In The Spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Someone I used to know, who I emailed partly because I thought she'd like the blog, teaches a course on Non-Violence in Social Movements, and told me that her co-teacher is about to do a presentation on N. Ireland. It made me realize that I have said almost nothing about the non-violent side of the N. Ireland conflict- the civil rights movement, the second peak of relatively/completely non-violent mass struggle around 1980, the most significant effort at opposing violence (the Peace People), and other issues about the North that involve non-violent struggle.

Although I am an IRA supporter, I generally am VERY supportive of non-violent efforts. This post will give some history about non-violence in N. Ireland.

I'm going to start this history with the civil rights movement around 1970, since earlier non-violent efforts by the minority didn't have much of a mass character to them (at most, form 1945-1951 there was activity that might have been about 1/2 comparable to the civil rights movement), and I'm not going to give a 90 year history of the subject- once again, I recommend Michael Farrell's "Northern Ireland: The Orange State." I also might not go into tons of detail, so I recommend the web-site Conflict Archive on the InTernet (very academic and neutral) and also this (not quite as neutral and academic as CAIN, but based on roughly four of the top 5-10 best books on the subject).

The Civil Rights Movement started in the mid- and late 1960s, depending on who you ask. The first civil rights march was on Aug. 24 of 1968 from Coalisland to Dungannon. Loyalists planned a counter demonstration which convinced the government to ban the civil rights rally, but it went ahead anyway, with a minor confrontation with the security forces and loyalists. At this time, and for a small number of years before, there had been a lot of work on the issue of discrimination in public housing. Not only was it causing great homelessness (usually not as we usually think of it, but a bunch of often large families living in one small house), voting in local elections was based on property, and although a significant minority of Protestants were also affected, it overwhelmingly affected Catholics because of discrimination in employment which affected their ability to buy a home and discrimination in the allocation of public sector housing. Activists in Derry, including Eamonn McCann, who had been working on that decided to organize a civil rights march for Oct. 5th. A loyalist organization announced that they would march the same route at the same time and the government banned the civil rights march. The civil rights march was attacked by the police with brutality that shocked the world when television footage exposed it. In response, at Queens University in Belfast, a lot of students, overwhelmingly left-wing to one degree or another, considered it their Vietnam (they were, to one degree or another already anti-Vietnam War, but this was closer to home). They formed People's Democracy, which was a mostly (but not exclusively) Marxist, militant and student group (although it lasted about 15 years and quickly developed beyond a student group). The main figures were Bernadette Devlin, Michael Farrell, and Eamonn McCann. PD organized marches and sit-downs in Belfast. When the government announced a series of reforms in Nov. which only addressed roughly 1/4 of the reformist demands of the broad Civil Rights Movement (there were three other things included which were not really addressing their demands). In response, the mainstream leadership of the CRM called a truce, but PD said they would march from Belfast to Derry starting Jan. 1st 1969.

The march was based, at least in one way, on the Selma-Montgomery March (in general, the CRM were inspired by the Civil Rights Movement in America). The idea was that the reforms didn't go far enough (they certainly did not, the main problem being that only two out of four major problems with the franchise was fixed; the other two were dealt with a year later after London got involved), that they were a "sham" and that a compromise would be done between the moderate unionists and the moderate nationalists. The PDs also were concerned about the deal ignoring issues of economic justice and the PDs were also more interested in raising the border as an issue than the rest of CRM was. In her book ("The Price of My Soul," about 1/2 of which describes the first year of the PD), Bernadette Devlin criticized the moderate parts of the civil rights movement for calling for anti-discrimination measures without also calling for measures that create more jobs (and also more housing) so that a more equal distribution of jobs and houses wouldn't mean less for Protestants. I'm sure she didn't mean that she opposed those anti-discrimination measures, but she felt it was very important to at least talk about universal economic justice as well. The PDs felt it was important to keep the momentum going, keep the pressure up, and test how much the unionist population and the police had changed. The unionists and the police didn't pass. The march took four days and was often attacked by loyalists. In one case, the police told the marchers that ahead on the road there was an ambush and recommended an alternative route- the ambush was on the alternative route. The next time, the PDs ignored that advice and there was no ambush on their route. The last day of the march, there was a major ambush at Burntollet bridge not far outside of Derry. The police stood by while loyalists, including many off-duty members of the B-Specials who were kind of like a regional national guard launched a vicious attack, many students were injured and/or driven into the river (in January). (in 1999, I attended an event commemorating this in Derry, and barely missed getting to take part in a march commemorating it). The marchers, their numbers swelled by people from Derry, were welcomed as heroes when they entered the Nationalist part of Derry.

The attack at Burntollet was followed up by police attacking a nationalist part of Derry, which saw the first use of violence by the people involved in the civil rights movement- although willing to be non-violent on marches and at rallies and such, when their neighborhoods were attacked, that was seen as something else. The civil rights marches continued until early 1972, but the general situation got more violent. After the events of Aug. 1969 when there was massive violence against the Nationalist community (which defended itself with violence), the British army came onto the streets. Within months the IRAs (there was a split at the end of 1969), and especially the Provisional IRA, began to assert themselves. The republican paramilitaries came into conflict with the police, and until about June of 1970, to a lesser degree the British Army (after June 1970 it was to a large degree). The civil rights marches continued. As a result of British involvement, more of the demands of the civil rights movement were granted- one-person, one-vote was established for all elections; the B-Specials, who were exclusively Protestant and notoriously sectarian, were replaced by the Ulster Defense Regiment, who developed a similar reputation after a brief period. No effective effort was made to combat discrimination in employment, which actually got worse. Not only was emergency legislation left on the books, it was extensively used through internment without trial, which became the main issue of the civil rights movement after it was introduced in Aug. of 1971. Internment lasted until the end of 1975, and while about 100 loyalists were interned, about 1,900 republicans were interned, but since during the first 1.5 years not a single loyalist was interned, the republicans interned would have been interned for longer periods on average. During this time, republicans were probably about 20 times more active than loyalists, but were overwhelmingly attacking the security forces and destroying commercial/non-military property without killing civilians while the loyalists were almost exclusively intentionally killing Catholic civilians. But despite that, republicans were about 19 times more likely to be interned. Also, two members of People's Democracy were interned despite the fact that even though they offered (non-material) support to the PIRA, they were mostly non-violent and did not consider themselves republicans. Also, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association was also interned.

In late Jan. 1972, an anti-Internment/civil rights march was brutally attacked by the security forces- there are reports that some British officers started beating their own men to get them to stop beating the marchers. At the end of January Bloody Sunday happened, and 13 civil rights marchers were shot dead by the British Army in Derry. The march was already banned from the center of the city (the city was majority Nationalist and the center was in the part that was overwhelmingly majority Nationalist. You might want to take a look at this link for details, but the tiny amount of violence aimed at the British Army didn't justify their aggression, and for years now almost everyone agrees that the people killed were innocent.

Although there was a flury of united Civil Rights marches immediately after Bloody Sunday, it's widely agreed that Bloody Sunday killed off the CRM, and launched the armed struggle of the IRA (the one which was at the time known as the Provisionals). And I’m sure some people, to one degree or another, did not want to march if the British were going to simply kill them. As far as I can tell, during the next 5-6 years after Bloody Sunday, mass struggle was something like 1/4 of what it had been between 1968 and 1972. At some point in 1978 and increasing until the 1980 and 1981 Hunger-Strikes there was a return to mass struggle which by 1980 was on roughly the same level as was seen around 1970.

(The MASSIVE anti-internment march fired on on Bloody Sunday was primarily organized by a senior politician of the moderate SDLP, not Sinn Fein)

For about 5 years in the 1970s convicted and interned prisoners, loyalist and republican, were treated as political prisoners, or as prisoners of war (although I'm not sure how appropriate it is to use the term POW in relation to the loyalists). In the mid-1970s this was phased out with internment and was completely ended in 1980. Although it's worth pointing that internment was quickly replaced with other emergency legislation including detention for seven days and non-jury courts, the important thing is that all the republican and loyalist prisoners were the result of a political conflict, and the republicans, with some negligible individual exceptions, could easily be called prisoners of war (the exceptions could still be called POWs, but with a little less justification). Besides the level of support shown for the hunger-strikers which I'll describe shortly, there's reasons to believe that the vast majority of the nationalist population supported the hunger-strikers, including most of the roughly 60% who did not usually express support for the IRA- that is those who were calling on the IRA to go on cease-fire. The thing is, at that point the events of Aug. 1969 were still fresh in people's minds, and those who were too young and not nearby heard about what happened. the thing is, the IRA had been demilitarized in the years before that, and offered almost no defense- the overwhelming amount of defense came from people, usually young, throwing rocks and petrol bombs and building barricades. Afterwards, grafiti claimed that IRA stood for "I Ran Away." After that, almost no one in the Nationalist community wanted the IRA to disarm (that only became popular around 2000) or disband (I suppose in the last few years that might be slightly popular, although there's probably a majority who are happy with the IRA remaining in a very stood-down manner, and as a veterans organization, or something like that). Also, because there was almost zero support for the police in the Nationalist community (the SDLP were fairly consistently hostile to the police until 2002, and as recently as 2001 there was solid evidence of how Nationalists felt about the NI police when 5/6 of N. Ireland units of the Gaelic Athletics Association voted no on allowing the police to be members of the GAA) people would turn to the IRA. So, even among those who were not normally considered IRA supporters, almost no one was unconcerned about the prisoners starving themselves to death to be treated as prisoners of war.

UPDATE 3/8/16 Somewhere in this part of the post I should say that, based on what might be called a fairly scientific look, only about .2% of the IRA's operations intentionally resulted in civilian death.

The effort in support of the prisoners started small, it was about 2-3 years before there was mass struggle, but there were a lot of important actions like the mothers of the prisoners wearing blankets (since the prisoners wouldn't wear prison uniform, they wore blankets as part of the first phase of their protest) at protests. Everything I've read indicates that during this period (starting in 1978 and increasing until the brief and unsuccessful hunger-strike of late 1980, and then continuing during the second one from the Spring until the Fall in 1981, during which 10 men died) there was a huge amount of activity. According to Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey (who was the most senior leader of the campaign in support), who has often said that republicans should spend more time organizing people and less time organizing armies, there was a return to mass struggle (she probably meant since the sharp decline of the Civil Rights Movement). There's reason to believe, based on election figures and reasonable assumptions, that a large majority of people who normally voted for the moderate rival of Sinn Fein, the Social Democratic and Labour Party voted for Bobby Sands (one of the hunger-strikers) when he was elected to parliament (the SDLP didn't put up a candidate). Also, John Hume, the leader of the SDLP, made statements criticizing the British government and suggesting that a lot of nationalists who weren't IRA supporters were supporting the hunger-strikers. There were 100,000 people at Bobby Sands' funeral, and even adjusting for the likelihood that some small minority (maybe 10,000) were from outside N. Ireland, it's worth pointing out that (including children, the disabled, the sick, and the elderly, many of whom probably stayed home) the nationalist population was about 500,000 at that time (UPDATE 5/22/09 it was a work day; unemployment among nationalists was probably no more than about 20%; Belfast, where the funeral was, at that time had a nationalist population that was probably something like 70,000 and the area within roughly an hour's drive of Belfast Local Government District might have contained something like 300,000 more nationalists at the most; so about 90,000 nationalists is a pretty high figure, assuming that there were also a lot of people who kind of supported the hunger-strikers but couldn't stomach attending a republican funeral) (about half the nationalists more than an hour away from Belfast were in the constituency that elected Sands).

For more information, see this.

(UPDATE 3/1/17 In recent years there has been a controversy over  a children's play park in what used to be called the Newry and Mourne local government district. The park was named after one of the dead hunger-strikers. Most of the time, most of the SDLP councilors voted in favor of naming it that way)

(UPDATE 7/9/17 From another post: "There is also evidence that almost no one in the Nationalist community went to the police about crime and instead almost everyone went to the IRA (this is supported by a statement by Eamonn McCann on pages 22-23 of the 1993 version of his book “War and an Irish Town” and by an article around 2003 in the Irish Times). Most Nationalists who didn’t support the IRA’s campaign nonetheless agreed more or less with the IRA’s goals and wanted Volunteers available for defense during times of sectarian tension and and when crime HAD to be dealt with by force.")

Since the hunger-strike ended, the mass struggle seems to have gone down to something probably just above what it was the 7 years after Bloody Sunday. Ogra Shinn fein (SF Youth) do a lot of demonstrations and some stuff that could be called direct action (there was also activity by Republican youth that often involved petrol bombs), but they seem to have not been very broadly based among nationalist youth. In 1988, in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the Civil Rights Movement, marches were held that seem to have been well-attended, and every year there's a very successful republican march to mark the introduction of internment. There are other marches and rallies, but everything I've read indicates they are not at the same level as they were in the periods around 1970 and 1980, (I also saw a few nationalist protests which have influenced what I'm saying here).

One aspect of this I'd like to discuss is the record of the SDLP, who claim to be inheritors of the civil rights movement. I'm sure there's some truth to that, but not as much as they would have you believe. As far as I can tell, in the 70s a large majority of SF members could say they had been involved in the CRM and in the 80s, some large minority could say the same thing. In 1988 a meeting was held at which participants in the Civil rights movement were invited to create a committee which would do work in commemoration of the CRM. Although it appears that the SDLP didn't participate for some reason (same thing for most of the non-Provisional part of the republican family, although at that point the Provisionals would have represented some very large majority of that family), it probably represented between about half and some large najority of the CRM and I have heard nothing to indicate there was a rival effort of similar success by the SDLP (I'm almost certain that in a video of one of the commemoration marches, you can see the leader of the SDLP, which indicates that they did not organize a rival effort). The committee did attract three of the 4-5 top people in the civil rights movement, including the person who was probably at the very top, Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey, plus Eamonn McCann who was probably either #2 or #3, and Michael Farrell, who was probably either #4 or #5. The video leaned towards supporting the Provisionals and took two subtle digs at the SDLP.

Also, the SDLP did not have a perfect record on the civil rights movement. John Hume, who was a senior figure from the beginning and became Leader of the SDLP in 1979 and remained Leader until 2001, opposed three of the most important marches in the civil rights era. He opposed the second march, the one in Derry that really got the CRM going (he refused to co-sign the paper-work for the permit), he opposed the Belfast-Derry march by PD, and he opposed the march that was fired on on Bloody Sunday. Also, when interment without trial was introduced, part of the response was a rent and rates strike, basically refusing to pay the local councils taxes and rent on public housing (it was originally an effort associated with the SDLP, but became very popular with the entire civil rights movement). Towards the very beginning it was estimated that 16,000 households were on the strike, which would have been something like 1/3 of that Nationalist population, probably something like 2/3 of those with public housing, and it probably grew as it became clearer that (for the first 1 1/2 years) not a single loyalist was going to be interned; those figures probably went up to about 2/3 and 4/5, although they might have fallen a bit not long after the government started interning a small number of loyalists. In 1974 there was a power-sharing government for N. Ireland as part of an effort to resolve the conflict. While internment continued, an SDLP minister announced that there would be no amnesty for people on the rent and rates strike, increased the amount of money that could deducted from the social security payments of those on the strike and introduced a punitive fine for people on the strike.

Going back to the 1970s, there was a movement that I should discuss. The Community of Peace People was a short-lived movement in 1976 which made a call that was sort of universally aimed at stopping all the violence, and they were more successful than similar efforts before and since- the two women at the center of it won the Nobel Peace Prize for 1976. It started when the three children of one of the two women, Anne Maguire, died after being struck by a car driven by an IRA member who lost control after he was shot by the British Army. The Peace People issued a statement calling for an end to violence but were frequently criticized for often specifying the paramilitaries and not the security forces. For a brief period of time they were very successful, but as it became clear that they were not going to criticize the security forces their support in the Nationalist community declined. At one point there was going to be a peace march from a nationalist area into a loyalist area. The trade-unions announced that they intended to march as a bloc with their banners. Some loyalists threatened that there would be trouble if that happened. The Peace People said they also opposed the unions taking part as a group, and the unions told their members to instead march with their families. It's not clear if the PP opposed union participation before or after the loyalist threat. If it was before, that indicates some large degree of hostility towards the unions, if it was after, that indicates that they were willing to erode the effectiveness of their campaign in the face of threats of violence, which isn't really in-line with their movement of standing up against the paramilitaries. The thing is, since the conflict was fueled partly by poverty (even though with a poverty-free N. Ireland it would still make sense to unite Ireland, the sectarianism of the loyalists is fueled by poverty, as is the tiny amount of sectarianism of the nationalists and to some degree support for republicanism- although as you might guess I don't have a problem with that republicanism). The unions can address this, can generate support for progressive responses to poverty, and can glue together working-class nationalist/unionist solidarity, and if the unions had been integrated into the marches, that would have been much better. As you might guess, I still wouldn't be crazy about the Peace People as I would have largely supported the armed struggle, and the Peace People were saying nothing about the border (aside from some vague references, they also seemed to have said very little if anything about justice (i.e. discrimination); they were something like 75% PEACE and 25% anti-sectarian). Around the beginning of 1977, they even said that the violence of the security forces "is not as bad" as that of the paramilitaries. Within several months, the large Peace People marches were over with.

That's about it. Aside from the period around 1970 and in 1980/81, the mass struggle has been relatively low. Besides those two peaks it was probably only sort of comparable to what happened in Apartheid S. Africa, or during the Civil Rights Era in the American South.

Nuclear Assault Your Daughters and Your Sons

UPDATE 11/6/10: This first 1/3 of this post used to be fairly pro-Obama. Analyses of the election (in some cases stuff written shortly before the election) by Marc Cooper, Harold Meyerson, and Paul Krugman (and possibly also David Corn, Bob Herbert, and Eugene Robinson) have convinced me that Obama and more generally most of the Dem leaders screwed up big time. So I am eliminating the references to Obama from this part of the post.

I'd like to talk about some of the songs I listen to whose politics I like. From the songs I've altered (about 1/2 of what I've altered is based on stuff I agree with, I've indicated which are which) and my profile, you should have some idea of what I listen to, although there's a lot of miscellaneous stuff (i.e. "Free Your Mind" by En Vogue (I like the song, but the video with the moshing is awesome)). I just added one to my favorites, and it might actually be number one, although I need to spend some time listening to more of their stuff, especially stuff besides the one album I listened to a bunch in High School, but I'll get to that soon.

First, the song that in some ways is significantly different from the others I'm going to talk about. It's possibly my favorite song. I first heard it in that documentary I keep referring to "Off Our Knees." It's played at the end during five minutes of what is probably some of the most inspiring material a progressive could ever see in video.

The song is "Your Daughters and Your Sons." I think it's by Tommy Sands, but like most republican songs, there are multiple versions and the one I sing is a little bit unique. It's a republican song, although for all you know looking at the lyrics, it's a Vietnamese song. One explanation I've heard is that the song is about how, between the formation of N. Ireland and the late 60s when the Nationalist community rose up en masse, there were some very unsuccessfull attempts (militarily or otherwise) at reforming or ending the state, and people basically passed on the dream of freedom from one generation to the next.

Going back to the song, my version is below, and here are some notes:
1. I have a policy with songs I like that I eliminate, unless impossible, any trace of sexism. I've considered adding "woman" to the 2nd line of the 2nd verse, but it sounds a little odd, and overwhelmingly the song is already inclusive regarding sex.
2. The reference to Belfast is not necessarily about the IRA- plenty of people were tortured who weren't in the IRA.
3. The reference to Spain could be about the Basques (even as an IRA supporter I don't support ETA, but I do support the Basque people) or it could be a reference to the Spanish Civil War (it's a safe bet the fash used torture).
4. Chile refers to the Pinochet years.
5. In that documentary, the line "writing's on the wall" seems to refer to Free Derry Corner.
6. I took the chorus and switched sons and daughters and used it in one of my songs, "The Spirit of Che Guevara." (I also used that line in another song "comrades")

"Your Daughters and Your Sons"

They wouldn't play your music and your paintings they pulled down
They wouldn't read your writings and they banned you from the town
But they couldn't stop you dreaming, and a victory you've won
For you sowed the seed of freedom in your daughters and your sons

Chorus:
In your daughters and your sons, in your daughters and your sons
You sowed the seed of freedom in your daughters and your sons

Your smile proudly hides the chain marks on your hands
As you bravely strive to realize the rights of every man
Though your body's bent and low, a victory you've won
For you sowed the seed of justice in your daughters and your sons

Chorus

I don't know your religion, but one day I heard your pray
For a world where everyone could work and the children they could play
Although you never realized, a victory you've won
For you sowed the seed of equality in your daughters and your sons

Chorus

They tortured you in Belfast, and they tortured you in Spain
And in that Warsaw Ghetto, they tied you up in chains
In Vietnam, in Chile, where they came with tanks and guns
You sowed the seed of peace in your daughters and your sons

Chorus

Now your music's playing and the writing's on the wall
And all the dreams you painted can be seen by one and all
Now you've got them thinking, and a victory you've won
For you sowed the seed of freedom in your daughters and your sons

Chorus

******

Now going back to what might be my new favorite band. Besides some mostly weak rap music (Fresh Prince, who I still kind of like, Run DMC who I still pretty much like, and Beastie Boys, who I still really like) the first real music I got into was Megadeth in 10th grade. I got into other metal, mostly thrash/speed (Metallica, Anthrax, Suicidal Tendencies, D.R.I., Body Count), and within a year was also into some punk (mostly Dead Kennedys, Dead Milkmen) harder rap (mostly Ice-T, Public Enemy) and what was vaguely and lazily referred to as "Alternative" (mostly Nirvana, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Soundgarden, Primus, Rage Against The Machine, and L7). One day I might do an entire post about my transition during High School to being a socialist, for now I'll just say that since about 65% of the music I was listening to was basically liberal, and 5% was progressive (the rest was either non-political, it's possible 5% was conservative), that music was a big part of the transition. There were two bands I listened to that I want to focus on- they probably weren't/aren't as progressive as the Dead Kennedys were, but as far as I can tell, they're close. Also, both of them, I'm only familiar with roughly 1/10 of their stuff, but I'm pretty certain they were and are progressive.

First, their music, they're both basically thrash-metal. In High School, and I think even today, thrash might be my favorite kind of music overall. And as far as I can tell, it's pretty non-political some large minority of the time and maybe conservative or even worse some small minority of the time, liberal some large minority of the time, and the rest would be progressive, including these two bands (admittedly, this is largely based on my knowledge from listening to 1980s and 1990s stuff, but I have some small knowledge of the current situation).

The first band, Sacred Reich, amazingly seems to have had almost no role in my transition towards being a socialist. I think I only listened to one song on their tape (Surf Nicaragua (lyrics are here), which only had three originals- 2 political, and a cover of Black Sabbath's "War Pigs"), the title track, which is pretty progressive. The thing is, five months ago I discovered another song that I do not remember paying attention to at all, and it is now one of my top 10 favorite songs. It's called "One Nation," the lyrics are here (the last line, although it's not clear what it actually is, according to other sites is "why don't you understand?"; the line "Your ideas are decided By where you have been born" must be a quote and not the band's opinion). Although I'm not certain, I get the impression that the rest of their lyrics are also very progressive.

The band which might now be my favorite is Nuclear Assault, which I had two tapes of in High School, although I barely listened to "Survive," I listened a lot to "Handle With Care," which is overwhelmingly progressive. It's got two environmentalist songs, 1-2 anti-racist songs, a song about police harassing people, a couple other political ones. The lyrics for one song I'm going to post below. I had kind of forgotten about it, but it's a very good anti-racist song.

I almost forgot, that as far as them being progressive, NA has done two songs, although it doesn't seem like the second is an original, called "Butt Fuck (You Figure It Out)" and "Lesbians." The first one is reportedly about Vince Neil of Motley Crue. I've looked for the lyrics and I'll probably have to dig to find out what they are and what they mean, but more generally, we are talking about 80s heavy-metal, the odds are these two bands are homophobic, or at least were until recently (it wouldn't surprise me if at some point they figured it out).

I think that's it for now, like I said, this post might have some updates, or after I gather enough info, I might do a second post to follow-up. Below are the lyrics from the anti-racist NA song, and below that are some new lyrics that I did.

"New Song" (really captures the message of the lyrics)

Closed books is what some people's minds are like
Shut tight, new ideas, they just always get passed by
Prejudice, living in their thoughts and deeds
Ignoring all the other people's needs

Chorus
You say a double standard's OK
I'm telling you that this is insane
What is it that you've got in your fist
Could it be another one of your lists

No one else can do the job just right
Unless they're Anglo-Saxon Protestant white
Foolish, the minds that have this attitude
You can't judge everybody by that rule

No place in this country for this shit
Everyone has to have an equal place
Nazis, they lost it 40 years ago
Rednecks just realize this a little slow

*****

So, I've done two more songs. The first is based on the music whose fans do not like "New Song," 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). (the second song is based on one I agree with)

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

"Anti-Sectarian", based on "Unity is Power" by Kill Baby Kill, original lyrics are here

1. In general, it's about left unity, although I can imagine some groups I would have trouble uniting with even informally with, or in single-issue coalitions. There was some left-wing group about 20-25 years went around attacking other leftists with baseball bats, I think it was the Spartacist league (U.S.), but I can't figure out for sure. Besides them and possibly a few others that are almost as bad, I'm pretty comfortable with the idea of single-issue coalitions with the more hard-left Marxists and the moderate anarchists, and I have always expressed support for some kind of federation of the Democratic Left, the groups usually mentioned are the Democratic Socialists of America, the Committees of Correspondence, Solidarity, Freedom Road Socialist Organization (the one associated with Bill Fletcher Jr.), and the Socialist Party USA.
I have similar feelings about working with people who are more accurately called progressive and probably the vast majority of people called liberals (as I define and describe them here), although this song is more about unity on the ideological left.
Also, I have not always behaved as a perfect non-sectarian leftist, but in my heart I'm one and in practice, to one large degree or another, about 80% of the time I am.
2. I'm only about 1/2 anti-cop and I wouldn't be surprised if some large minority of them are inclined to use excessive force, but cop seemed the best substitute.
3. The last line, "movements'" refers to all/almost all the movements on the left, and when I talk of enemies, unless I specify otherwise, I'm talking about people with whom I have major disagreements with on a lot more than one issue- that is, leftists who don't support the IRA, in general, are not my enemy, the GOP is.
4. In the 3rd verse/Chorus, "peoples" is used to refer to struggles against racism, homophobia, etc. I needed a substitute and it seemed pretty good.
**5. 8% of this version is me, 92% is the original.
6. I give this song/poem three out of five stars.
7. The references to fighting our real enemies are meant to be about 99% non-violent, and fortunately about 99.99% of the fighting among the Left has been non-violent.
8. update (1/18/10) I just made a small but important change- I changed "leftie" to "comrade" (not sure why I didn't use "Comrade" when originall typing this poem). Also the reference to "comrades in arms," is referring to a different kind of weapon than most would think about- kind of like when Ice-T rapped "the lethal weapon is the mind."

So much wrong in the world today, the worker's being oppressed.
What’s the point of fighting each other, when our world’s in a mess?
Violent cops on every corner, Nazis in every town.
People of color and gays are victimized, the GOP tries to bring our country down.

This is the voice of the underground, a voice still prepared to fight,
calling out with a message now to stick together and unite.
So listen comrade, listen well, unity’s a must.
If we can’t achieve to unite as one our war’s already lost.

Unity is power, unity is strength. Unity’s the weapon to defend our class.
Unity’s the answer to the worker's call.
Unity will set our class and peoples free. Unity will bring us final victory.
If we stand united, we will never fall.

All this senseless infighting only gives the right a laugh.
Comrade we must stand as one, alone is not enough.
Shoulder to shoulder, comrades in arms, make sure we’ll never fail.
So stick together and act as one, united we’ll prevail.

To all of those who share our beliefs: United we will win,
unity brings victory. It's the power from within,
so join our ranks on the battlefield. Together side by side,
to fight our movement's enemies and crush 'em with our might.

*****

"You Are Woman" based on "I Am Woman" by Helen Reddy, original lyrics are here

1. I started singing the original after I found a YouTube video that celebrated the contribution made by women to the Republican Movement and this song was the soundtrack. I was and still am prepared to sing the original for people, especially if they find that amusing, but I decided that it would be more appropriate to alter it for male feminists.
2. Considering the rules of altering lyrics (I alter as little as possible and the lines have to rhyme) which I almost never break, I'm not sure the quality is as good as the original, but it's close.
3. "Yes, we're now wise" I realize a lot of male feminists didn't have much room for improvement, and it would be fairly inacurrate to say I was ever a sexist, but most of us have, to one degree or another, learned over time, and considering that probably not a single one of us is 100% perfect, you could say we're still learning. And when it comes to making mistakes of a personal nature with women, I'm probably no better than average among male feminists.
4. The second to last line of the chorus, I thought it would be good that way, especially because part of it is aimed at left-wing-liberal activists, even though that line makes the next line a little awkward compared to the original. Also, the 5th line of the chorus refers to male feminists fighting sexism.
5. In general I switch back and forth betwenen women and male feminists, and sometimes "we" refers to both (4th line of the second verse and I suppose the very last line) but I think it makes sense.
6. The line "a long, long way to go" was written in the early 1970s, maybe cut that in half at this point.
7. Besides her being more or less feminist, I almost named the song after Bernadette Devlin-McAliskey because the lines in the second verse and the the lines about "standing toe to toe" remind me of her activism and involvement in, for example, the Battle of the Bogside. But it's still iffy whether or not I should have my blog named after her.
8. I'm not sure of the line "born of pain" in the chorus, but it could refer to how the oppression of women, once men figured it out, educated them, or something like that.
9. The line about doing anything is meant to be about efforts that are overall at least 99% non-violent.
10. I barely changed anything but stuff like female-to-male and singular-to-plural. If I added that stuff up it would be about 25% me, 75% the original, if we ignore that stuff it's about 1% me.
**11. I give this song/poem three out of five stars.

You are woman, we heard you roar
In numbers too big to ignore
And we know too much to go back and pretend
'Cause we've heard it all before
And you've been down there on the floor
No one's EVER going to keep you down again

Chorus:
Yes, we're now wise
But it's wisdom born of pain
Yes you paid the price
But look how much you gained
If we have to, we will do anything
Together we are strong, we are invincible
You are woman!

They can bend but never break you
'Cause it only serves to make you
More determined to achieve your final goal
And we come back even stronger
Not novices any longer
Cause they deepened the conviction in our souls

Chorus

You are woman, we watched you grow
We saw you standing toe to toe
As you spread your your loving arms across the land
But you're still an embryo
With a long, long way to go
Until we make our brothers understand

Chorus


For the rest of the lyrics posts, click on the "lyrics" label.

****

This is of course only covers the two songs right above, not "New Song" or "Your Daughters and Your Sons"
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?).

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 (there would probably be less shuffling of cabinet members), 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 resolution 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 would 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)