by Janine Quarles (Bennett College)
I CAN GET DOWN with the idea of revolution. Here in Northern Ireland paramilitary groups like the IRA and the INLA (Irish Nationalist Liberation Army) were rebelling in the name of civil rights, defending the Catholic minority groups. The British government usually responded with more violence, resulting in death, people being placed in jail, and hundreds of people being injured. But when you examine the circumstances from the viewpoint of the oppressed, taking up arms and demanding your civil rights doesn’t seem so far fetched.
The IRA kind of reminds me of the Black Panther Party. In 1966, the Black Panther Party for Self Defense was founded in Oakland, California, just a few years before the enlistment into the IRA went up, due to attacks on Catholics who were participating in peaceful protests. The Black Panther Party “practiced militant self-defense of minority communities against the U.S. government, and fought to establish revolutionary socialism through mass organizing and community based programs. The party was one of the first organizations in U.S. history to militantly struggle for ethnic minority and working class emancipation — a party whose agenda was the revolutionary establishment of real economic, social, and political equality across gender and color lines.” Like the IRA, the Panther’s sought “freedom” for the black community in America, saying that black people wouldn’t be free until they were able to determine their own destiny. The IRA and the Provisional IRA—a break away group formed during the time of the troubles, and supported by the Sinn Fein party—was formed during 1969 with the “stated aim to remove the British from Northern Ireland, protecting Catholics from loyalists sectarian attacks.”
Both of these groups have been labeled as terrorists by some federal organizations but when you really look at what they were about it included protecting these minority groups, and resisting governments that they felt didn’t have their best interest. And there is evidence in both cases that during these time periods, the American government and the British government did not see Blacks and Catholics as equals.
I see the pros and the cons to armed resistance. But most importantly I see the logic: armed resistance can be used as both a threat to this form of totalitarianism, a method of protection from governmental attacks, and a form of protest and rebellion against discrimination. I’m sure there are many people in Northern Ireland who are grateful for the protection from the IRA. The things you don’t here about are the programs and efforts put forth by these groups to actually benefit the communities they were defending. For example, the BPP instituted food pantries, free health clinic programs, free clothing programs and other entities that were beneficial to the Black community. The IRA has policed areas that the British wouldn’t and constantly fought for the freedom of Irish people, and the unification of the country of Ireland. They have been martyrs for a group that has been at battle with Protestant Britain for nearly a thousand years.
I wouldn’t say that I condone violence, but I do believe at some point people have to take matters into their own hands, by any means necessary. I don’t believe any group of people should be subject to a biased government; and if peace doesn’t work out, alternative methods should take place in order to get your point across. For years, different parts of the world have gone to war for some sort of liberation or fight for the rights that they deserve as human beings. It’s somewhat unfortunate that people had to die, and blood had to be shed in order for progress towards liberation to be made. But I, personally, would rather die for a cause and at the hope that the next generation would benefit from my fight, than to live and never have seen true equality and freedom.
I Can Dig Revolution...
