Source E is a primary source of a protestant cartoon from the nineteenth century. This cartoon could be in response to the Home rule bill that was entered in parliament. The cartoon presents a Protestants perceptions on how home rule bill and how it would be like if it were to be passed. In the cartoon it shows a lady named Erin, who symbolize Ireland and there people. She is bounded up in a rope by a catholic priest, who symbolizes Catholicism. The catholic is controlling the Irish lady. The cartoon is trying to state that Catholicism will rule Ireland if given Home Rule. There’s saying that Home Rule is Rome Rule. The meaning of this saying is that due to Catholicism that the pope will rule Ireland due to Catholicism. This could also be used a propaganda to try to stop the bill from being passed. After the third attempt the home rule bill was finally passed 1912. The House of Lords could only setback the bill for two years. Then in 1914 Ireland was given home rule. This incident give clues to why troubles broke out, but again this source is limited.
Source F is a 1966 map of the Gerrymander in Northern Ireland. This is a valuable source because it’s a primary and a factual source. It also dates when the troubles began to break out in Ireland. The government in Ulster was the man who set up. His name was Stormont. His idea was to give more power and control to the minority with the highest population. In the area of Gerrymander Protestants were in minority in comparison to the Catholics. Three wards were set up in this area by The Boundary Commission. There was the South ward, North ward, and the Water side ward. The south ward was the only ward in which the Catholics were widely held. The other two wards were widely held by Protestants. South ward had elected eight nationalist councillors, and the other two wards there had elected a total of twelve unionist councillor. This is a valuable source, as shows the prejudice in the government. This could well be one of the main factors that could have caused troubles broke out.
Source G is a 1641 drawing from a Protestant textbook. The drawing dates back when England was in a civil war. It also dates back when the Catholics rebelled against the protestant planters in Northern Ireland. After reading source D and learning about how Catholics taught through a Catholics view, it can be imagined that Protestants did the same since this picture was taken out of a protestant textbook. Protestants people greatly exaggerated the massacre. This drawing could be used as encourage and provoke protestant people fight against the Catholics. Source G is useful source of information as it gives background knowledge on the relationship between catholic and Protestants.
Source H is a photograph taken October 5 1968 of a defenceless civil rights marcher who is being beaten by three RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) officers. Source H is a primary source that gives significant amount information on why troubles broke out in Ireland. The photo shows portrays the RUC officers as being corrupted. The RUC were known to be mostly Protestant Unionists. Many of these RUC officers were ruthless with the power they had as RCU officers. This particular civil rights march was banned by Bill Craig who was the unionist minister of home affairs. We can assume that the by the way these three RUC officers are reacting, that the riots in 1969 were inevitable.
Source I is a photograph taken January 1969. The photograph displays loyalists ambushing and attacking a civil rights march. There was no police protection for the fact that this march was banned. If the photo is looked at closely it can be seen that some police officers even joined the ambush on the civil right marchers. Later on this day the B-Specials were called in. Many believe that the B-Specials planned an attack on the civil rights marchers. But overall this source is limited and can’t give us specific details on if the rioting was planned and if the B-Specials had or hadn’t planned an attack on the civil right marchers.
After analysing sources D through I, I can have believe that there is that there is not enough adequate evidence to explain why the troubles of 1969. The sources that I have reviewed do show a course of conflict over a period of time and shows some sort of conflict between the unionist and nationalists. I believe that if you don’t have any background knowledge of Ireland’s history that sources D through I don’t give enough evidence to explain why troubles in Ireland broke out.
Question 2:
January 1972 the events that occurred in Derry on 30th January 1972 became known as ‘Bloody Sunday.’ Why have these events produced such different historical interpretations? Refer to Sources A to C and any other interpretations of the events from your studies to help you answer.
30th January 1972 there was an event became known as ‘Bloody Sunday’ in the city of Derry. This event began as a calm civil rights march. Dr. Raymond Mc Clean, stated that the march started ‘in an almost carnival mood’. There are many different sides to what actually happened on January 30th 1972 in Derry. The paratroopers that put the civil rights march to a halt claim that they were fired upon first by the marchers. The marcher’s on the hand claim that the paratroopers fired first. On that day 14 people were shot dead. Sources A through C are extracts from news reports that will determine my judgement of what really happened on that day in Derry.
Source A is from a left wing newspaper that was written September 17th 1999 in the Daily Mail. Source A is a secondary. In this report it first describes how there is no proof or evidence of the 14 people killed were killed by the Army had been handling any sort of firearms. After that statement is read the report describes how this report was ‘greeted with triumph by Nationalist politicians’. Showing that Nationalists are hearing what they want to hear. The paratroopers quote that this is a ‘small and misleading part of the full picture’. An ex-paratrooper states that, ‘For years people have accused us of firing indiscriminately. We weren’t. If people are saying that we were firing indiscriminately why there were no women and children killed?’ The ex-paratrooper brings up a good point as his evidence that is for and against the army. Another statement in the report is ‘at one end of the scale, some soldiers showed a high degree of responsibility; at the other end, firing bordered on recklessness’. This statement describes that a minimum amount of soldiers could have been discharging there firearms unsystematically. These small amount of solider who discharged there firearms unsystematically may have caused the whole army to be liable for there actions.
Source B is a Northern Ireland special report. This is a secondary source that was written September 17th 1999. The Northern Ireland: special report states that the 14 people that were shot and killed on Bloody Sunday were innocent. The report claims that none of the people that were shot were handling any firearms. The report describes how a 22 year old man names Jim Wray, was mercilessly shot twice while lying on the floor defencelessly. The report also states that a 41 year old who was killed by an illegal bullet which entered through the back of his head. This illegal bullet causes a savvier amount of harm when it enters the body. Instead of leaving the body on the other side it stay lodged in the victim’s body and detonates an explosive inside the body. A Northern Ireland forensic scientist, named John martin, states that there, ‘could no longer be a strong suspicion that any of the held or were near weapons’. He also states the results that proved the victims had handled weaponry could have been polluted by car exhausts fumes. This is a key breach for that the victims were not handling any type of artillery.
Source C is an ITN news report that was broadcasted November 28th 2000. Source C is a primary source because it’s from a Bloody Sunday witness. The witness claims of have overhearing a conversation between soldiers before the event of Bloody Sunday. He says hear heard the soldiers speak of, ‘clearing the Bog’. I believe that source C an unreliable source for the fact that the witness is remembering the incident between these two soldiers from 28 years ago. It is also possible that the witness misheard this conversation.
To get an outside source of what happened on 30th January 1972, I read a newspaper article that was published by the “National News”. It was published March 13, 2000. The article was written by Peter Pringle and Philip Jacobs, They tell how “In early January, Gen ford sent 30 of the modified rifles to Derry for training purposes”. The articles tells that when the rifles were to be retrieved that 13 of the 30 were missing. This raises questions to why were modified rifles sent to Derry before Bloody Sunday for training purposes and why did they go missing when they tried to be retrieved.
After reviewing the sources and the newspaper article there are many different ideas to what actually in Derry on 30th January 1972. Both sides of the story are not fairly reviewed together and are what makes it difficult to interoperate what happened that day. When a side of the event is reviewed with critical evidence it seems that side will desperately secure themselves even if they are mendacious. This makes it difficult as both sides of this event seem to be doing this. If this continues it is possible that the truth of Bloody Sunday will never be discovered.
