaced by something less secular and more sexist) to justify SF's stance even though they're clearly not universally against war.

The paper then talks about SF being inconsistent and being populist, saying what they think is popular. He ignores two things- first, there are multiple tendencies in SF, as is the case with national liberation struggles, and the fact is, most republicans have opted for the big tent of SF. These different tendencies shift around, not all the socialists are pro-choice, not all the capitalists are racist, etc. etc. It also ignores the fact that SF largely, though not totally, prioritizes the national liberation struggle, or more recently, the Peace Process, which is fairly reasonable, considering the threat posed to the lives and human rights of the Nationalist community, so it's not that surprising that they are sometimes inconsistent, although sometimes it's very frustrating and sometimes I criticse them on this. Also, as far as them saying whatever they think will get them votes, I know of two cases where that's not true. First, I'm not sure how popular their anti-racism is in the South. Second, in the North, and probably something like 4/5 of the Nationalist Community is pro-life, they made it very clear in an Assembly debate that they are not fully committed to the anti-Abortion position.

At this point I'm going to spend a brief amount of time describing my understanding of the origins of Provisional SF, as SF were known in the 1970s. In late 1969 and early 1970 there was a split in both SF and the IRA. A group of people left, and were joined by people who in earlier years had drifted away, and formed the Provisionals (the other side of the split became known as the Officials and are today known as the Workers Party). There were three reasons for the split. First, in the mid- and late 60s the Republican Movement had become very Marxist. Also, the IRA was basically demilitarized. This resulted in it's inability to defend Catholic areas attacked on a massive scale in August 1969. Grafiti suggested that IRA stood for "I Ran Away." After those events, a large number/majority of the Belfast Brigade announced they would no longer take orders from the leadership in Dublin. The third factor was that the RM was more oriented towards democratising N. Ireland than ending it (it was very involved in the Civil Rights Movement) and the immediate cause of the split was the issue of whether or not SF members would take their seats in the Dublin, Belfast, and London parliaments if elected. The vote decided in favor, and people walked out. Now, demilitarizing the IRA was stupid; I get the impression some of the Marxists were very significantly to the left of me (i.e. big fans of the USSR); and although those who walked out (the Provisionals) should have been willing to take their seats in the Dublin parliament, doing that with London would have been questionable, and at that point, after the events of Aug. 1969, taking their seats in the Belfast parliament would have been stupid. Because of the two issues that didn't involve Marxist ideology, I assume that some small minority of the founding Provisonals (the founders including those who had drifted off and joined after the split) were Marxists of some sort, some small minority were some kind of non-Marixist/non-fascist socialist, and somewhere around half were, to one degree or another anti-socialist.

It seems to me, from what I've read, that the vast majority of people who joined after that first wave of people who had drifted away were socialists of some sort. And towards the very beginning, many socialist forces supported the Provisionals (including People's Democracy). It is pretty well confirmed that the left in the Provisonals was more or less associated with Gerry Adams, and in 1983 he became President of SF. The paper points to statements by SF leaders that there's not a Marxist about their party. I've read a similar statement from a good source, so I believe it was said by some people in SF. I don't know what to say about those statements, although they contribute to the fact that with a very good reason, I will refuse to believe something that SF says- that is, I consider them very honest, but not 100% honest. I've read tons to indicate that since the late 1970s some large majority of SF is socialist, probably some large minority are Marxist. Now, probably some small minority of the total, which would be part of that socialist majority and probably usually call themselves Marxists, are flexible with their politics. Annyway, I know for a fact, from many sources as well as from interacting with a large number of people in Sinn Fein Youth in 2002, that there are Marxists in SF.

I'm going to take a break and post this part now. What I'll do is type up a similar amount 1-2 times more and each time add it as a massive update.

The next section of the paper alleges that SF is sectarian, and for the most part I refer to the post "Catholic, Protestant, and Dissenter," plus some extra notes:

1) The author criticizes Gerry Adams for dismissing the idea that the Northern Protestants have a right to national self-determination. As I've explained, if they do have that right, it is trumped by the right of the Irish as a whole, since that population, especially if you exclude the Northern Protestants, are relatively/completely indigenous. But I'm not sure they have that right at all. If the author is going to state that Italian-Americans, or Irish-Americans, as descendants of colonial settlers, have a right to national self-determination, I'll give him points for consistency.

2) It refers to an early draft of an SF document that says that when Ireland is united, those Unionists who don't accept it will have to repatriated. I'm not crazy about that idea, but I wouldn't call it sectarian. We're talking about extremists who want to throw a temper tantrum because the Irish are exercising national self-determination and they won't be able to engage in sectarian behavior anymore.

3) The paper compares nationalist/republican claims of Catholics being discriminated against with similar claims by fascists about White people. There's plenty of evidence that the fascists are wrong, and plenty of evidence that the republicans are right. For example, in 1972, Catholics were twice as likely to be unemployed as Protestants. In 1988, they were two and a half times as likely to be unemployed as Protestants. In his book "Northern Ireland: The Orange State" Michael Farrell offered plenty of evidence, especially in the public sector, of discrimination, and also of calls by Unionist leaders for discrimination in the private sector. (the author indicates the fascist claims are less accurate, but he still brought it up in the first place)

4) It refers to the painting of kerbstones in Nationalist areas in the colors of the Irish flag, and the flying of that flag in Nationalist areas of the North. The North is part of Ireland, and when you consider that those people there who identify as Irish are more or less oppressed, these sorts of things are acceptable. And as far as the North being part of Ireland, consider this. The current President of Ireland, who is at close to the end of her second term, is from N. Ireland. I can't figure if she went through some kind of citizenship process, but I doubt it, and even if she did, it's still significant that she's from the North- she seems to have spent most of her life in the North, something like 40% was in the Republic. Also, in the last 10-15 years, the Irish President has spent a lot of time on official business in the North. Lastly, when she ran for office the second time, no one in the Republic seemed worked up over having a President from the North, no one ran against her, which tells me some HUGE majority in the South considers the North Irish. UPDATE 2/18/09 Also, 4 of the 5 top parties in the South are organized in the North, and some small parties are also organized throughout the island.

5) It suggests that SF's connections to the way the Assembly works is evidence of sectarianism. Members of the Assembly have to identify as Nationalist, Unionist or Other, and on crucial votes regarding power-sharing, there has to be a majority of both Nationalists and Unionists (or 60% overall and at least 40% of each side). In general, this probably does institutionalize sectarian divisons. But it does prevent a Unionist-only government and it makes it unlikely SF will be excluded. I've developed an idea that can get around this, and will post it right after I post this, but the odds of it being adopted are very low. In any case, SF is not alone in accepting that aspect of the Assembly- most other parties accepted it as well.

The next part deals with SF and the EU, globalization, public services, and crime.

1. Yes, SF is somewhat anti-EU, and I largely disagree with them (although I'm not familiar with the details of the treaties they have opposed, and am not interested enough to study that, I know enough to tell that I am more pro-EU than they are), but as far as I can tell, they do support some kind of EU, and they support expansion (although, on human rights grounds, I comfortably assume they oppose Turkey joining). Crucially, the hard left and the Greens, which can not be called fascist (well, there might be some exceptions) are also very anti-EU.

2. Probably some large majority of the people who criticize globalization are somewhere to the left of center.

3. Just because some fascist groups also support public services, doesn't mean that fascist- that's clearly more common to the left of center.

4. SF should alter their drugs position, and there's evidence that there's a large minority in favor of decriminalizing marijuana (at a SF Youth National Conference, two senior members made that clear, one in public, the other in a private conversation), probably a small minority in favor of decriminalizing possession without intent to sell for all drugs. As far as SF's general hostility towards cops on this issue, well it varies from the North to the South, but in both cases, SF has good reason to be hostile to the police, although in the South I'm not sure if the situation justifies the actions sometimes taken by republicans.

5. Lastly it compares SF's talk of human rights with the talk from fascists who see themselves as repressed because sometimes when the beat up black people the cops arrest them, or something, maybe it's just based on their stupidity, I don't know. The reasons they aren't covered well in the media is a combination of the facts that they're tiny and what they say is total nonsense, and we know exactly how much they really believe in freedom of expression.

Republicans actually are repressed. Besides some other stuff I have mentioned, for some period of time the British had a law that stigmatized some people in the broadcast media where their own voices couldn't be used, other people were broadcast saying what republicans said. In the South, for about 20 years until 1994, they were completely banned from the public airwaves. During that time, SF on average, represented about 35% of the Nationalist community and probably something like 60% of the poorest, most oppressed half of that community.


It then criticizes SF for being pro-life, although it does say that even Labour is fairly pro-life. The thing is, SF is far from committed to the pro-life position, based on the following:
1) In 1985, although it was apparently a very unrepresentative vote, it did, for one year, adopt a pro-choice position.
2) The paper refers to SF supporting a DUP motion in the Assembly in 2000, which opposed the extension of the Abortion Act to N. Ireland (abortion is something like 95% illegal there). What the paper ignored is that a member of the Women's Coalition proposed an amendment that would have radically changed the resolution so that it simply referred the issue to the Health-Care Committee for further research, discussion, and debate. SF members spoke (starts half-way through, you'll want to look at this to see who's who) and voted in favor of this, and when they spoke, they made it clear their party is not committed to the pro-life position.
3) In 2004 (possibly 2003, but I'm pretty sure 2004) SF Youth came within one vote of adopting a pro-choice position.
4) SF's current abortion position is that they support choice when the life or health of the mother is at risk, in cases of rape or incest, or when the woman is suicidal. They also feel very strongly about not criminalizing women who have abortions.
5) UPDATE 10/20/11) 5) They support “comprehensive sex education, full access to child-care and comprehensive support services, including financial support for single parents.”
UPDATE 6/9/13 6) SF also blocked a pro-life measure in the N. Ireland Assembly in March 2013. See this.
UPDATE 8/23/13  7) In July 2013 Sinn Fein's significant parliamentary party in the Republic voted in favor of a law that would legalize abortion in more situations than had been the case (the law was passed) (I believe SF had 14 TDs, one voted against and was suspended and is no longer an SF TD). See this. (UPDATE 2/9/14 the 14th SF TD is no longer suspended)
UPDATE 3/8/15 They now support allowing terminations in cases of fatal foetal abnormality.

The paper then criticizes SF for supporting gay rights and then marching in the NY City St. Patrick's Day Parade- see my post, linked to above, "Invisible Comrades." It's disappointing that they're not completely consistent, but that doesn't mean they're fascist.

It then trivializes SF's left-wing positions on international issues, which is ridiculous. The fact that they have little influence on that doesn't mean they shouldn't take those positions. It also treats the same way SF's call for all-Ireland approaches to various issues, including poverty. The fact is, SF does a lot work that recognizes the current division of the island and there's no harm in calling for an all-Ireland approach.

The paper in two places points out that SF believes in small, Irish businesses. There's not much harm in that. Although I think there are more important issues like unionization and repatriation of profits (which can be addressed without simply rejecting multi-nationals), in some ways Irish businesses would be better than multinationals. And although it's mixed, there are arguments in favor of small businesses. Crucially, SF very largely consistently supports unionization and fairly consistently supports stuff like progressive taxes, and as far as supporting small, indigenous businesses, that position is not unheard of from leftists who I guarantee you are not fascists.

The paper then suggests that SF members are involved in the drugs trade. That's unlikely considering how consistently it's anti-drugs. In the early 1990s, it's most senior politician (Adams was not an MP at the time) was arrested for possession of marijuana. SF kicked him out of the Party (this is according to Eamonn McCann). Also, at the 2002 National Conference of SF Youth, during the private part of the conference (I was allowed to attend because I was representing an organization they liked) the National Organizer said that he had smelled drugs (I think it was has he referred to) in the hostel they were staying in, and said that although he didn't care what they did on their own time, at SF conferences, that was unacceptable. Also, this is only the second time I have heard this accusation. If there was anything to it, there'd probably be more articles in credible sources (the Irish News, the Irish Times, the BBC) about it. It's very slightly possible that a tiny number (probably equal to about .01% of their members) of SF members are involved in drug dealing, but beyond that is almost impossible.

It also refers to SF dropping their left-wing politics in America. That's not always true, although to whatever degree it is, yes, it's disappointing, but still not evidence that their fascist.

The paper says that SF is not consistently environmental. Most of what he says on that I'm not familiar with, but in general, SF have good environmentalist credentials, and one thing he says is ridiculous. There is a movement in the South against charging people for garbage collection. This is supported by most or possibly all of the Left. The idea as I've been told, is that people are already paying for this through taxes and the concern is that it will simply hurt working-class people. The author suggests that making people pay will encourage recycling, but I don't see that, and even if it's true, there are probably better ways to get people to recycle, and then there's the fact that it will affect people already living in or close to poverty.

The next part is largely looking at survey data. I'll be honest, some of what he presents here goes over my head on the technical details (I doubt I'm the only one, and he doesn't explain it in English), but I can read his conclusions just fine. He says that SF supporters in the South are likely to be poor, poorly educated males. That doesn't mean anything even though it's the same group that fascists get a lot of support from. He also says that SF supporters are more likely to be homophobic, anti-immigrant, and pro-Europe, which is interesting, and blows some holes in his theory that SF will say anything to get votes.

At one point he says that SF supporters are likely left-wing, and then says that they are right-wing and authoritarian (I have no idea where he gets authoritarian). He then points out that the people who apparently disagree with SF on Europe, immigrants, and homosexuality are voting for SF based on the National Question. That's not surprising, although I hope SF has decided to take their votes and ignore what they say (well, I guess not on Europe, but that's not too important, the main thing is the homophobia and the racism).

The paper then compares SF as an organization to fascist organizations. One point he makes is that it is "authoritarian." I get the impression that although this is greatly exaggerated, there is some tiny degree of truth to it. Probably a more accurate term is that it's well-disciplined, SF seems to use (with one degree or another of enforcement) what the left calls "democratic centralism." This means that once a decision has been made democratically, party members must publicly defend the party's position. I'm not crazy about that, I'm not sure it IS democratic, but it hardly makes SF fascist. The paper also says that factional disputes are settled in a most uncomradely way, sometimes involving violence. I've gotten the impression there's some degree of truth to that, but the author is probably greatly exaggerating that. And there have probably been people or factions who have been dealt with in a non-violent but nevertheless inappropriate way who were so bad that I don't really care. Once again, you find that on the left as well as the right. It also talks about Adams as a strong, powerful leader- in general, there's really nothing wrong with that, and nothing inherently fascist about it.

It then acknowledges that at National Conferences the leadership sometimes loses, although it points out, and I have read other things that indicate this happens to a SMALL degree (i.e.1-2 years), the Leadership sometimes/usually do little or nothing to honor the decision taken. That's very disappointing, but probably happens on the Left pretty often, and I know of one time it happened in a very democratic organization on the Left, the Democratic Socialists of America (well, it involved the top national staff person ignoring the National Leadership, but it's close enough).

It then talks about SF benefiting from the IRA efforts at getting funding for IRA activities. I'm not going to say it's impossible, and 20 years ago it was probably a little more than not impossible, but in the last 20 years it seems very unlikely, as SF became slightly mainstream, and as they developed more legitimate sources. To whatever degree early SF elections were affected by this, that's disappointing, but on the other hand, some large majority of SF's base is working-class and poor (possibly even more so 25 years ago) and in the North the poverty of their members is to some degree a result of discrimination. Back then, I wouldn't call it horrible if they were benefiting from the IRA's funds.

The paper suggests that because Irish politics in the Republic are more or less center-right, it shouldn't be surprising that a party which he defines as "anti-system" and populist (which seems fairly accurate) would pose as left-wing. I'm sure some tiny minority of SF, probably among those socialists who seem flexible in their politics, would agree, but I remain convinced that something like half of SF are solid socialists. Their less than 100% consistency is disappointing and I believe that it would be called occasionally and slightly opportunistic. But as far as I can tell, leftists who are guilty of that are still leftists.

He then suggests that SF's populist policies are second to the national liberation because the unpopularity of the IRA hasn't led SF to disown them. He must be talking about the South, because even today, let alone decades ago, if SF had disowned the IRA, their vote in the North would probably go down, even adjusting for a small influx of SDLP voters. In general though he's probably right, which isn't that bad when you consider the effect that the British presence has demonstrably had on the life expectancy of Catholics and Nationalists in the North, not to mention the discrimination and psychological damage of Orange marches through Catholic neighborhoods, and non-lethal sectarian violence, etc.

In the conclusion he briefly backs off from his accusation that SF is fascist, but then comes back to it.

Lastly, internationally, some large majority of SF's support is somewhere to the Left of center. The ANC and the PLO are very friendly, in Britain most of their support comes from some large minority of the Left, in America, somewhere around half their support is to the left of center, Fidel Castro and Francois Mitterand expressed support for the 1981 hunger-strikers.

UPDATE 1/9/12 In the European Parliament SF is a member of European Parliamentary Group “European United Left/Nordic Green Left.” In elections to the South’s Senate in 2007, SF and Labour had a voting pact.

Lyrics!!

More lyrics. This batch exclusively comes from sources I like. For an explanation about my poems/lyrics go here.

The rest of the songs/poems can be found by clicking on the "lyrics" label (there are at least two pages worth of posts, so click on the "older posts" at the bottom of the first page).


On average, these four are all pretty good, but they're not my favorites.

1. Four-Four-Two. WWII.
2. Republicans in Congress. Guess.
3. Orangeman. The anti-Catholic Orange Order in N. Ireland.
4. Fenians. Sinn Fein in the N. Ireland Assembly.


"Four-Four-Two" based on "Belfast Brigade" I usually just provide a link to the original lyrics, but in this case I sing a combination of two versions I found online (plus 3 more changes that I made myself), so the lyrics for the original are below.


1. The 442nd Regimental Combat Team saw more combat than any other similarly sized unit of the US Army in Europe during WWII. After the war, they were the most decorated Army unit of their size in all US military history up to that point. They were entirely Japanese-American (I believe some of the officers were white) at a time when about half of Japanese-America was in internment camps.
2. I don't know if the 442nd actually engaged the Waffen SS.
3. The reference to Hawaii is based on the Unit Fight Song, which seems to have been borrowed from a smaller, Hawaii-based unit that became part of the 442nd.
4. Carrara was one of the main battles they were in.
5. In general, I'm not sure how much of the US military during WWII was motivated by anti-fascism, probably no more than about half. On the other hand, almost all or probably all of the 442nd would have understood that even though Nazi Germany had a good relationship with Japan, it represented white supremacy which was a threat to them (the ones who volunteered would have definitely been hostile towards the Japanese gov’t and probably all the others were, too, otherwise they would have been expelled considering how closely J-As were scrutinized for any evidence they were pro-Japan in that conflict (maybe 1/3 of the 442nd was already in the Hawaii Nat'l Guard when the war started, and thus didn't sign up to be anti-fascist warriors although most or probably all of that 1/3 probably were anti-fascist, and probably all the rest were)). I've also heard some more specific information that a lot of Japanese who volunteered for the war effort despite Internment were motivated by left-wing beliefs. (in all honesty another motivation for some or most or all was to prove loyalty to America, but I believe they were also more anti-fascist than most American soldiers)
6. Although I took Advanced Placement US History in High School, I didn't learn about the 442nd until I took an Asian-American History course in college. I'm not sure if it'll make much difference, but racism towards Asian-Americans might decline if more people knew about the 442nd.
**7. 50% of this version is me, 50% is the original.
UPDATE 5/22/09 8. What's that? It's "weird" that I did a pro-Allies song based on an IRA song when the IRA accepted aid from Nazi Germany? Read this.
9. I give this song/poem three out of five stars.
UPDATE 3/7/20 I just replaced the word "fascists" with the word "anti-Semities." In general I doubt that more than a moderate-sized minority of American servicemen during WWII were against anti-Semitism, but with the 442nd it might have been a large majority, since they all volunteered enthusiastically to fight in Europe.

Hitler sent the SS out to shoot the people down
He didn't figure on the four-four-two, what a Nazi clown
But he got a rude awakening, when with rifle and grenade
He met the four-four-two, and his hopes began to fade

Glory, Glory to Hawaii
Glory, Glory to the Allies
Glory to the memory
Of the men who fought and died
"Go For Broke" was the war cry of the four-four-two

The SS came from Germany, equipped with machine guns
Men by the thousand, ammunition by the ton
But when they got to Carrara, they were seriously delayed
By the fighting four-four-two, on an anti-fascist crusade

Chorus

The four-four-two were determined to win, they gave 110%
They were ready to defend themselves, no matter where they went
They were out for victory, to bring down the Nazi state
The racists and anti-Semites, the four-four-two did hate

Chorus

All you gallant Japanese-Americans who joined the four-four-two
The world will always owe an enormous debt to you
We should know our country's history, and the sacrifice you made
In the anti-fascist struggle, never did you stray



Craigavon sent the Specials out to shoot the people down
He thought the IRA were dead in dear old Belfast town
But he got a rude awakening, when with rifle and grenade
He met the first battalion of the Belfast Brigade

Glory, glory to old Ireland
Glory, Glory to this island
Glory to the memory
Of those who fought and died
"No Surrender" is the war cry of the Belfast Brigade

Specials came from Holywood, equipped with English guns
Men by the thousand, ammunition by the ton
But when they got to Seaford St. they were seriously delayed
By the fighting 1st battalion of the Belfast Brigade

Chorus

We have no armored cars or tenders for to show
We're ready to defend ourselves no matter where we go
We're out for our Republic and to hell with your Orange state
"No Surrender" is the war cry of the Belfast Brigade

Chorus

So come all you gallant Irish people and join the IRA
To strike a blow for freedom, when there comes our certain day
You know our country's history and the sacrifice it made
Come join the 1st battalion of the Belfast Brigade

**************

"Republicans In Congress," based on "Time To Go" by Black 47, original lyrics are here.

1. I considered replacing Black 47 with one of two other left-wing perfomers, but decided to stay with Black 47. I have reason to believe they're socialist, they're certainly anti-racist, they made a big deal about opposing the Iraq war and the occupation, and they're also Irish republican. To a significant degree, the GOP is worse than the Dems on N. Ireland, probably, for the most part a result of their ties with the British Conservatives and admiration for Margaret Thatcher.
2. I wasn't quite sure how far back to go in American history, and I wanted to use whole centuries, so I went with four.
3. Certainly the vast majority of people who "stab in the back" liberal-leftists do NOT defend Jim Crow (segregation), but a majority either do, or have strong connections with those who do. (I'm leaving this the way it is for now, but I realize that stabbing in the back usually implies someone friendly is doing the stabbing, but it seems quite possible that your enemy could also stab you in the back (UPDATE 3/14/20 I just changed back to chest))
4. The pepper-spraying, and similar behavior happens frequently, I saw a video of it happening in connection with three labor struggles in the mid-1990s in Decatur, IL.
5. I've heard the racists (or at least the white supremacists) might be leaving the GOP since the new Chair of the RNC is black, but until recently there were certainly racists, including a handful of white supremacists, in the GOP.
6. As far as them being fascists, well, probably something like 1% are fascists, probably some small minority are soft on fascism, and in general, through things like the Patriot Act, and not complaining about how undemocratic the Senate is, they're not too interested in democracy. (UPDATE 3/7/20 See this.
7. Workers die in industrial acccidents, that sort of thing, and the vast majority of people who are victimized by hate-crimes or are killed by the police without justification, are workers.
**8. 31% of this version is me, 69% is the original.
9. I give this song/poem two out of five stars (the original is my favorite republican song, but my version sucks).
10. The last two lines of each verse are meant to be about 100% non-violent.
UPDATE 2/15/20 11. I'm probably being paranoid, but it's not impossible people could interpret the 3rd line from the bottom of the first verse as me saying that I'm in Black 47.  So I changed "you"re" to "they're."
12. UPDATE 3/14/20 I just changed back to chest)

Saw something in the paper just the other day
It was all about a band and the music that they play
"Black 47" advocates violence
Musical guerrilas in their terrorist alliance
My anger subsided when I realized the source
A right-wing rag, and I said "Oh of course"
It didn't shock me, cause my history
Tells me four centuries of this, see
Anytime anyone upsets the status quo
They're stabbed in the chest by defenders of jim crow
I know this much, this much I know
People are suffering, it's time to go

They tell me I don't understand, because I'm middle-class
But unlike them, at least I support the working-class
They struggle financially, and are socially oppressed
To tell you the truth, it leaves me feeling real depressed
At every strike there are cops in riot gear, all over the place
Pepper-spraying my brothers and my sisters right in the face
Innocent people, who just want equality, safety and a decent wage
Don't ask me as to the reason for my rage
They just don't care, about people anywhere
When I say something they cry "no fair"
I know this much, this much I know
People are suffering, it's time to go

I care about one thing, that one thing is peace
Peace with justice and global strife will cease
American hegemony totally fucked up the place
We treat everyone else, like a seperate race
Racists and anti-semites in the GOP and on Fox News
Face it, some of you are fascists, democracy you abuse
You keep on lying, I won't stop trying
I won't step off till workers stop dying
Whether or not you choose to agree
I guess that's why you're called the enemy
I know this much, this much I know
People are suffering, it's time to go

It's time to go
It's time to go
Get the fuck out!

*********

"Orangeman" based on "Nazi Skinhead" by The Oppressed. Original lyrics are here.

1. For info on why Orange Order marches through Catholic areas are wrong, see this.
2. Northern Jim Crow (referring to segregation in the American South) was never 100% the same as the American original, and it dramatically changed 1968-1970, but even today, with all the progress that has been made, there's still inequality, and I'm sure that a large majority of Orange men, even though they probably accept how unlikely this is to happen, would love to go back to the days when there was severe inequality for Catholics.
3. I'm 99% certain that sussed and sharp mean smart (the original is British).
4. Although this would make more sense at least about 10 years earlier, I have become very fond of referring to the OO as the "Clowns of Nazism" or something. As you might know, OO marches are rather colorful and festive, with music. At roughly the same time I heard of a hard rock band called the "Eagles of Death-Metal." The apparent leader of the band seems to have gotten the idea of naming it after people would play something sort of soft and call it death metal- he would say something like, "that's what it would sound like if the Eagles [the rock band] attempted to play death metal." I would say that if a bunch of clowns tried to be Nazis they would resemble the OO, specifically when they march through Catholic areas.
5. The OO represents the past.
**6. 30% of this version is me, 70% is the original.
7. I give this song/poem four out of five stars.
8. I considered deleting the chorus because in general I'm not enthusiastic about violence towards orangemen, but it's not calling for violence towards them, so I'm leaving it.
8. UPDATE 5/21/12 I just put the word Orange where Northern had been earlier (in the 3rd line, first verse).

See him walking down your street
He thinks Protestants are the elite
He supports Orange Jim Crow
Is he sussed? no, no, no

Orangeman, Orangeman, Orangemen
Orangeman, Orangeman, Orangemen GO AWAY AND DIE

See him marching through your town
Acting like a Nazi clown
He's a ghost from years ago
Is he sharp? no, no, no

*******

UPDATE 6/11/09 I am renaming songs that had retained the original name.

"Fenians," based on "There Goes The Neighborhood" by Body Count (BC is Ice-T's heavy-metal band), lyrics for the original are here.

1. Fenian is a derogatory term for republican, but has been adopted by republicans. Proddie is a derogatory term for Protetsant, but has been adopted by Protetsants.
2. I seriously doubt IRA members wore combat boots, and there's a very good chance that a large majority of SF's Assembly members were never in the IRA, but it rhymes with suits, and refers to the fact that Provisional republicans have moved on from armed struggle, at least for now. UPDATE 3/11/10: A good source has told me that, yes, sometimes they did, but it was more common in rural areas than urban areas.
3. Stormont is the Assembly building, and was the name commonly used to refer to the devolved, unionist-dominated, sectarian government from the early 1920s until 1972.
**4. 48% of this version is me, 52% is the original.
5. I give this song/poem three out of five stars.
6. There is nothing violent about this poem (except a brief and vague reference to fighting in the past).
7. UPDATE 1/17/10 I just realized that I may have made a mistake using the word "Proddie." Two other times I have used the word "Prod" and it was fine considering the way I used it. Considering the original (which is Ice-T speaking as if he were a racist white person), I guess it's from the point of view of a bigoted Protestant. I know they often call themselves "Proddies." So I think it's okay.
8. UPDATE 10/16/10 I'm certain there's some kind of progressive-socialist majority in SF, so the reference to socialism makes sense. I can provide some examples of what makes me think that.
UPDATE 3/7/20 I just added the letter s to the word he in the second to last line of the poem.

Here come those Fenians, without their combat boots
Who gave those Fenians, those fancy suits?
Who let them in the Executive, did you count their votes?
I can't believe their speeches, all the facts and quotes

Don't they know Stormont's just for Proddies, don't they know the rules?
Those Fenians are too left-wing, this stuff ain't cool
Those Fenians want socialism, for the whole damn world
That Fenian speaks so good, she took my girl

There goes the neighborhood!



One last note: Even with the songs that are only about 10% me (and at the upper end, one is 75% me), I have a request, although I don't have strong feelings or expectations about this. First, I want credit for these songs. Second, I'd appreciate it if the notes follow the lyrics around the internet. If you modify the lyrics further, please either make some notes for the changes if you leave some of my changes, or just provide a link to this URL so people can see my version. Although I'm not sure how many people will like what I'm doing with the lyrics, to one degree or another (depending on how much I changed them) I'm proud of these songs- and at the risk of getting a little personal, if people like the songs, I could really use the extra boost of getting credit for them right now.