Is there sufficient evidence in Sources D to J to explain why the troubles broke out in Northern Ireland in 1969?

G.C.S.E. History Coursework. Owen Jenkins

Introduction

In this piece of coursework I have to gather information on the sources provided and use background information of my own knowledge to round up a conclusion of ‘’Did sources D to J explain why the troubles broke out in Northern Ireland in 1969 ?‘’.

Source D

My first bit of evidence comes from comes from Source D. this source doesn’t really tell me a lot on why the troubles broke out in Northern Ireland on Bloody Sunday. Source D is a statement from a Roman Catholic women thinking back to her school days in 1969. This was when the troubles were at its worst. However even though she is remembering back to her school days, the information she is giving us could be exaggerated due to lack of memory or being biased, so it is not a reliable piece of evidence.

In says in the passage of her story ‘’She disliked the English but did not hate the Protestants’’. We know this because she went to a patriotic school. B Devlin was a civil rights campaigner and was later an MP. The writers were to sell off her book, to show her political view. This of course has limitations, one of them being that she could have exaggerated her story but this would make her a good sale.

Education in Northern Ireland is a major social problem with Catholic and Protestants children going to separate schools. All attempts to make ‘mixed’ religion schools have failed because churchmen on both sides have insisted on separate schools. But this is not mentioned in the source.

Overall this source does not tell us enough information on why the troubles broke out, but it does tell us the tensions between Catholics and Protestants. The main cause of making us believe that this source doesn’t give us enough information is when she could have exaggerated her story to sell off her book.

Source E

Source E on the other hand gives us a general view of the troubles but of the religious reasons. Evidence can be shown by the picture being shown as a Catholic Priest is tying up a Protestant and making her defenceless. The source though is unreliable as it pictured back from the 19th Century, hundred years before troubles began. Although it is a hundred years before, it is quite useful as it gives us a view from a Protestant, different from source D as it shows us a view from a Catholic. Source D exaggerates her story but source E has a picture to back up what the Protestant is telling us. However there is limitations, this picture is a cartoon and it doesn’t say where it was published so this could be a problem. The picture in this source shows us the women being tied up and defenceless but it’s a cartoon and could be biased.

Concluding this source it doesn’t really tell us how the troubles broke out, but tells us the religious reasons from the troubles.

Source F

In sources D and E, the writers have focused on the religious side of things and general dislikes of the British. However source F has focused on the political views and Catholic refusal to become ‘’ Boundary Commissions ‘’. Evidence of this is the number of Catholics there were over Protestants. The Catholics would have easily been voted in but because they refused the boundaries of the constituencies. This was called ‘’ gerrymandering ‘’. They favoured the Protestants and now had the advantage on the election. Also evidence is shown by the ‘’North Ward’’ where the Protestants over voted the Catholics. The same can be said about the Waterside ward, but there is a change in the southward. The Catholics had a huge vote over the Protestants. This was because of the 70% population were Roman Catholics. This didn’t stop Protestants of being in control. Many people, who were living in the North among the Protestants and Catholics, refused to agree with the split. Northern Ireland had now been given its own parliament and this was meant to look after Catholics as well as Protestants. This meant that they had more power and control. There are limitations to this are, Protestants ran the parliament and therefore Catholics could use violent schemes to have their own way if things don’t go right.

Employment was very hard for the Catholics now. It is alleged that there is widespread discrimination against Roman Catholics in employment, which the Unionist Government tolerates or indeed encourages. There are two kinds of employment, public and private. With regard to public employment in Northern Ireland, many spurious statistics have been circulated. The State itself does not know the religious affiliations of those whom its employs, since this is rightly regarded as not the business of the State. It is declared Government policy that merit and qualifications should be the sole grounds for appointment and advancement. In the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

One factor which operated more in the past than at present was the reluctance of so many Roman Catholics to seek jobs in Government service, as the result of the strong alliance of Nationalist political sympathies with Roman Catholic religious affiliations. In the beginning, one-third of all places in the Royal Ulster Constabulary was reserved for Roman Catholics, but applicants did not come forward to fill them. Similarly a low Roman Catholic entry into the Civil Service in the period before World War II has produced a rather lower proportion of Roman Catholics in the senior ranks of the public services.

In the case of local government employment, a considerable amount of control is exercised by the Ministry of Development, by prescribing necessary qualifications for posts or requiring consent to the more important appointments. This control is exercised with a view to the work that is to be done and not with any sectarian intention.

Overall this source shows us more of the political views and is good progress on finding out the problems in Northern Ireland.

Source G

Source G and E are very similar as they both blame Catholics and are both wrote by Protestants. The limitation source G has got is that it’s a long time before the troubles began. Source E though is nearly there. Source G is almost the start of the problems but shows us good information in that problems in Northern Ireland have unchanged for 100s of years. The picture in this source is very clear as it shows Catholics attacking Protestants. To back up this picture and not to make it look biased is when Charles 1 sent Protestants to settle in Ireland and to remove land from the Catholics. To expand the limitations of this source I am able to find my own knowledge. I know from my own knowledge that 17th Century Ireland is not a chapter of history well known to most of us. It is an age rife with political intrigue, ideological conflict, and religious warfare. The intricacies which inform the action of ‘’The Clearing’’ are too complex to unravel in a brief program note, however, I will try to clarify some of the key forces at work in my research.
King Henry VIII "officially" claimed Ireland as part of Great Britain in the early 1500s. This proclamation however, did little to change the day to day lives of the native Irish. Ireland was a desperate land ruled by fictionalised clans and lords, united only by geography, language and a strong allegiance to the Catholic faith.
In subsequent years, England undertook several campaigns of "plantation", where English settlers were given Irish lands and encouraged to bring a semblance of civility to a land perceived as wilderness. By the early 1600s, there were many English farmers living in the prosperous farmlands of Eastern Ireland. And there were many Irish dispossessed of their birthright. In addition to annexing Ireland, Henry VIII severed ties with the Roman Catholic Church and created the Church of England, proclaiming himself its head. This movement towards reformation swept Europe, leaving it deeply and bitterly divided between Catholics who retained their faith and the Protestants who rejected the old churches corruption. Within England, the split between the Protestant majority and the Catholics grew deeper over time. Eventually, a Puritan majority in Parliament confronted the power of the Catholic king, and civil war ensued.
At the same time, the Irish, weary of persecution and eviction from their lands, rose up against the English settlers, and began an ill fated rebellion against the English forces. In 1641 Irish nationalists began a campaign to rid Ireland of English forces. The Irish Confederacy opted to join forces with King Charles 1 under the assumptions that their forces were too weak to fully defeat the entire English Army on their own and that if victorious, King Charles would offer religious tolerance towards Catholics. The Confederacy was aided by a large number of English settlers (known as Old English) who had been living in Ireland for some time and adopted Catholicism as their faith. They too thought the King would ensure their religious liberties.
The uprising proved disastrous for the Irish Confederacy. King Charles was defeated and beheaded by his Puritan nemesis, Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell went on to wage a brutal military campaign against Ireland, totally and utterly destroying the rebellion. This left Cromwell and his followers with self-proclaimed title to the land of Ireland, and a defeated people to do with as they chose.

This is the historical backdrop for ‘’The Clearing’’. The English Parliament enacts legislation which will confiscate the land of native Irish and banish them to the distant and inhospitable province of Connacht. The confiscated land would then be used by the government to pay off its war debts. This brutal scheme never proved entirely successful in its implementation, and The Clearing shows the horrifying personal consequences of such a brutal and calculated action. And although the Act of Transplantation was eventually suspended, the practice of driving people from their homes and forcibly relocating them onto distant and undesirable lands went on to be used at great length in the American colonies.

This source also relates to source E because they both show Catholics using violence and both show Protestants being ‘’tied up’’ and ‘’defenceless’’. Also the source is biased, as it does not mention that Protestants took over the Catholics. I had to find that out myself.

Source H

Source H is a picture of three RUC officers who are Protestants and are beating up a Catholic. Immediately this source tells us that the troubles are very close to the date of the 5th/10th/1968. However this source has no author so we don’t know if it’s shown as a Protestant or Catholic view. Again the source is limited. The three RUC officers striked the march because it could have been violent. Evidence of this is that they used weapons to club down the marchers. Again I am able to use my own knowledge, as the source doesn’t really tell me a lot. I am looking at source 8 of the booklet which is written by a marcher but is unreliable as it is written in 1974. The photograph in this source is the most reliable one so far because it is a photograph, but its only one image not the whole picture so it could be biased. Although it is a civil rights march people at this time are feeling as if their march is being violated which it is. Evidence of this is again in source 8 where it says ‘’we marched into a police cardon but failed to force a way through. Another police cardon had cut us off from behind. There was no exit so we were trapped’’. This though couldhave been exaggerated because of the date. This source differs from source G as on source G its got Protestants being attacked by Catholics, but in this source its got three RUC protestants officers beating up only 1 defenceless Catholic.

Overall this source does not tell us why the troubles started. In the previous sources its Catholics beating up Protestants, but it looks like Protestants have started to fight back which makes problem even worse.

Source I

Source I is the closest bit of information we have o the start of the troubles. The image in the source gives us an image of tension. However there are limitations of the source as with source H it doesn’t say who took the photograph or what he was at the march. Moreover the source does not indicate the demands of the civil rights marchers as to why fighting broke out between loyalists and civil rights marchers at this particular march. Civil rights marchers demanded the same equal rights for Catholics in source H, so source I gives us a political view. The Protestant loyalists who wished for Northern Ireland to remain in union with Britain were unhappy with these marches so they attacked the marchers. During my research I came across another source that gives us more detail as to what happened at the civil rights march at Burntollet in January 1961. The source comes from ‘’the price of my soul’’ by Bernadette Devlin. Furthermore source D is taken from an autobiography so it is written in hindsight therefore, some views may have been influenced by events that have occurred since or she may have forgotten some important details. The two sources may have the same limitation in that B Devlin was a leading Catholic civil rights campaigner who was at Burntollet so the source may be biased. Moreover the purpose of the book in source D was to sell. As well as to convey her views, so some parts of the book may have been exaggerated. In addition to the information we are given by the image in source I, the written source by Devlin expands on that it says, ‘’ Then we came to Burntollet bridge. From the lanes at each side of the road burst screams of people. Wielding bottles, iron bars cudgels studded with nail. They went into the march beating the hell out of everybody’’. This supports the photograph in source I of violence breaking out between civil rights marchers and the loyalists.

This source tells us a lot of information about the troubles but it really points out the violence about the Protestants and civil rights marchers.

Source J

For source J I had to watch a drama documentary which is a piece of entertainment based on documentary evidence. This of course has limitations as it a ‘’drama’’ documentary so may deviate from facts, miss out parts of the story and could exaggerate events. The actors may not be consistent with characters of the real people. The MPs want a peaceful march to get rid of the unionist rule. We know he wants a peaceful march because he actually says to the soldiers ‘’we will march peacefully this Sunday’’. We also see him handing out leaflets for a peaceful march. The march was illegal because the Stormont Parliament had banned protests such as this. Probably because other marches have ended in violence. Weapons used there were petrol bombs, sniper fire etc. The Major says to the organisers of the march that ‘’any violence taken place rests on civilian shoulders’’. I argue with this statement because if the soldiers were not there then there would be any violence at all. So in a way the soldiers are making the violence. I know this because they were wearing fully armed clothing. This tells us that they were expecting troubles. They all seem very hyped up and expect trouble. One soldier is quoted saying ‘’It’s a war… we have lost 43 casualties’’. Also in the area are the Coldstream Guards, the army are convinced that the IRA is involved and the General gives his full support to the Paras if they open fire if they are fired upon. He also gives them the order to snatch key nationalists. Further evidence that they were expecting troubles were the names that they were calling the marchers. ‘’Hooligans’’. Also we hear one of the soldier say ‘’if shot at shoot back’’. Again they are really expecting troubles but all the MP wants is a peaceful march.

On the morning of the march Cooper can be seen rushing around organising everything. He is then told that the Paras have blocked the route with barbed wire and that he should abandon the march to avoid trouble with the army who are being described as being very ‘hard-line’. Cooper then replies ‘We’ve got to march or civil rights is dead in this city’. Prior to this the organisers of the march have planned the route, checked for trouble spots and made sure that they had enough stewards in attempt to make sure the march is peaceful. Just before the march Cooper is seen in the streets asking some Provosts to join the march but to keep it peaceful. Provosts (Provisional IRA) who are a breakaway group from the IRA seen as more violent.

The march itself started with Cooper on the back of a lorry giving a speech about civil rights in front of thousands of marchers. After a while the march arrived in front of the barriers. The sight of these barriers cause discontent amongst the marchers and the tension then starts to build up. As Cooper though tries to take the marchers in a new route to avoid trouble some of them take a wrong turning and start throwing stones at the Paras. Cooper tries to keep the march peaceful but he can’t restrain the people throwing abuse and throwing objects at the paras. Remember all cooper wants is a peaceful march. In retaliation to this the Paras used water cannons and the police who accompanied them used cs gas to disperse the angry crowd. Then a small group of Paras on top of the wall that was meant to be blown but wasn’t because there was a ditch on the other side, open fire on the crowd. Following this a group of Provosts are then seen taking weapons out of a car. The marchers then run down a street in to what seemed to be a council estate. The Paras then determined not to let the Key Nationalists escape pursue in jeeps and armoured vehicles. Paras are then seen loading weapons which gives us an indication that there is going to be violence.

Back at HQ the Chief of the RUC tells the General not to pursue but he does not listen. Back in the council estate there is now a firefight between Paras and Provosts next to the marchers. Paras are then given the order to ceasefire but they continue to fire. Paras are seen killing people who are wounded on the floor and they even shot a man holding out a white handkerchief. Whilst all this is happening there is sheer terror and panic amongst the marchers. Now the march is totally out of hand.

Before being deployed in Northern Ireland all soldiers are given a Yellow card that says in a hostile situation a soldier can fire only one round at an identified target but in this programme the Paras clearly do not do this as individually they are shown shooting multiple rounds. However this is no mention what so ever of this yellow card. Also I think it was a bad decision to use the Paras to police a riot because for they are the most aggressive regiment in the British army. It is just asking for trouble.

The circumstances under which this source was made are that it was meant to be a drama based on documentary evidence of Bloody Sunday. It was made to be broadcast on a national television network. Due to it being a piece of entertainment then it is possible that it could have certain parts could have been exaggerated. The director might also have added or left bits out and used things to increase the tension.

Also the actors who play the characters interpret them how they feel and not how they actually might have acted. The source also gives no information about the producer whether they were Catholic, Protestant, British or Irish.

Conclusion

All sources above show us images of tension and go some way to explaining the historical issues surrounding tension in Northern Ireland. However there are limitations with most of the sources as they are biased, cannot look at them as an individual basis and needs more information on how to get a more accurate picture. I had to use background information to get my answers for my sources which is in my help booklet. The example I am going to use is the plantation of Ulster. There was not enough information on the source so I used the booklet to give my overall opinion of the source.

My overall opinion is that there werent enough evidence just coming out of the sources. Like I said I had to use background information to really get my answers. Many of the sources did not include the date or author. For example source E.