The Long Orange Veil - Unionism Decayed - A Yank's Review
Unionism Decayed is essential reading for an outsider interested in Northern Ireland. It is well written, but not a historical work and doesn't pretend to be a balanced discussion of the issues. However, it does provide a window into the mind of a unionist, and such an opportunity is very rare on American shores. The book is an attempt, like that of a salmon, is to swim against the rushing tide of what the author would call appeasement. Mr. Vance is in a minority opinion, and that certainly will not stop him from arguing against what he sees is the decay ofthe Unionist political movement.
The book offers real grievances held by the unionist community. Mr. Vance notes correctly and often personally of the atrocities committed by the modern day IRA, the double standard of media in the UK, the unapologetic opportunism exhibited by Sinn Fein, and the duplicity of many politicians. To his credit he never excuses loyalist paramilitary groups, and condemns their acts with obvious sincerity.
The author mentions but does not dwell upon the unrequited love that exists between Unionists in Northern Irealnd and, ahem, the mainland. The two main parties in the UK have their foolish moments, but neither is so self-destructive as to seriously attempt to organize in the tribal enclave that is Northern Ireland. Unionism is the red headed (not red handed) stepchild that loves its mother, but doesn't really find that love returned.
Absent at times from the work, which seems at times stream of conscious cynicism, is the Vance wit known to readers of ATW. One suspects the topic and the opportunity are too heartfelt for the author. A shame, as humour deployed in a judicious manner can be very persuasive. But the author is on a mission, and perhaps his tone is the correct one.
We meet politicians, large and small. Most are dispatched as undeserving, unintelligent and unprincipled. Suprise! Mr. Vance was never a main player on the political stage, and his encounters with some of the movers and shakers reads like someone who got front row seats at a concert. A nice chance to see Trimble and Paisley up close and personal, but little chance to engage them directly on the issues. The heavyweights of the Unionist community come in for the strongest drubbing, disappointment being an understatement.
The author sees the claim of the nationalist community as ludicrous, which is a difficult position to start from when a united Ireland has been and is the hope of millions of people. The course of Irish History is left unexamined, and perhaps wisely so, as an objective analysis would undermine the work. Also, the conflict is such that people will disagree as strongly over something that happened centuires ago as they would over something that happened yesterday. The eternal irony of Unionist insistence on majority rule, which of course favors their position, is that it is based on one of history's great gerrymandering moments in which their majority was created. A necessary moment for the creation of the Republic, but too often played down by the Unionist Community and hinders their understanding of their opposition.
The book is too coy in describing the Orange Order and its parades. One thing the Orange Parade involving Drumcree was not, and that is a simple attempt to memorialize World War I dead. The Orange Parades have always involved triumphal in your face intimidation of the Catholic population, and it serves neither history or the author's arguments to pretend otherwise. Another issue I have is the failure to give credit where it is due in temrs of the actual peace. True, the IRA and its hooligan element have never really gone away. But they have been placed in check, the level of violence has gone down and there is a hope for the future that never existed before.
Too often, Irish-Americans heard one side of the story, and too often many in the Irish-American community held a view of the IRA that ranged from naive to morally complicit. One of Mr. Vance's great accomplishments is to point out the details of the bombings, shootings and attacks, so it reads more like a human account with real victims, instead of an impersonal news item. It is important to read works that set forth another view, especially on Northern Ireland, where so many enter the debate and never listen. The Unionists are not going away. Their homes and heritage are there. They have a right to their opinion and a right to seek to maintain what to them is the proper political state. Mr. Vance ends with a quote from the Prophet Jeremiah, after writing more like Job. It is hopeful that the two communities look to their better angels, to develop a future where all might not live in agreement, but at least live in peace.
Mahons
22 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (22)
Excellent review, mahons.
Pity about the lack of humour you mention. David is for me the blog writer par excellence (well ok, east of the East River :)) and his "humour deployed in a judicious manner can be very persuasive" as you say. This raises the old question of journalist vs writer, with now the additional difference of the online factor.
Like many bloggers, David is his own worst enemy polemic-wise. His arguments might be convincing if they adopted a more objective stance and at least addressed Nationalist aspirations. As you describe it, it seems to be more a book by a Unionist insider for Unionist insiders.
In any case, I think the time for written arguments on the NI question one way or the other has passed. People can say what they want about the mistakes of the past half century, "but yet the earth still moves" And it's moving away from a time when ethnic differences or even the primacy of Unionist/Nationalist orientation were what excited people's minds.
Mahons.
Thank you for that very kind review - I agree with much of what you say.
The humour quotient is lower than normal but when you write about murders of people you knew, it's hard to inject wit. (That said, there IS a good Paris Hilton line!) I can still recall those sad moments and they do not dissolve in my memory - I remember the pain. Then there the bits I left out - the murder attempts on two of my uncles,for example; the day I went to buy a comic (when I was 10) and the pub one street away exploded! All locked away from public consumption but meaningful to me.
In the final analysis, I think I am like the salmon you speak of. Only dead fish go with the current. The main thing is to offer a choice of opinion - that's my mission, and folks can take issue with me anytime they want!
Noel - that is an interesting point about the Earth still moves, but it is a tough sell still.
David - I used the Mr. Vance in strict reviewer style. You did get off a few excellent funy lines, but I wanted folks to know the mood of the book as well and fully understand your passion for the subject.
I would congratulate you again on the book which I really do think is critical reading for anyone interested in Northern Ireland, as the unionist viewpoint is so often simply ignored or stereotyped by media and other writers. I would recommend it to any of your regular readers.
By the way, mahons, is your title making a sly reference to the blank despondency of their cause?
Noel - I did take the title from that song (good eye) to reference the filter that NI is seen through. If David ever publishes a book on Sinn Fein I'll entitle my review "It Isn't Easy Being Green".
Alan -If only I could claim to have been that witty. Perhaps in my subconcious? In any event, I forgot to mention the nice editing job you did on the book, which the author rightly credited.
Noel,
Another irony within the referenced song lyric is that the lament begins "Ten years ago ..." giving us another joke on the "decayed" pun. Wheels within wheels, I tell ya.
'a united Ireland has been and is the hope of millions of people'
OR
'a world under the theological rule of extremist Islam is the hope of millions of Muslims.'
So that makes it OK, then?
Andrew: apples and oranges (no pun intended). One has nothing to do with the other.
Yes it has. The weight of public opinion in favour of, or against, something (speculative in the case of 'millions' in favour of a 'united ireland') doesn't automatically make that demand justifiable.
Of course not. But the point made here was the dismissal of a certain idea as ludicrous fails in the face of a credible and longstanding position, one that can be disagreed with but not one that can be dismissed so easily.
'in the face of a credible and longstanding position..'
But to whom? No other country ever supported the Irish territorial claim to Northern Ireland prior to 1999. The Irish themselves removed that claim in exchange for a vague aspiration with the chasmic caveat of prior-referendum approval in their own country.
A minority in NI supports that idea; a certain number in the Republic will do so (the territorial claim was removed thanks to a referendum which could only muster 56% participation, and in which over 95% of those voted to remove that former claim).
Its ludicrousness stems from its sheer lack of practicality - given the long-standing existence of both jurisdictions, the opposition from Unionists, the economic constraints, and the inevitable political instability that would follow.
I would agree it is not pratical at this point in history. Instability would certainly follow and the Republic is certainly in no position (and would not have the desire, resources or political will) to manage the inevitable problems that exist and would develop.
Spot on! The job of us Unionists is to make it impractical at any time in the future.
The greatest threat to the Union no longer comes from separatists in Northern Ireland, but from that smug, oily bastard who calls himself Scotland's First Minister.
For the foreseeable future, that is where the struggle to maintain the United Kingdom must focus - minus Wendy Alexander, of course!!
A perfectly legitimate desire, even if it is not one I agree with, and if achieved with more of an eye towards justice and opportunity for all, then it need not find itself in the decay it presently does. But, if it is attempted through an effort to frustrate the rights of a substantial minority, it will be marked with failure.
'....it will be marked with failure'.
The way Alexander has carried on in the last few days has made the idea of separation more of a success, rather than a failure.
My opposition to Salmond is no less passionate than it than that displayed to Adams, McGuinness, et al. However, what they had in soundbites and ammo, he has in cunning and tactics.
I was refering to NI. I've no idea what the Scots are up to, drawing my limited knowledge from Braveheart and Kidnapped. I will say the greatest joke the Irish ever played on the Scots was telling them the bagpipes was a musical instrument.
Hey, I like the pipes! Incl the uileann pipes!
'I've no idea what the Scots are up to...'
Maybe this'll help:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/01/do0105.xml
The SNP: Sinn Fein without the Semtex!!
I do too Phantom, just a wee little joke.
Mahons, I think that was an excellent review. I haven't quite finished the book (life got in the way - 30 pages to go), but do agree with the majority of your points. This is a serious book and David has written an intelligent and easy to comprehend side of the NI story that never gets told in America. I found it to be informative and passionate - I can very clearly hear David as I read.
I think you've done an excellent job David.
Hat's off Alan, outstanding job in the editors seat.
I lived in NI until 96, and many nights sat in front of the TV wondering why the unionist politicians didn't make any sense. I often wondered if I wasn't smart enough to understand their positions, until I got older and started to suspect that it wasn't MY lack of intellect that was the problem.
David's book confirmed my fears that in fact the politicians really are the idiots they appear to be on TV.
Insight from a friend revealed that the other side aren't any better, they just have better PR people.
I thoroughly recommend David's book to all. It exposes the conspiracy (a word I think is entirely appropriate here) waged against Unionists and should be read by everyone who thinks that Unionist intransigence is the problem.