1847: Three New Poems

Three more poems. These are all based on offensive material, I explain that and my poems in general here.

The rest of the poems are available by clicking on the "lyrics" label at the bottom. There are about 10 pages worth, so click on "older posts."

1. Black 47. About the Irish "Famine."
2. Still Right-Wing. About American politics.
3. 1945. About WWII.

“Black 47” based on “Six Million Lies” by No Remorse. Original lyrics are here.

1. This is about the so-called “Famine” that Ireland experienced.
2. From elsewhere on my blog, here’s a fairly good summary:

During the Famine, 10-15% of the population died and 10-15% of the population would have died if they hadn’t emigrated. This was concentrated in the South and West of Ireland where there very few settlers- if you ignore the settlers and their descendents, it was probably closer to 15-20% and 15-20% of the population. Why did a potato blight result in something close to genocide? First, the indigenous Catholic population was still recovering from about 1.5 centuries of political and legal disempowerment that occurred because of the Penal Laws which denied them most of the rights enjoyed by most or all Protestants (it varied from right to right). “Catholic Emancipation” was only made about 90% complete about 15 years earlier. Because of this and general poverty, the indigenous population was largely dependent on land owned by land lords and the potato crop. For about 45 years before the Famine and during the Famine, Ireland didn’t have a devolved parliament, they were completely ruled from London. Crucially, during the Famine, MASSIVE amounts of food were being shipped from Ireland to Britain, something that involved seventy-five British Army regiments. …  the deaths only stopped when the blight stopped. … The British were more or less racist towards the Irish at that point in Anglo-Irish history and were more concerned about practicing Laissez-faire economics and feeding the British population than they were concerned about mass starvation among the Irish

3. It was close to genocide.
4. It wasn’t until the late 1990s that a British Prime Minister apologized for British policy during the Famine. I guarantee you they weren’t being honest about it and not apologizing.
5. I’m not sure to what extent the British pushed the idea that the Irish are all alcoholics, but I’m sure they at least sort of did.
6. If you focus on the number of INDIGENOUS Irish who died or emigrated, it was a little less than three million.
7. As far as the American establishment pushing lies about the Famine, see this. As far as I can tell, a lot of Irish-Americans believe that the Irish chose to just eat potatoes.
8. I’m not saying that everyone who supports Northern Ireland being part of the UK also peddle lies about the Famine, but I think that most of them do.
9. During the Famine, people were offered money if they didn’t teach their children Irish (that’s according to a Sinead O’Connor song).
10. The 12 of July is a major holiday for N. Ireland Unionists, and is political and sectarian (it’s the anniversary of a battle in Ireland where a Protestant contender for the British throne beat his Catholic rival).
11. Orange is the color of anti-Catholic bigotry in the Anglo-Irish context.
12. Partition is the division of Ireland.
12. As I prove here only .3% of operations of the Provisional IRA resulted in civilian death. And I like referring to The Troubles as the Second Anglo-Irish War (the first being the War of Independence).
13. This isn’t ABOUT SF. It’s just saying that the cause of Irish freedom is strengthened by SF’s electoral success. It’s not saying SF believes this or did that, except that they will lead Ireland to unity (no member of SF is going to complain about that statement).
14. There is a theory I largely subscribe to, that the Unionists in N. Ireland are actually Irish, but I’m also comfortable with the idea that they can and (in a united Ireland) will develop a British-Irish identity which I’m sure the Irish will be willing to accommodate.
11. **78% of this version is me, 22% is the original. I took the first two lines of the original, combined them, altered them, and then created a completely new 2nd line.
12. No Remorse were British and supported the unionist and/or British cause(s) in N. Ireland.

Did the Irish really prefer potatoes or is it just a British lie?
20% left and 20% died
Genocide by the Brits, we have the proof
Why did they try to cover up the truth?
Scared that they would look like scum that they are
So they pushed the idea that the Irish can’t stay out of bars

Three million of the human race
Because the British Army had an iron grip on the place
They play down the fact that food was shipped across the Irish sea
They may have fooled you, but not me

The worst case of Laissez-faire economics in history
It was also racism and religious bigotry
American media and schools cooperate
With the lies of those who support the North being part of the British state
Well the beautiful Irish language didn't die
Fuck Margaret Thatcher and the 12th of July!

So let's make Ireland British Army free
We’ll make sure there's no return to an Orange society
The partition of Ireland is rotten to the core
Provos fought with courage and honor in the Anglo-Irish War
With Sinn Fein and global solidarity we'll surely win
And the Protestant Unionists will see us as their kin

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

“Still Right-Wing” based on “Still Occupied” by Razor’s Edge. Original lyrics are here.

1. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is the address of the White House.
2. Fash is short for fascists.
3. I doubt it’s just a tiny minority of white people who worry about that. I think it might be around 20-30%.
4. “Right-to-work” is, in general, a reference to anti-union government policies. Specifically, “Right-to Work” laws say that someone can’t be required to join a union in order to get a job. This means that people who benefit from a union contract at their job don’t have to pay membership dues, which weakens the union.
6. As far as the racist, homicidal cops, see this.
7. A lot of GOP local and state elections officials pull fucked up shit. Not enough voting machines in certain precincts and few or no opportunities to vote early means long lines and people going home without voting so they can get up and go to work the next morning. There’s what happened in FL in 2000 where they were. WAY to quick to take people off the rolls because they MIGHT have been convicted of something. More recent fight-back against letting ex-cons vote, and creating a poll tax by saying that such people have to pay all the money they owe in connection with their conviction before they can vote again.
8.  In terms of racial equality, the FUTURE looked so bright when Obama was President. Trump took that and turned it on its head. Also, Obama (as a candidate and as President) was not a progressive, but nor was he a Clintonite. He was a liberal, as I non-philosophically define them here.
9. I’m not interested in an alliance with the obnoxious, extreme, sectarian anarchists. I think the moderate anarchists were SLIGHTLY happy with Obama being elected, because he was the first Black President, and as I explain above, he was not a Clintonite. And I think that most Marxists and almost all social-dems were at least sort of happy with him, for the same reasons.
10. **76% of this version is me, 24% is the original. The second-to-last line of both verses is brand new- it wasn't there before.
11. UPDATE 4/1/20 Just in case there's confusion, I'm not saying that everyone to the left of center and  opposed to the GOP is a leftist or more generally a progressive. It might sound like I'm saying that, but I'm not. I JUST CHANGED "WE'LL" IN THE COUNTY CLERK LINE TO "DEMS AND PROGRESSIVES WILL".

With Obama, the future looked so bright,
Finally, a President who wasn’t white.
But then, at 1600 Pennsylvania, Trump moved in,
Even though, the popular vote, he didn’t win.
Our society is being torn apart,
think this is bad but it's just the start.
Instead of health care fash worry that the white race will die
How can so many white people swallow so many lies?

Chorus
It’s still a “right-to-work” nation, workers aren’t free -
The working-class labor movement is on it’s knees
And it's hard, hard to defeat -
the murderous police departments patrolling the Black street!

With GOP County Clerks Dems and progressives will never have a chance to win
Their idea of democracy and fascism are almost akin
Hopefully the white working-class will awake, before it's too late,
And Labor will keep educating them, however much money it takes.
We’re trying to save the labor movement from homicide,
we're for comprehensive diversity and for class pride.
Whether we’re social-dems, Marxists or moderate anarchists
We're never ever giving in to the fucking capitalists!

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

“1945” based on “Final Attack” by Final War. Original lyrics are here.

1. This is about the last several months of WWII in Europe.
2. A bridgehead is either a position held to maintain the possession of a bridge at the front, or a position just behind enemy lines.
3. Many of them didn’t do any time because they were executed.
4. The Waffen-SS was the military (as opposed to paramilitary) component of the SS (the very ideological, official, domestic security part of the Nazi state).
5. Combined arms attacks involve more than one type of military unit (i.e. infantry, armor, ground attack aircraft, artillery)
6. The main weapon of a tank is its main gun. Bazookas were an early version of a Rocket-Propelled-Grenade type weapon.
7. Panzers were German tanks.
8. **71% of this poem is me, 29% is the original.
9. UPDATE 4/6/20 I need to say that as far as American servicemen opposed to anti-semitism, realistically it was probably just some moderate-sized minority of them.
10. UPDATE 4/6/20 The chorus is kind of out of whack chronologically (to one ridiculously large degree or another, knowledge of the camps was incredibly limited until the end of the war).

The day is approaching the day of victory
for the Poles, the Jews, and all those, opposed to the Nazis
gonna keep fighting gonna knock em dead
gonna reinforce the front and our bridgeheads

gonna take many prisoners when their lines we overrun
won’t stop till our mission is done
they took over Europe and made Jews wear an arm-band
now we’re gonna smash them with an iron hand

(Chorus)
Oh no, what are the Nazis gonna do?
when we find the concentration camps for the Jews
We’ll put them on trial for war crimes
After they’re convicted, they won’t do any time

we’ve got our sights set on the Waffen-SS
Arms factories, all those Nazis who oppress
we’re on a rampage we’re letting loose
And we’ll only accept unconditional surrender, without a truce

We carry out ambushes and combined arms attacks
they tried to take the world, now they cower at our artillery impacts
Main guns and bazookas are how we destroy Panzer tanks
And when we capture Krauts we love to interrogate their upper ranks

Are Jewish-Americans Oppressed as Jewish-Americans?

I have decided to expand on my relatively detailed assertion that Jewish-Americans aren’t oppressed as Jewish-Americans, and say some other very relevant things.

First, below is what I what I wrote on the subject in another post:

Some would say that Jewish-Americans are oppressed and neither Catholics nor the Irish (in America) are. Are they really OPPRESSED? I have a bad history with this question, but let me just briefly say that even in the last 6 years during which we saw 14 Jewish people killed because they were Jewish, they are not oppressed (my timing could be much better and I might sound insensitive, but A) I am not going post-pone this post any longer, and B) although this doesn’t mean I am above criticism as a Christian ally, I think it’s reasonable for me to point out that a lot of the material on my blog is against anti-Semitism). What about widespread police brutality? Mass incarceration? Disproportionate unemployment? Jim Crow-type laws? A low rate of educational success? Where am I getting this? I’m not going to offer a flurry of sources, statistics or quotes. I doubt anyone will seriously say I’m wrong on the relatively specific points I just made. I have been observing American politics a lot the last 25 years. During that time I have probably read an average of 3000 words a day about America in different articles or books. It’s also relevant that while getting my BA in Ethnic Studies, I don’t think anyone ever said something like “that also happens a lot with Jewish-Americans.”

First, bigotry is not oppression. Someone said to me that when someone spray-paints a Swastika on the home of a Jewish person, that that’s oppression. It’s not. It’s a hate crime. At a certain point a massive rate of hate crimes (dependent on how big the target population is) by itself might approach oppression, especially if it’s attached to a genocidal event. But I’ll say more soon about hate crimes against the Jewish-American community and whether or not the word oppression should be used.

Here’s the thing. Catholics in America are not oppressed. Now, I have experienced anti-Catholic bigotry myself, three times. And let me explain something about Jews, Catholics, and political power in America.

In an average Presidential election year here, Catholics were about 15% of the population. Jews were about 2% of the population. IF, in some bizarre hypothetical political system that I DO NOT ADVOCATE FOR, Presidential election victories were distributed based on figures for religion and population, there should have been about 9 elections won by a Catholic. One should have been won by a Jew. Instead we have had one election where a Catholic won. Also, we have only had two elections where a Catholic running for Vice President won. If it wasn’t for Katherine Harris and the conservatives on the Supreme Court, in 2000 we would have elected a Jew Vice President.

Also, on a slightly different question, about the Supreme Court, there’s further evidence that if we just look at Catholics and Jews, Catholics have got it worse. I am not going to re-do the math I did 1-2 years ago, especially because there are different time periods to look at, but if we look at the last 20 years, about 30% of the Supreme Court has been Jewish and about 40-60% has been Catholic. Yes, the Catholics are over-represented (in the last 20 years Catholics have been about 25% of the population), and I’m slightly serious when I say that I feel the pain of American Protestants. But Jews are even more over-represented (UPDATE 5/20/21 Catholics are represented about twice as much as they should be, and Jewish-Americans are represented about 15 times more than they should be; I'm not saying there's anything seriously wrong with that, I'm just saying that the latter are more over-represented than the former).

This is not because of anti-Catholic bigotry, but according to the Pew Research Center, in 2016 only 19% of Catholic households earned $100,000 or more (the following groups were ahead of Catholics- Muslims, Mormons, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Unitarian Universalist, Presbyterian Church in America, United Method Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, United Church of Christ, Orthodox Christian, Agnostic, Atheist, Presbyterian Church (USA), and Episcopal Church, Hindu, Jewish, ALL US ADULTS (I think that means that Catholics are below average)). For Jewish Americans, it’s 44%.

There is the fact that in the last 10 years about 15 Jewish-Americans have been killed because they’re Jewish. A similar situation for Catholics would be about 200 Catholics killed because they’re Catholic, and I doubt there has been a single such murder in the last few decades, let alone the last 10 years.

Going back to hate crimes and oppression, between 1969 and 2005 856 Catholic civilians in N. Ireland were killed by the security forces or loyalist paramilitaries (the latter, to one degree or another, with support from the former). A comparable situation for Jewish-Americans in the last 10 years would involve somewhere around 2,000 murders of unarmed Jews because they were Jewish, although that might be off by a few hundred in either direction because there seems to be very little agreement when it comes to conducting a census of Jewish-Americans.

In N. Ireland, there’s also the following facts:

1. Until recently, the British head of State couldn’t be married to a Catholic- that was changed recently, but they still can’t be a Catholic themselves (I realize that in recent decades and maybe for around 150 years, the monarchy has been very powerless, but it's symbolic, I believe that it encourages anti-Catholic bigotry in N. Ireland, and imagine if the Head of State and Head of Government  in this country were separate and there was a similar law about Jews).
2. Between 1975 and 1998, with practically zero influence on law and policy beyond local government, they were ruled by a state they quite reasonably saw as both foreign and hostile.
3. In 1971 Catholics were twice as likely to be unemployed as Protestants and in 1988 they were TWO AND A HALF times more likely to be unemployed as Protestants.
4. Some would say that the comparison is flawed because even just the spray-painting of a swastika on a Jewish home is a very serious hate crime since it is connected to the Holocaust. Consider the following, which I have written elsewhere on this blog:

Although this is roughly equivalent to what Hitler did with the work camps in the early years of the Holocaust, Cromwell (in the 1600s) sent tens of thousands of Irish people to the Caribbean as some kind of cross between indentured servants and slaves. They had no choice and worked under slave-like conditions until they earned their freedom or died (many or MOST died) (they usually lasted about 3-7 years). During the Famine, 10-15% of the population died and 10-15% of the population would have died if they hadn’t emigrated. This was concentrated in the South and West of Ireland where there very few settlers- if you ignore the settlers and their descendents, it was probably closer to 15-20% and 15-20% of the population. Why did a potato blight result in something close to genocide? First, the indigenous Catholic population was still recovering from about 1.5 centuries of political and legal disempowerment that occurred because of the Penal Laws which denied them most of the rights enjoyed by most or all Protestants (it varied from right to right). “Catholic Emancipation” was only made about 90% complete about 15 years earlier. Because of this and general poverty, the indigenous population was largely dependent on land owned by land lords and the potato crop. For about 45 years before the Famine and during the Famine, Ireland didn’t have a devolved parliament, they were completely ruled from London. Crucially, during the Famine, MASSIVE amounts of food were being shipped from Ireland to Britain, something that involved seventy-five British Army regiments. Now, as I have pointed out elsewhere, it’s not like the British were rounding up the Irish with the goal of extermination. But the deaths only stopped when the blight stopped. And the facts are the facts as far as how many people died or had to emigrate to avoid dying.

And…

What happened in the Holocaust, is not much worse than what happened to the Irish. On the other hand, what the Nazis wanted to do is worse than what the British wanted, IF the British had wanted what happened to the Irish to happen. But there are two more things to consider: A) The British were more or less racist towards the Irish at that point in Anglo-Irish history and were more concerned about practicing Laissez-faire economics and feeding the British population than they were concerned about mass starvation among the Irish, and B) keeping Jews in concentration camps (not DEATH camps) or ghettos with little or no food or medicine was not terribly different from what the British did disempowering and impoverishing the Irish and taking food, at the barrel of a gun, out of Ireland while there was a potato blight.

Tony Blair was the first British Prime Minister to apologize for British policy during the Famine.

5. It might not be a bad idea to read this, about how Catholics were treated in N. Ireland between 1920 and 1972.

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

UPDATE 3/1120 

Consider this. Although it’s true that America, in terms of immigration policy, opened its door to the Irish during the Famine, there was incredible nativism and anti-Catholic bigotry at the same time. And, although the British may have been much less than a fully fledged democracy (today, the monarchy, as far as I’m concerned has got so little power in practice that it almost doesn’t matter, but I think that during the Famine, the monarchy may have been more powerful than it is today, and I’m pretty sure that the un-elected and elitist House of Lords had more power than it does today) and was an imperialist power and was occupying a foreign nation where it’s policies were resulting in something close to genocide, no country in the world militarily took on the UK. America took on Nazi Germany, but not the UK during the Famine. Back then the US was, admittedly, perhaps not as strong militarily as the UK, but they could have assembled a coalition with some European nations, probably some of the Catholic ones, and landed troops in Ireland to kick the British out and stop the shipment of food out of Ireland. (UPDATE 3/12/20 Some would say it was a different USA back then, but has any American President ever apologized for the failure of the US to do something? In some bizarre alternate history where the US sat out WWII and Nazi Germany was defeated anyway and there were a whole bunch of Holocaust survivors, the US would have at some point between then and now apologized for their inaction)

And although Catholics in N. Ireland went through a nightmare 1969 to 1998 or 2005, the US banned Gerry Adams for the first 10 years he became President of a party getting 40% of the Nationalist vote and probably about 60% of the vote from the poorest half of the Nationalist community (go here and type "SDLP" and "Ireland" in the first field and "middle-class" in the second field) (remember what I wrote about unemployment, and see this). Ex-IRA members who fled to America and tried to start a new life were deported or extradited back to the UK (see this and the middle third of this). It's not like the US didn't have a relationship with the British, they were best friends. I doubt that anti-Catholic bigotry was more than a very small part of it, and Clinton (in contrast to Reagan of the Reagan and Thatcher friendship) played a slightly positive role in the Peace Process (did I just say something nice about Clinton? Someone please shoot me), but still... (the update that is attached to the paragraph above was, for a few minutes or hours, here, but that was a mistake)

(Some would point to Catholics on the Supreme Court as evidence that I am greatly exaggerating anti-Catholic bigotry in this country. But, bearing in mind that the vast majority of such Justices in the last 20 years are conservative and the Dems have a better history (in the last 100 years) of nominating Catholics for President or VP and electing them and admiring them, I think it's similar to anti-Semitic Christian Zionists putting Jews in the spotlight- it's harder for supporters of the Palestinians to attack Jewish supporters of Israel and it's easier for conservative Catholics than it is for conservative WASPs to counter-attack when liberals and leftists call them bigots (UPDATE 5/28/21 I have gotten the impression that evangelicals are a huge part of the GOP and I get the impression that a LOT of them, maybe a majority, don't think that Catholics are Christians))

(also see what I write about the Left and N. Ireland here, first reading what was done or not done starting about half-way down with the sentence "Going back to how much was done...." and then also read, a little further down, the section that starts with "5) The second large chunk....")

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

Jewish-Americans in the last decade don’t know what oppression is. Neither do Catholic Americans. Although, looking at the former, the rate of hate crimes is, I'm sure, much worse than with the latter, it doesn't approach, by itself, oppression, and look at the surplus of power of the former on the Supreme Court and the fact that when it comes to the White House Jews have little to complain about, unlike Catholics.

CATHOLICS IN AMERICA ARE NOT OPPRESSED AS CATHOLICS. BIGOTRY IS NOT OPPRESSION. AND JEWISH-AMERICANS ARE NOT OPPRESSED AS JEWISH-AMERICANS.

 

*********

 

There's a relevant article here.

Anti-Zionism Is No More Anti-Semitic Than Irish Republicanism Is Anti-Protestant

I have always been a supporter of the Palestinians. Well, in Junior High, to whatever tiny degree I was political and politically educated, I guess you could say I was a neo-conservative and I drew Israeli flags on my my notebooks, etc. But since I started becoming more educated and progressive and active, in High School, I have been a supporter of the Palestinians. On this blog, as I simultaneously go to great lengths to oppose anti-Semitism (the best examples are here and here, but all my posts that are partly or totally about anti-semitism are here), I have also referred to Israeli Apartheid, as a way to describe how the Jewish State treats it’s Palestinian citizens and, more so, how it treats the Palestinians in the West Bank (I haven’t said much about Gaza but it is horrible what is happening there and it also involves the fact that the Palestinians are stateless and there is bigotry towards Arabs). But I have not really said much critical about Zionism.

In this post I will argue that Zionism was not justified, or a good idea, and has been a disaster., and that a one state solution is a better idea than a two state solution.

UPDATE 10/1/23 The next paragraph is a response to something I read from a fairly good source of information- the idea that critics of Israel, if they aren't anti-Semitic, must recognize the Jewish population's right to self-determination.

The Jewish people in general don’t have a right to self-determination. They are not a nation. Religious groups don't have a right to self-determination (Catholics globally and in Ireland don't). In America (and I think social scientists and/or Jews in other countries would agree) being Jewish is a religious and/or ethnic identity and ethnic groups don't have a right to self-determination (Irish-Americans don't have a right to self-determination). Even with a large concentration in Israel, Jews are mostly a diaspora, and that was even more true in 1948. The Irish diaspora does not have a right to self-determination. The Irish on that island do, but not the diaspora. Since many people use the term “bi-national” when describing a one state solution to the conflict, I use the term that way twice in this post. Some would say I’m saying that the Jews are a nation. On one hand, the Jewish people of ISRAEL might be a nation, but some people including some Irish republicans would say that N. Ireland Unionists are a nation, and IF they have a right to national self-determination, as a settler population, it is inferior to that of the indigenous Irish (although this is complicated because there are some Unionists who are Catholic and some of those are technically indigenous, it is a lot more accurate to say Unionists are an ethnic group that could be called British-Irish) (IF European-Americans have a right to self-determination, it is trumped by that of American Indians). So, the Jewish-Israeli population might have a right to self-determination, but it is trumped by the right to self-determination of the 100% indigenous population of Palestinians (almost the entire Jewish-Israeli ethnic group are settlers or the descendants of settlers). IF (and it might be a huge if) anyone says that the Jews are a race and therefore they have a right to self-determination, here's my response: A) No, races don't have a right to self-determination (does the white race have a right to self-determination?); B) The Nazis certainly thought Jews were a race, and C) are such hypothetical supporters of Israel saying that Israel is a racial state?

The Jewish population dispersed from the Holy Land almost two millenia ago. Yes, some remained, but the idea that they could reserve the entire area for all the descendants (two millennia later) of those who left is ridiculous. MANY Irish Catholics left Ireland and although some of their descendants can become Irish citizens, the VAST majority cannot. And that includes the descendants of that VAST majority of the emigres who left as result of British and Unionist policy in Ireland. Let me focus on the area currently called Northern Ireland. For centuries there’s always been a large minority of the population that identify as Catholic and/or Irish. No one says that all the descendants of the emigres can come back.

Some would point to the Holocaust as a relevant difference, and that’s not totally irrelevant. I’m not saying I deserve an award from the Anti-Defamation League for this, but there is a fair amount of material on my blog about the Holocaust, here. Although I have mixed feelings about criminalizing Holocaust Denial because I am opposed to censorship, I believe an argument can be made that Holocaust Denial breaches international law on genocide, and I don’t oppose criminalizing it. At least half, maybe 2/3, of Europe’s Jewish population was killed intentionally and efficiently by a regime that meant to exterminate the entire population and that fought to the death and was only defeated after a MASSIVE military effort that included what you might say were at the time three of the world’s super-powers (the US, the USSR, and the UK). As I have written elsewhere, genocide is the cultural equivalent of a species going extinct. And of course there is the background of widespread global anti-Semitism before Nazi Germany, and the refusal of most, maybe all countries to take in more than a handful of refugees during the Nazi era in Germany.

On the other hand, here’s what the Irish went through that comes sort of close. Although this is roughly equivalent to what Hitler did with the work camps in the early years of the Holocaust, Cromwell (in the 1600s) sent tens of thousands of Irish people to the Caribbean as some kind of cross between indentured servants and slaves. They had no choice and worked under slave-like conditions until they earned their freedom or died (many or MOST died) (they usually lasted about 3-7 years). During the Famine, 10-15% of the population died and 10-15% of the population would have died if they hadn’t emigrated. This was concentrated in the South and West of Ireland where there very few settlers- if you ignore the settlers and their descendents, it was probably closer to 15-20% and 15-20% of the population. Why did a potato blight result in something close to genocide? First, the indigenous Catholic population was still recovering from about 1.5 centuries of political and legal disempowerment that occurred because of the Penal Laws which denied them most of the rights enjoyed by most or all Protestants (it varied from right to right). “Catholic Emancipation” was only made about 90% complete about 15 years earlier. Because of this and general poverty, the indigenous population was largely dependent on land owned by land lords and the potato crop. For about 45 years before the Famine and during the Famine, Ireland didn’t have a devolved parliament, they were completely ruled from London. Crucially, during the Famine, MASSIVE amounts of food were being shipped from Ireland to Britain, something that involved seventy-five British Army regiments. Now, as I have pointed out elsewhere, it’s not like the British were rounding up the Irish with the goal of extermination. But the deaths only stopped when the blight stopped. And the facts are the facts as far as how many people died or had to emigrate to avoid dying. There’s much more, but that’s the most serious and relevant stuff.

What happened in the Holocaust, is not much worse than what happened to the Irish. On the other hand, what the Nazis wanted to do is worse than what the British wanted, IF the British had wanted what happened to the Irish to happen. But there are two more things to consider: A) The British were more or less racist towards the Irish at that point in Anglo-Irish history and were more concerned about practicing Laissez-faire economics and feeding the British population than they were concerned about mass starvation among the Irish, and B) keeping Jews in concentration camps (not DEATH camps) or ghettos with little or no food or medicine was not terribly different from what the British did disempowering and impoverishing the Irish and taking food, at the barrel of a gun, out of Ireland while there was a potato blight.

On one hand, you could sort of compare Zionism with the 1800s immigration of Irish to America and what happened to the indigenous population of this country during that century. But the Irish population didn’t rally to that to quite the same degree that the Jewish population rallied to Zionism (I would estimate that in an average year of the last 8 decades, about 80% of Jewish people were Zionists, and I think that about 35-44% of the world's Jewish population live there, and many others spend some time there; there isn't a comparably solid ideology about the Irish emigrating to America, although probably 60% of the diaspora live here). And I am not happy about what Europeans and European-Americans have done here in relation to the indigenous population, and I have done some activism about that. My activism on the issue reflects the fact that I got an Ethnic Studies degree with a primary focus on American Indian Studies. And in both cases, I’m not saying anyone needs to get on a boat and go back home. But the white population here and the Jewish population in what used to be called Palestine, need to transform their relationship with the Indians and the Arabs, respectively.

You could also sort of compare it to what the British did settling the Irish province of Ulster, 2/3 of which makes up N. Ireland (although it was not in response to mass suffering let alone genocide). I’m not real familiar with that, but I guarantee you that centuries ago the Catholic population was treated perhaps worse than it was the first 80 years after N. Ireland was created, and there’s some information about that here, here, and here. We are talking about a colonial effort, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone when I make that comparison on this blog.

I’ll return to the N. Ireland comparison soon, but let me say a few more things first. Responding to the Holocaust by founding a Jewish State in the Holy Land was not a great idea. After the war, those Jews who just couldn’t stay in Europe would have found safety in America, or probably SOME European countries like the UK, Ireland (although they were neutral, the war-time Prime Minister had a fairly good record of opposing anti-Semitism and the 1937 Constitution explicitly recognized the Jewish religion as part of the Irish nation), Denmark (whose population went further than any other to save the Jewish population from the Nazis), just to mention a few solid examples. In terms of safety, founding the Jewish State was, at least in hind-sight not that helpful in reducing anti-Semitism and the Jewish population there has only been relatively safe because of A) a ridiculously skilled or ridiculously lucky military, B) MASSIVE military support from the US, and C) in the last 4-5 decades, the possession of nuclear weapons. As far as anti-Semitism world-wide, the fairly predictable effect of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians under its rule has been to just make anti-Semitism more popular than it was shortly after WWII.

Also, I’d say the Jewish religion isn’t as connected to the land once known as Palestine as the Christian religion is. What I call the Old Testament begins a long way from Jerusalem. And then there was 400-500 years in Egypt. Although the early history of the Jews is part of the Bible, Christianity is INCREDIBLY defined by the birth of Christ, his life, his death, and if you believe people like me, his resurrection, and then his ascendence into heaven. It all took place in the area once known as Palestine. And yet, I think the Crusades by European Christians were reactionary.

In Ireland, the goal of republicans and nationalists could be called a “one state solution.” They want Ireland united. Some socialists and others predict that if Sinn Fein got close to its goal, the actual result would be a repartitioning of N. Ireland. I think that’s unlikely and crucially, SF would not accept that. Also, what they want is a secular state of all religions and you MIGHT also use the term bi-national. There is a theory I largely subscribe to, that the Unionists in N. Ireland are actually Irish, but I’m also comfortable with the idea that they can and (in a united Ireland) will develop a British-Irish identity which I’m sure the Irish will be willing to accommodate. Below I address the idea that the South of Ireland is today based on religion and/or ethnicity (it’s diverse enough that ethnicity is the right word).

I don’t know when I started to drift towards supporting a one state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But with settlements and with the humanitarian disaster in Gaza and with Trump’s “peace” plan, I am thinking that the two state solution is dead. There’s also the fact that MANY West Bank Palestinians (not to mention many of those in Gaza) would like to experience the relative democracy that Israelis enjoy and certainly most of them would like to enjoy the relative prosperity most Israelis enjoy. MANY people in the West Bank are not happy with the Palestinian Authority and I imagine that when it comes to a democratic society a small or large minority of people in Gaza are not happy with Hamas. A recent poll described and analyzed in an article here found that about 2/3 of Palestinians have given up on the two state solution.

(I should explain something about one of the polls results- that 84% want to withdraw recognition of Israel. It might be a large minority of that 84% want to destroy Israel. There must be GREAT anger towards Israel in Gaza considering the humanitarian disaster, the complete lack of state-hood and the resources for state-hood, and the periodic, brutal and short-term invasions by the Israeli military in the last 15 years. But it might also be a flawed response to calls for the PLO to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, something that will make it easier for Israel to treat it’s Palestinian population as second-class citizens, and it might be inspired by a desire to see Israel destroyed in the sense that it is replaced by a secular, democratic, bi-national state including the West Bank and Gaza. I mean, in the same poll 78% want to stage NON-VIOLENT protests against Trump’s plan, suggesting that they aren’t out for Jewish blood)

There’s also a poll saying that 30% of Israelis want a federation with Palestine, which might indicate support for a one state solution, although in that article Juan Cole is pessimistic that it’s that positive.

Although it’s easier said than done, a one state solution would solve the conflict better than a two state solution would. It would turn Israel into a fully fledged democracy and the odds are that social conservatism would be weakened in both the Palestinian and Jewish populations, and even if Israelis see some small decline in their lifestyle as part of a redistribution of wealth, hopefully it would be negated by the creation of a social democracy- Israel, in a slightly warped way, used to be a social democracy, and Fatah, the dominant part of the PLO, has been for decades a Jr. or (today) a full member of the Socialist International (sure, the SI isn’t as socialist as it used to be, but still…). Even if Jew-hatred continued in Iran and they got a nuke (I’m saying IF to both), if the Jewish and Palestinian populations were more integrated and the Palestinians were happy with the new state, I doubt a WMD or conventional attack would take place. Some of the money currently spent on destructive military activities would be funneled to things like health care and education and the environment.

I have tried to find out exactly what contributes to calling Israel The Jewish State. I spent hours in the library. Actually I didn’t but I am really good at using Google Advanced Search and identifying what sites are good sources for this or that topic. I couldn’t find hardly anything except for stuff about the recent Nation-State law which is both horrible and fairly vague (there's also a ton of stuff on a related question here). I believe that some of what contributes to use of the phrase Jewish State can be retained in a one state solution. The Jewish religion and culture can be protected along with Islam, Christianity, Druze, and the various other cultures like that of the Arabs. Equality legislation can be created and enforced.

Immigration policy would probably have to change in two ways. Those who fled or were expelled from Palestine as a result of the creation of Israel (and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza), and their descendants will have to be allowed back. We’re talking about people whose parents or grandparents left, not people whose ancient ancestors left. Jewish immigration might have to be curbed a little compared to the current policy and hopefully Jewish leaders in the new state won’t travel the globe unnecessarily encouraging Jewish immigration. It should remain a safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution. If you doubt that happens or think it will cease when the conflict there is resolved, think again. Fascism is on the rise throughout the world, including in Europe, and although it’s possible they’re not all as anti-Semitic as Hitler was, it’s still a problem. Although, or perhaps because, it’s an unbelievable story, read here about how a Jewish-American had few options but to immigrate to Israel to avoid being killed by Nazi Skinheads partly because he’s Jewish (even before the Internet, Nazi skinheads networked pretty well and Daly might have had trouble avoiding them by simply moving somewhere else in America, and I'm pretty sure he decided to immigrate around 1995) (I read elsewhere that on one hand he became a Likud activist but on the other hand he did work supporting Ethiopian Jews facing racism)). The new state could use diplomacy, economic power, and when needed their scaled down but probably still efficient foreign intelligence agency and military to help those Jews in the world who are experiencing persecution. And their diplomacy will be more respected than it is now.

It might be a good idea to initially have some kind of power-sharing set up like they have in N. Ireland. Not comparable to the one in Lebanon which is stupid, but like the one in N. Ireland. See this and this. There might be some relevant ideas here, in a peace plan proposal for N. Ireland I developed (that’s right, the UN Secretary General DID call me on the phone to discuss it- in my wildest dreams). (UPDATE 4/2/20 As far as the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, that can be done in some way that resembles what's done in N. Ireland with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. What was difficult for me until now was what to do about a Head of State? I just figured it out. They could use what's called in Britain and Ireland "Alternative Vote" (what's called "Instant Run-Off Voting" in America). In the UK/RoI context it's proportional representation (with Single Transferable Vote) with just one seat being filled. They could use that, but with an elevated threshold, like 66% instead of 50%+1. That way the top parties (I don't think there should be a limit, but I imagine most of the smallest ones won't bother) will probably nominate moderates who can attract a lot of votes, and the winner will definitely be someone a large majority of the voters will be more or less happy with. And it might be best to put a lot of the power over the military and foreign policy in the President's hands, at least kind of like they do in France (also, one more idea- Constitutional Amendments should definitely require what in Northern Ireland they call "cross-community support") (It might also be a good idea if the Interior Ministry is formally or informally reserved for a MP who designates themselves as "Other" and/or it requires "cross-community support;" informally it's reserved for an "Other" in N. Ireland) (I'll be honest, I don't know what happens with the French President and the Defense and Foreign Ministries, but I would suggest that those ministers in a future WhateverIt'llBeCalled be appointed by the President and require confirmation by the Parliament with "cross"community support"))

A one state solution might avoid an Israeli Civil War, although it might also unavoidably be preceded by one. When the government pulled settlers out of Gaza, there was talk of civil war. To one very large degree or another, settlers in the West Bank wouldn’t have to leave.

Let me say a little more about N. Ireland and a one state solution. Republicans and especially the moderate Social Democratic and Labour Party in the North don’t want the Protestants to leave (although the SDLP is closer to the Catholic Church than SF is, they’ve overall done a better job of attracting Protestants). They have worked with the Unionists to sustain the Peace Process and create a new society in N. Ireland and take steps towards a United Ireland. I believe that SF compromised more than they should have had to in terms of agreeing that Ireland will only be united when a majority in N. Ireland want that, but for the most part I support the GFA and the steps republicans have taken to make the Peace Process work. An example of this is senior SF leaders attending various events that are MUCH more Protestant and/or Unionist than Catholic and/or Nationalist, if not totally Protestant/Unionist. At least once in the last twenty years organizers of the St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in Belfast printed their materials in English, Irish, Chinese, and Ulster-Scots (a very, very minor language associated with Protestants and Unionists). Although SF believes that there should be separate legislation for promoting the Irish language in N. Ireland, they support something similar for Ulster-Scots. SF has practically always been willing to work with Unionists. The recent three year crisis in the Peace Process which was started with SF withdrawing from the Assembly’s Executive, was triggered largely by a financial scandal involving the First Minister (a Unionist) and involved  Unionist opposition to an Irish language act and same-sex marriage, a sectarian policy decision by a Unionist minister, and Unionist talk about how much anti-Protestant bigotry there is in N. Ireland (seriously, very little, and if you think I’m downplaying it because I hate them, too, see this (especially the notes BELOW the poem) and/or look at the survey results for “Equality” and for “Contact and Mixing” here or read this about sectarianism in the first 50 years of N. Ireland).

Lastly, here is my response to the idea that the Republic of Ireland (the South) is comparable to Israel.

After the War of Independence in Ireland, in 1920-1925 the South became what was called a “Free State.” Its independence from the UK was limited. For example, members of Parliament had to swear an oath to Queen. The 1937 Constitution created the position of President and the first President was a Protestant. Presidential terms are normally seven years and someone can serve two terms. In the 1970s there was another Protestant President for about 2 years before he died. So, out of 9 Presidents, two were Protestant. As far as the 1937 Constitution and Catholicism, it’s true that early drafts emphasized Catholicism and the Catholic Church, but there was GREAT opposition to that. The final draft of the relevant section recognized the existence of the main Protestant churches in Ireland, as well as the Jewish religion, and it recognized “the special position” of the Roman Catholic Church “as the guardian of the faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.” This special place for the Catholic Church was done away with in 1972. The ban on divorce was done away with in 1995. There were of course homophobic laws (only in 1993 was homosexuality decriminalized) and the constitution had to be amended in 2015 to allow for gay marriage (there wasn’t anything in the document about “a man and a woman,” but still, only in 2015 was it amended to solidly legalize gay marriage in a country where a law could be more easily overturned by politicians if the country drifted to the right) and abortion is 99% illegal there. But there is plenty of homophobia and pro-life nonsense among Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc. (also, although the Catholic Church is in two ways sexist, that can be exaggerated, and in recent decades, FREQUENTLY the Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) has been a woman and between 1990 and 2011 the slightly powerful position of President of Ireland was held by women, one of whom went on to become the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights)

Is Ireland defined by ethnicity? Until about 20 years ago the South was almost literally 100% white, and there weren’t many non-Irish white people (in the last 20 years there has been bigotry that sort of resembles racism towards, for example, Poles). In 2004 there was an Amendment to the constitution that eliminated birthright citizenship for people born to parents who are not both citizens of Ireland. But if one parent is a citizen, they get citizenship. Also, although naturalization has been restricted, it’s still possible and it’s still fairly easy for citizens of the European Community (although that could be interpreted as racist, I don’t think they had much of a choice as a member of the EU). First, the parties in Ireland I primarily support (SF and Irish Labour) opposed the citizenship Amendment as racist (and also as being in conflict with the Good Friday Agreement). Second, although I couldn’t have said this until recently, the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland for the last few years was a man named Leo Varadkar, whose father is Indian. Also, he’s an openly gay man. I don’t like him or his party (Fine Gael, who are sort of socially liberal but sort of pro-British and in love with capitalism). According to wikipedia, he was a government minister between 2011 and 2017 when he became Taoiseach. Between 2007 and 2011, when FG were in Opposition, he was a  Spokesperson (shadow minister?). The Irish language is recognized by the Constitution as the first official language and English is recognized as the second. A lot is done to promote the former, but practically everyone practically always speak the latter and everything official is available in both languages. The British came very close to stamping out the Irish language (and they WERE trying to).

The South is not comparable to the Jewish State. And SF doesn’t want a United Ireland to be any more Catholic or based on ethnicity than the South is now. The second half of this (starting with the sentence “A lot of people…”) talks about the former, and most of this deals with the latter.

In conclusion, Zionism was not justified, or a good idea, and has been a disaster. That doesn’t mean Jews need to leave. But they do need to transform their relationship with the Palestinians, and I believe that is best achieved through the creation of a truly democratic, secular, bi-national state.

Irish History, Today's World, and Our Education System

Just a quick link to a great article on another blog. I had no idea our education system was so bad in this area. The article touches on part of a theory I have, that to whatever degree our educational system and our media ignore Irish history and the situation in N. Ireland, it's partly or very much because of the potential of such material to get some Irish-Americans (almost all of whom are white) to think more critically about how people of color are treated in this world and in this country.

Anyway, there's a great article here.

Tom