Are you Northern Irish?
Chris Donnelly,, is unhappy about Professor Paul Connolly's proposed response to the disturbing findings of a among young people in Northern Ireland. The survey results are revealed in tonight's State of Minds programme on 大象传媒1 Northern Ireland. The key finding is that children in Northern Ireland continue to live segregated lives. Paul Connolly's proposal:
One way of doing this is to encourage children's sense of being Protestant or Catholic alongside also helping them to recognise that they are all part of a wider and shared identity as Northern Irish. Perhaps the most positive finding from our research is that many children are already beginning to think in this way.
Chris Donnelly isn't impressed. He writes: "Forgive me for being blunt, but describing identity in primarily religious terms here is an entirely bogus premise. Given that the issue of national identity runs to the core of the political problem, proposing we skirt over people鈥檚 primary source of identity-as British or Irish- and instead propagate an alternative 鈥榥orthern Irish鈥 identity sounds very Alliance-ish to me. Surely a better conclusion would be to assert that we must find ways of equally legitimising and respecting the primary national allegiances of British and Irish here as a prerequisite to developing inter-communal trust from which shared identities may evolve. Ignoring primary identities and instead proposing artificial allegiances is more likely to arouse suspicion and mistrust on all sides. Let鈥檚 open this one to the floor."
I imagine Chris was basing this response on a few comments in a press release rather than the programme itself, which is being broadcast as I speak. I don't have the impression that Paul Connolly is describing identity in "primarily religious" terms. Instead, he is recognising that national identity in Northern Ireland continues to be linked to religious identity. We may wish this were not so, but the survey reveals that it continues to be the case. Connolly (I think wisely) suggests that we need to raise children with a positive sense of religious identity -- which is to say, a sense of identity that is neither defined by difference nor threatened by difference. And we might also deal with sectarian perceptions in children by encouraging them to participate in a shared sense of political identity as "Northern Irish". This category does not erase "Britishness" or "Irishness"; and it is certainly no more "artificial" than any other cultural identification.
You can visit the programme's website here and take the mindset test yourself.
Comments
Yeah I agree. Donnelly's missing the point. The Alliance comment says it all. It's hardly an Alliance view to recognise that a growing number of people in NI call themselves "Northern Irish" (in addition to British or Irish"). Didn't Seamus Heaney choose the term Northern Irish when he had to pick a national identity for the Nobel Prize?
I can see both perspectives, and I don't believe they're mutually exclusive. There are two important sentences above for me. The first is Donnelly's:
"...we must find ways of equally legitimising and respecting the primary national allegiances of British and Irish here as a prerequisite to developing inter-communal trust from which shared identities may evolve."
The way in which I would qualify Donnelly's quote is to say that there's no use nationalists trying to claim they aren't British: they are. They're born in a British province and are citizens of the United Kingdom. I've personally always been happy to describe myself as both: I'm British by nationality and Irish by virtue of being born on the island of Ireland (in the way that someone is both Californian and American).
The other is Crawley's: "...a sense of identity that is neither defined by difference not threatened by difference."
This is a key way to understand moving beyond both sectarianism and political correctness. If only more people could take the same approach to issues like homosexuality, racism, sexism!
As for changing the people of NI, patience is a virtue. Only time will change it and there's no way to force it.
Change will happen in Northern Ireland, I just feel it will take a much longer timeframe than 10/15 years. There is more and more integration taking place within our community. It is a long, hard slog, but I think that in the long run a fairer, more integrated society, where everyone is free to be whatever and whoever they want will arrive in Northern Ireland.
I meant to add that I am proud to call myself British, but I'm fully aware that I am also a citizen of the island of Ireland. Would I ever call myself Irish? Not in the first instance, by I am equally Irish as I am European. On the otherhand I would never call myself Northern Irish. Something not quite right about that!
Im Northern Irish. I'm also Irish. and European. Lots of identities but NI is one of em.
Sam- And British.
No, I'm not Northern Irish. It means nothing to me. I am Irish, and that's it. I respect other people's choice to be whatever they want, and my Irishness is neither defined nor threatened by anyone else here. The idea that anyone else could have that power is beyond me.
What I do dislike, though, is the idea that I have to have an identity I have no interest in or I have to raise any children I may have as the same. Chris is right, busybody's and Alliance types should butt out.
Chris and Kensei are very defensive about us Alliance types this weather... shooting the messenger (who, as far as I know, has no connection with Alliance), because you don't like the message?
Identity in Northern Ireland is more complex than those in the Republican echo chamber would like to believe; every demoscopic examination of identity since Rose back in the '60s has presented a patchwork quilt, and often a rapidly changing one. But as this doesn't fit in with the simplistic, 脕n Phoblacht, analysis of the conflict, obviously it's a case of these nasty Alliance types poking their nose where it isn't welcome.
Paul Conolly seems to have lost any claim to professionalism or impartiality in this by stating that it was a 'positive' thing that there were people stating that they were 'Northern Irish'.
'Northern Irish' is a political choice (all too often encouraged by the 大象传媒) as a way of avoiding dealing with the real issues that connfront this society - in particular the fact that there are two communities with political aspirations and cultural identities that just do not overlap. This is just a fact and we need to accept it and not try to ignore it by creating some sort of "Wouldn't it be great if it was like this all the time?" nonsense to paper over it.
"Chris and Kensei are very defensive about us Alliance types this weather... shooting the messenger (who, as far as I know, has no connection with Alliance), because you don't like the message?"
That argument might hold if the Alliance didn't also ignore the parts of the message they didn't like. Only 50% or so, went for the "Northern Irish" identity, with the rest coming down as either "British" or "Irish". the Alliance believes their identities should be extinguished here and the "Northern Irish" identity pushed.
Except, well, it's not clear what constitutes Northern Irish identity anyway, and the respondents in the survey are in all probability, talking about a set of different things. The survey is interesting, sure, but raises more questions that it answers.
Always liked the John Hewitt quotation:
'I'm an Ulsterman, of planter stock. I was born in the island of Ireland, so secondarily I'm an Irishman. I was born in the British archipelago and English is my native tongue, so I am British. The British archipelago consists of offshore islands to the continent of Europe, so I'm European. This is my hierarchy of values and so far as I am concerned, anyone who omits one step in that sequence of values is falsifying the situation.'
Not suggesting everyone would hold that particular set of values - more that the idea that our sense of national identity can be a conglomeration always appealed.
Extinguished? What with a gatling gun or something? Extinguishing people's identities doesn't work in a free and democratic society, and in any case, none of these three terms are mutually exclusive. I think you need a serious check on your sense of perspective, kensei!
Aren't they all just names, to a certain extent? NI is what it is, and the people are what they are. Everyone is 'Northern Irish' by virtue of the fact they live in Northern Ireland. They are also Irish by virtue of living on the island of Ireland and British by nationality. All of this is undeniable. Only when you look at political demographics do you get into unionism and nationalism, and maybe that's a good thing. As for which of the above names people use, that's neither here nor there. The people of NI are forging ahead in a culture which defines all of them, no matter what they want to call it.
"They are also Irish by virtue of living on the island of Ireland and British by nationality. All of this is undeniable. "
No it is entirely deniable. The only passport I hold, and the only citizenship I claim is Irish. If someone only has a British component, then that is up to them and it isn't for me to tell them otherwise. The GFA recognised that anyone here could be British, Irish, both or neither.
Assigning people identities based on what you think things should be like smacks of the Marxist "False Consciousness" nonsense that Republicans applied to Unionists for years and kept the conflict going for god knows how long.
Can't you just meet other people on their terms, and be content with it?
Now let鈥檚 see.
Professor Connolly believes we should 鈥渆ncourage children鈥檚 sense of being catholic or protestant alongside also helping them to recognise that they are all part of a wider and shared identity as northern Irish.鈥
Unless I鈥檓 mistaken, that鈥檚 another way of saying 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 matter what religion you are, we鈥檙e all northern Irish.鈥 Could鈥檝e come straight from the 鈥榥ational鈥 newspaper of that entity itself...
Connolly鈥檚 error is in not explicitly identifying that the terms 鈥榗atholic鈥 and 鈥榩rotestant鈥 as understood by all of us here- never mind simply 10 year olds- is another way of denoting one鈥檚 political allegiance.
People didn鈥檛 fight a war here in defence of the Catechism or in defiance of the authority of the Pope. Working with children on a daily basis (9/10 year olds as luck would have it), I can tell you that, if you ask a child what it means here to be a catholic or a protestant, the answer will invariably involve mention of Union flags, loyalists, Orange parades and being British on one side and the Irish tricolour, republicans and being Irish on the other. In short, by their innocent and honest observations, children strip away the pretence of our conflict being religious.
Returning to the programme itself,I was somewhat amused by the questions asked of the children- all the more so as I have been exploring some of these issues with my own class in the past couple of weeks. As a matter of interest, I put the question of identifying our National capital to my own class today in the hall, as we waited on the rest of the classes to commence our indoor Sports Day. Not one identified 鈥楤elfast鈥, the overwhelming number confidently proclaimed 鈥楧ublin,鈥 a couple went for 鈥楨urope鈥 and one leapt at me to proclaim 鈥楢rdoyne!鈥
Now, like national/ cultural identity and sporting preference, there鈥檚 an element of 鈥榗aught鈥 as well as 鈥榯aught鈥 to their answers. But that simply underlines the point that developing a truly shared identity is an enterprise only possible with widespread support and in the context of considerably less suspicion as to the motives of those promoting such a project.
If Professor Connolly is proposing that a shared identity can be developed once the children鈥檚 sense of being 鈥榗atholic鈥 or 鈥榩rotestant鈥-as religious labels cloaked with political/ cultural connotations- is fully respected and legitimised, then I have no quarrel with him.
But I鈥檓 not sure that鈥檚 what he meant.
Kensei- Although it may for some reason pain you to hear it, you are British if you are 'Northern Irish', for the province of Northern Ireland is a province of the United Kingdom. Whether you "claim" your British citizenship or not (whatever that means), you're British. But your question to me, "Can't you just meet other people on their terms, and be content with it?" bears no relation whatsoever to your citizenship. If you're a citizen of Northern Ireland and happen to hate the fact that your province is British then that's a political opinion and a political identity to which you are happily entitled. But no amount of political dissimulation will change plain facts, and if you're nationalist (as I assume from post #14 you are) then I'm meeting you on your terms in that regard and I'm content to do so.
"Kensei- Although it may for some reason pain you to hear it, you are British if you are 'Northern Irish', for the province of Northern Ireland is a province of the United Kingdom. Whether you "claim" your British citizenship or not (whatever that means), you're British."
No, I'm not. Northern Ireland might well be a part of the British state, but that doesn't make me British, any more if someone moves from Dublin or Paris or New York and lives here. The state does not define identity. In most cases it's the other way round. In fact, NI is a perfect example: it only exists as a significant proportion of the population had a different identity from the rest of the island.
"But your question to me, "Can't you just meet other people on their terms, and be content with it?" bears no relation whatsoever to your citizenship. If you're a citizen of Northern Ireland and happen to hate the fact that your province is British then that's a political opinion and a political identity to which you are happily entitled. But no amount of political dissimulation will change plain facts, and if you're nationalist (as I assume from post #14 you are) then I'm meeting you on your terms in that regard and I'm content to do so."
No, you are not. You are insisting on pushing an identity onto me that I don't have and don't want. The only passport I hold is an Irish one. If you read the GFA, right at the start you'll find:
"(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland."
So, that's either or both. I pick Irish, and you don't get to define me.
I am perfectly aware of the Constitutional status of NI, much as I dislike it. And I'll work within that to change the situation. I don't appear to be the one in denial.
Kensei- If this is bothering you, I'm happy to refrain from the conversation, but I have a question. What do you think it means that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom? ie. what is the upshot of that fact? What does it mean for NI? It seems to me that you have a fairly selective definition of citizenship.
Kensei- In post #7, you say: I respect other people's choice to be whatever they want..."
Well isn't that just wonderful! But what if they're simply not? I think your mindset is incongruous with basic reality in the sense that an identity is not something someone chooses in the case of citizenship; it is something thrust upon them by the basic facts. You can "respect other people's choice to be whatever they want" but my wanting it doesn't make me any more Italian, Australian or Portuguese.
"Kensei- If this is bothering you, I'm happy to refrain from the conversation, but I have a question. What do you think it means that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom? ie. what is the upshot of that fact? What does it mean for NI? It seems to me that you have a fairly selective definition of citizenship."
The upshot? The upshot is that most of the important decisions are taken in a Parliament where we have no real influence or say. The upshot is dependence and patronage politics that results in our economy being over 70% dependent on the public sector. The upshot is that is no written constitution that could possibly protect us from violation of civil liberties like 90-day detention without trial.
But to cease being trite, it concerns the institutions of government, of course. That isn't the same thing as the identity of people living here. Again, identity concerns more than merely the state.
"Well isn't that just wonderful! But what if they're simply not? I think your mindset is incongruous with basic reality in the sense that an identity is not something someone chooses in the case of citizenship; it is something thrust upon them by the basic facts. You can "respect other people's choice to be whatever they want" but my wanting it doesn't make me any more Italian,"
Sorry, there's me thinking we were talking about our own unique situation rather than, you know, Italy. The "facts" of the matter are as laid out in the GFA passage quoted above. People here are entitled to have Irish or British or both citizenship and all three are perfectly valid choices.
It's great, you get to make your own choice, something as you point out, not everyone gets (though there are of course, other ways to qualify for a choice of nationality, which no doubt we'll get to if this line of argument continues). But the thing is, see, you don't get to pick mine as well.
Kensei- No wonder the GFA is controversial; now I'm being rebuked for trying to draw a precedent from other countries. I'll admit to being fascinated at the fact you think NI is such a unique and different situation; I guess that's where unionism and nationalism sees things differently. For nationalists there's this historical struggle against the invaders; for unionists it's a country which nobody alive has ever known to be anything but British, and therefore to claim otherwise is tantamount to saying that the Americans should get out of California.
Both have had these 'facts' of the matter taught to them as children and hold to them staunchly. I guess that alone makes NI unique.