Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Casement update
From: Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 09:13:02 EST
 c.com> <288@jcpltyo.JCPL.CO.JP><1993Jan25.190455.11512@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

In article <1993Jan25.190455.11512@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, halpin@vax.oxford.ac.uk
says:
>
>I called Holohan a jerk because his doctrinaire position makes the
>discussion of real issues difficult. This is an example of what I
>meant:
>
>In article <288@jcpltyo.JCPL.CO.JP>, mulligan@jcpltyo.JCPL.CO.JP
>(Raymond) writes in response to Holohan
>> In article <1993Jan22.163836.20542@e2big.mko.dec.com>, han
>>  writes:
>...
>> [MH]   It was surrounded by frightened
>> [MH]   unarmed mourners.
>>
>> How about,
>> "It was descended upon by mob of republican thugs, who acted true to form"
>
>Mr. Mulligan is not an extremist, but Holohan's general position
>drives him to make stupid comments like this. Holohan slants the
>story as if it were an attack by undercover soldiers on the
>funeral, and the uninformed response is to say black to his white.
>This is a truly grey situation: a really horrible attack, all the
>more shocking for being literally in our own living rooms, but one
>where you can, if you try, understand the motivations of the
>attackers, as more-or-less ordinary people in a bizarre situation.
>Not justifiable, but comprehensible.
>
An excellent point, and well made. I have always thought that anyone with
the slightest understanding of human nature would understand the actions
of the crowd in this particular instance. I sometimes worry that my rather
low opinion of human nature marks me as a cynic, but the moralising and
high moral tone that is used to condemn the actions of ordinary people in
an extraordinary situation continually shocks me.

Some people fail to understand the actions of the people in Casement Park,
others refuse to understand. People who fail to understand may change their
minds as they learn more about the incident, and the circumstances. People
who refuse to understand will only learn information that supports their
case.  The big problems with posts like Mark Holohans is that it pushes
people to refusal. And to think that somebody once accused him of being a
propagandist! Like the British Army in Northern Ireland, Marks actions tend
to have the effect of convincing "the enemy" that they were right all along.
>
>> It gives me very little hope for peace, when people won't believe the
>> evidence before there eyes.
>
>Differentiate between the evidence of your eyes, and that of your
>television.
The problem is often a refusal to discount evidence that can't be seen by
the eyes, but only by the heart and mind, such as evidence of the emotional
state of the community at the time. (Though this type of evidence is
sometimes used to excuse security forces actions).

>Sorry for the moralising.
>
>Brendan
>
>Brendan Halpin                    Email: HALPIN@VAX.OXFORD.AC.UK

Aengus
--
RBYAML@ROHMHAAS.COM                    Aengus Lawlor
RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET                   (who used to be ALAWLOR@DIT.IE)
"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"