Civil Unrest in Northern Ireland - Essay Example

Bloody Sunday Civil unrest in Northern Ireland was on the rise as people had taken to the roads. British Army had been deployed in Northern Island to take control. The actions of the paramilitary were also on rise. This period from 1968 to 1972 laid the basis for the deadly event known as Bloody Sunday. This day was an important day in the history of Northern Ireland. The catholic community of Northern Ireland believed that they were a target of discrimination by the state authorities. These Catholics in response to their beliefs started a Civil Rights Movement. The marches and protests by Catholics led the government to take actions against the individuals. Internment was introduced by the state authorities. In internment, the individuals who protested or were suspects were imprisoned without any trial. And it is believed that this Internment basically targeted the Catholics as most of the individuals imprisoned were Catholics. This Internment and unjust treatment of their community led the Catholics to protest for their rights. This peaceful rally was arranged by the Catholics on 30th January 1972. The rally was going peacefully until it was stopped at an army barricade. The whole situation turned to be ugly from here on when the protestors started being aggressive and hurled stones at the army. In response to this Water Cannon and rubber bullets were fired back at the crowd which went on for quite a while. This situation went on for a while because of which the Head Quarters ordered the Parachute Regiment to be deployed. Unusual events took place after the deployment when gun shots were fired at the rally by the army personnel and several of the protestors were killed during this process. 13 casualties were at first reported at the site but after some months another individual who was shot succumbed to the injuries raising the death toll to 14. The unusual events of the incident have been provided from two different sources. The government sources put forward the event in such a way that the army personnel were at first shot at by the civilians and in self defense the army personnel had to shoot back. An army source which was interviewed after the event said that the civilians also possessed nail bombs and they were about to use them to harm the army. On the other hand this source is clearly denied by another eye witness of the event who was also interviewed. According to the eye witness the civilians did not possess any weapons and the army personnel were the first ones who shot the innocent civilians. These unusual events have yet not been proved by any source and several inquiries been done in this regard. The two different sources have differing views regarding the shoot out which took place at the site. The government source can be trusted because it is an official version of events which is also included in the National Archives of the United Kingdom. It can be trusted because of the fact that government cannot distort the events which took place on that day and the army personnel would not want to harm innocent civilians. Similarly if blood shed was the aim of army personnel on that day then the number of casualties recorded was quite less. But there are reasons for not trusting the government source. This is because government would be hiding the facts of that day in order to cover up the blunder that was done by the army and to justify the loss of lives of innocent civilians. Another reason for this could be the avoidance of international criticism for the government and that its soldiers who were deployed could not be blamed. On the other hand the civilian source can be trusted because the civilians did not seem to have a reason to distort the events of that day. It can be trusted because the civilians had no reason to fire at the army personnel or come armed during the rally of peace on that day. On the other hand the civilian source can also be biased because the civilians would want their rights back and convict the government employees. The civil unrest at that time was being caused because of the actions of the government and apparently the civilians at that time were against the government. This civilian dissatisfaction may also cause the source to be distorted. The motive of bias and unbiased nature of sources is to know the exact cause of the events that took place on that particular day. It can help the individuals to interpret and trust the source as per their value of opinions. Moreover it can also help the individuals to judge the events that took place on that day following a rationalistic approach. The interpretation of the sources would be affected by the intended audience. The intended audience was the civilians. To avoid further unrest and to justify the acts of the government, the interpretation of the government source could have been molded by them accordingly. In a similar manner the interpretation of the civilian’s source can be molded because their intended audience was the other country people. To show their fellows the wrongs of the government and to incite further action against the government, the civilian source could have been affected. The writer has given both sources which includes the government’s source and the civilian’s source. He has provided with both sides of the stories. In the official version of the events he has explained the justification provided by the paratroopers explaining their validity for the shooting that they carried out. This according to them was in response to the firing that they came under from the side of the marchers. In the marchers version of events he has put forward the side of the plight of the marchers who explain that they only resorted to means of violence that is throwing of stones on the paratroopers because they were fired upon by them and many of their innocent fellow marchers were killed. The writer then also explains it further that the paratroopers were meant to deal with aggressive situations and not with peaceful marches and protests and also they were all equipped with arms. Their sense of insecurity that they were being fired by the marchers could have been a cause for the shooting that they did. Hence his interpretation seems valid as he has considered all the aspects of the situation. References: Top of Form Hayes, Patrick, and Jim Campbell. Bloody Sunday: Trauma, Pain and Politics. Contemporary Irish studies. London: Pluto Press, 2005. Top of Form Hegarty, Angela. "Truth, Law and Official Denial: The Case of Bloody Sunday." Criminal Law Forum. 15. 1-2 (2004): 1-2. Top of Form Hennessey, Thomas. The Evolution of the Troubles, 1970-72. Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2007. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form McCann, Eamonn. What Happened at Derry. London: Socialist Worker, 1972. Top of Form Mullan, Don, and John Scally. Eyewitness Bloody Sunday. Dublin: Wolfhound Press, 1997. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Pringle, Peter, and Philip Jacobson. Those Are Real Bullets: Bloody Sunday, Derry, 1972. New York: Grove Press, 2001. Bottom of Form Top of Form Sayle, Murray. "Bloody Sunday Report." The London Review of Books. 24. 13 (2002): 21. Bottom of Form The National Archives.Bloody Sunday. Ireland, 1972- Two sides, Two stories. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/education/bloodysundaypack.pdf Top of Form Walsh, Dermot P. J. Bloody Sunday and the Rule of Law in Northern Ireland. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000. Bottom of Form Top of Form Weisenburger, S. "Bloody Sunday." Southwest Review. 90. 2 (2005): 167-189. Bottom of Form Read More