Features

Malcolm Gladwell is wrong about the Irish

The author's handling of the Troubles is far too simplistic

12 October 2013

9:00 AM

12 October 2013

9:00 AM

Malcolm Gladwell, the curly-haired, counter-intuitive guru of modern thought who wrote The Tipping Point and Blink, certainly has a readable style, and often a striking way of turning received notions on their head. His latest book, David and Goliath — about the inspiring advantages of perceived disadvantage — is accompanied by a much-hyped speaking tour, the blurb for which describes him as a ‘global phenomenon’. In it, among other topics, he plunges into the origin of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, but the location wasn’t his first choice. He recently told the Telegraph’s literary editor, Gaby Wood, that he had wanted to write about Israel but chose Northern Ireland instead because it was ‘safer’, as the English had ‘a greater willingness to be self-critical’ (in other words, were less liable to launch an aggressive counter-attack upon Gladwell’s reputation). The sense of safety might be part of the problem: fairly quickly, the Ireland foray slips into terrible complacency.

His account thereafter, as it hits its stride, might lightly embarrass even a diehard Belfast republican in mixed company. In Gladwell’s view, Britain was Goliath — big and strong but poorly sighted — whose failure to win Catholic hearts and minds alone triggered resistance in the shape of David, the Catholics of West Belfast. He makes a simple, oft-repeated equation: that when Britain had a military ‘crackdown’, violence soared. Although heavy on the detail of British actions, he is singularly light on particularising IRA violence (statistics for deaths, shootings and bombings are given in the most coyly generalised terms).

There were indeed many ways in which the British government made an early hash of things. The heavy-handed Lower Falls Curfew in July 1970 — part of a hunt for republican weapons amid a fire-fight with the Official IRA — and the destructive behaviour of some soldiers in working-class Catholic homes lost the Army much support. The sweeping use of internment in 1971 for IRA ‘suspects’ radicalised ordinary Catholic youths. And then, in 1972, came Bloody Sunday, in which British paratroopers shot dead 13 unarmed Catholics on a protest march, an event which effectively served as a recruiting sergeant for the IRA.

Yet Gladwell’s dogged David/Goliath narrative also takes him sailing blithely past the complex reality of the early 1970s: he’s intent on tugging a single straight line out of a cat’s cradle. In so doing, he ignores a key element in the conflagration: the hungrily proactive ambitions of the newly formed Provisional IRA, inexorably wedded to the ‘physical force’ tradition of republicanism. For the author, it all went decisively wrong in 1970, when the British General Freeland threatened that anyone throwing petrol bombs might be shot. But the IRA split between the more class-conscious Officials and the fanatical, violent Provisionals had already come in late 1969. From the inception of the Provisional IRA, its Chief of Staff Sean MacStiofain’s declared military strategy was ‘escalate, escalate, escalate’: deaths fuelled rage.

For the Provisionals, the alienation of the Catholic community from the British army was not a matter of reaction or regret: it was a strategic imperative. The IRA worked hard to intensify division, torturing or murdering Catholic so-called ‘collaborators’, stoking confrontation. If Gladwell thought the British were contemptuous of human rights in 1970, which to some extent they were, the activities of the Provos rapidly made the Brits look like Judy Garland. Soon quite a few foreign Goliaths — not least the misty-eyed, deep-pocketed Irish-Americans — were chipping in to help the IRA David, who in this instance had developed pronounced psychopathic tendencies.

The resurgent IRA didn’t just want the British troops out, it wanted a 32-county Republic of Ireland.That was beyond the British government’s gift, since the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland opposed it. Although Gladwell argues that the British lacked ‘legitimacy’ to be in West Belfast, one wonders what exactly he would have had them do. The loyalist paramilitaries, with their grotesque appetite for sectarian warfare, were intact; the IRA was expanding its murderous operations daily. Should the Brits simply have said, ‘Right, boys, we’re off’?

Everyone was frightened: Catholics, Protestants, and young British soldiers, many of whom were being steadily murdered by the IRA. They were on foot patrol in unknown areas filled with high-rise blocks, vulnerable to IRA snipers. Among my earliest memories from 1970s Belfast are of watching the soldiers perched in the back of armoured vehicles, or in perpetual wheeling motion on street corners: whey-faced, short-haired, with eyes full of apprehension, they looked young even to a child. When we speak of Goliath, we might reflect that this wasn’t a conflict — like the current, largely unreported US operation in Northern Pakistan — that was conducted by unmanned drones and directed by remote control. Everything was personal, including risk.

[Alt-Text]


Yet Gladwell’s unifying theory requires an unwavering concentration on British brutishness and Catholic grievance. His chief interviewee — who provides, on the surface, his most compelling story of casual injustice — is a woman called Rosemary Lawlor, whose younger brother Eamon died, aged 17, on 16 January 1972, after being shot by a British soldier on Hallowe’en night the previous year. Eamon, she said, had confided to her that ‘he was getting harassed by the British army… everywhere he went they were stopping him’ in West Belfast’s Ballymurphy area.

Gladwell writes: ‘Was he actually working with the IRA? She didn’t know, and she said it didn’t matter. “We were all suspects in their eyes,” she went on, “That’s the way it was. And Eamon was shot, shot by a British soldier. Him and another fellow were having a smoke, and one shot rang out, and Eamon got it.”’ Satisfied with having banked a clear-cut narrative of state oppression, the author passes on incuriously.

Yet I’m afraid it does, and did, matter whether Eamon was in the IRA, if one wants an honest portrait, and it appears that he was. I say so not to negate the sadness of his death. Much as I loathed the IRA — whose handiwork was long evident to me at close quarters — I can see that the lingering death of a 17-year-old caught up in this unholy mess was a human tragedy.

The superb book Lost Lives (authored collectively by David McKittrick, Seamus Kelters, Brian Feeney, Chris Thornton and David McVea) is widely regarded as the authoritative, unbiased source for the dead of the Troubles. It documents the death of Eamonn McCormick (his first name spelt slightly differently from Gladwell’s version) on 16 January 1972 and describes him as ‘from the Ballymurphy estate and a member of the IRA’s junior wing, the Fianna’. It goes on to cite another publication, Ciaran De Baroid’s Ballymurphy and the Irish War, as saying that in this case ‘The Fianna had been “mobilised” after soldiers surrounded a dance at the school which was being attended by a large number of IRA members.’

In a YouTube video put up in 2009 by Ogra Shinn Fein (the youth movement of Sinn Fein), a speaker eulogises ‘Fian’ Eamonn McCormick. The words below say that he ‘died of injuries he received in a gun battle with British forces in October 1971 while attempting to defend the people of Ballymurphy from loyalist attack. He was 17 years old.’

De Baroid’s account says the Fianna was ‘mobilised’ on the night that McCormick was shot, and the Ogra Shinn Fein memorial speaks of a ‘gun battle’, which suggests mutual engagement. Still, the latter wishes to see McCormick as a heroic volunteer, and might be overstating his activity, just as Mrs Lawlor, who saw him chiefly as a younger brother, naturally emphasised his passivity. I do not pretend to know what exactly happened on the night that McCormick was killed: like so many events from that era, circumstances have grown cloudy.

But if he was indeed a member of the IRA, which most republican or nationalist sources seem confident about, would it have been so deeply unreasonable for British troops repeatedly to question him? Gladwell’s narrative suggests that this was yet another glaring example of the Brits pointlessly hounding a young Catholic man, but a brief glance at the events of 1971 indicates otherwise.

In February that year, the IRA killed its first serving soldier, a 20-year-old called Robert Curtis, whose unit was under attack from around 100 rioters when an IRA sniper shot him. A month later, the IRA abducted three Scottish soldiers, aged 17, 18 and 23, lined them up by the roadside and shot them all in the back of the head. IRA bombs exploded at random: in pubs, the Electricity Board, and furniture showrooms, indiscriminately killing Catholic and Protestant civilians, adults and children alike. Soon, for the IRA’s mounting toll of civilian victims, there were Bloody Sundays available every day of the week.

If Gladwell had been interested in digging a little, as any ordinary reporter surely would have, he might have been able to say something worth hearing about the conflicting nature of historical interpretation. He might even have questioned precisely who or what, beyond hatred of the Brits, beckoned McCormick into this airless, coffin-laden conflict.

But the author isn’t a reporter: he’s a theorist, an elegant teller of determinedly illustrative tales. It worries me a little. I have started to wonder what other stories have been firmly sculpted into sleek Gladwellian shapes. I’m beginning to think that I would like to see his pile of offcuts. In this book, Eamonn McCormick was destined for a particular narrative, and his history was kept artificially tidy along the way. It’s a pity, since real understanding often lies in the messiness of lives.

Instead, in the service of his overarching theory, Gladwell has sent some toxic simplicities on Northern Ireland ricocheting around the world. Easy reading, I guess, but poor history. Eleven days before Eamonn McCormick finally died, an 18-year-old soldier called Keith Bryan from Bristol was shot dead by the IRA while on foot patrol in the Lower Falls area of Belfast. He had joined the army as a boy soldier, and his Gloucester regiment had sustained one of the highest casualty rates at the time.

I wonder if Gladwell could tell us which one of those two lads was Goliath.

Jenny McCartney is a film critic and columnist for the Sunday Telegraph. Malcolm Gladwell begins a UK tour in London on 28 October.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • Picquet

    Sadly, it has always been ‘fashionable’ to twist, spin and selectively erase the history of the ‘troubles’, more from puerile leftist political motives than for any other reason. This person Gladwell seems to be in that tradition. May his ‘work’ sink without trace.

    • Harry Whomersley

      I don’t think you’d describe Gladwell as a leftist flagbearer. The perception he adopts of the Troubles seems to have more to do with a more general American view of Ireland that crosses political divides.

    • Kennybhoy

      And may you get yersel’ an education. 🙂

  • mikewaller

    Instead of the simplistic crap so well exposed above, a very valuable book could have been produced explaining why – given that it is such a vale of tears and drain on blood and treasure – UK politicians were able to keep their electorates largely on side in facing down the bloody murders of both persuasions over so many decades.

    Certainly I did not know whether to laugh or cry when McGuinness and his pals had John Major say that Britain would not remain in Northern Ireland for “selfish reasons”. Had their been any selfishness in it, we would have got out at the earliest opportunity leaving Eire to be crushed under the economic burden.

    As far as I can see, we stuck it out for three reasons. First, the majority of people living there wanted us to. Second, however disgusting some Unionist behaviour was, they had stuck by us during two world wars. Third, success for militant Irish nationalism, which has a long and sordid history of unrestricted killings and torture in pursuit of political ends, would have acted as a major fillip to global terrorism, something our American friends seemed very slow to appreciate. Can anybody suggest other reasons for such endurance?

    One final point. Along with the Major episode, I can recall McGuinness being on a BBC phone-in at about the same time. Again what amazed me was his apparent surprise at the visceral contempt in which he was held. Do these people live in Cloud Cuckoo land?

    • rorysutherland

      Actually the book is well worth reading. And Gladwell is not an American, but a Canadian, with parents from Kent and Jamaica.

      But the section on Ireland is undoubtedly the least convincing part of an otherwise excellent book. Some other sections, especially on media manipulation by the Civil Rights movement in the United States, are as fascinating as they are unexpected.

      I wouldn’t suggest that MG is infallible by any means, but it wouldn’t be fair to accuse him of following some tediously predictable party line. I think there may be a very interesting treatment to be written on Northern Ireland which supports his overall thesis, but the section in this book isn’t it.

      The section on the differing police tactics of Laurie Pritchett in Albany, Georgia and of “Bull” Connor in Alabama, on the other hand, is worth the cover price on its own.

    • Kennybhoy

      mikewaller .

      It goes without saying that I agree with paras 1 and 2.Ditto point number one in para 3.And indeed with the general thrust of your argument.

      Regarding your points 2 and 3 in para 3.

      First of all they were and are not Unionist or Loyalist but Ascendantist and your characterization of their behaviour is just a wee bit on the euphemistic side there.Just who do you think were the original rebels of 1968 and indeed the years prior to The Great War? Secondly, Irishmen of all creeds and political persuasions fought for Britain in the world wars. Your third point actually somewhat undermines the point you made in para 2. You also correctly noted in passing that “militant Irish nationalism .. has a long and sordid history of unrestricted killings and torture in pursuit of political ends”. Just like the Ascendantists then?

  • http://ansionnachfionn.com/ Séamas Ó Sionnaigh

    Or alternatively Malcolm Gladwell is right about the British?

    The constant need of the political and media classes in Britain to find approval for their historic colonialism in Ireland and the refusal of the world to give it is always amusing. For decades the British denigrated every aspect of Ireland’s fight for democratic freedom from the would-be Pax Brittanica – until the British head of state went to the Garden of Remembrance in Dublin to lay a wreath and bow her head at monument dedicated to all those who fought against British misrule in Ireland, including an entire generation of IRA men and women.

    So much for the rhetoric of “Irish terrorists” when enough historical distance and real politik comes in to play.

    One wonders will a future British head of state find it necessary some day to make the flight to Belfast to lay a wreath and bow his or her head to a nearer generation of IRA men and women?

    • flexdream

      Have you even read the article? By referencing the universally respected ‘Lost Lives’ (you should read it sometime) McCartney has demolished the example Gladwell chose. She is thoughtful, while he seems sloppy.
      Your 2-4 paragraphs are boilerplate and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

      • Kennybhoy

        Amen.

    • grutchyngfysch

      Hopefully never if they respect the memory of the Catholic communities that were terrorised by RA thugs who ran parts of Belfast like private fiefdoms. The same goes for the “Loyalists” whose tyranny of Protestant communities is equally despicable.
      A pox on the house of any man who thinks that paramilitary violence can be justified, let alone praised.

      • Kennybhoy

        Terrorism not “paramilitary violence”…

    • Kennybhoy

      Mentulla.

    • mikewaller

      The reality about the British Empire was that it was time expired anyway, partly because of Britain’s inevitable downward trajectory but also, as a senior American politician pointed out, because of its inner contradictions. You cannot simultaneously witter on about an empire on which the sun never sets whilst claiming to be the home of democracy, the rule of law etc etc.

      Had Ireland followed the line eventually favoured by India in WW2 of supporting the colonial power on the basis of freedom being granted when the common enemy was defeated, who could then have stood in the away of a democratic vote – and Ireland had the vote – when the war against the Kaiser’s Germany ended? Indeed this was the tacit basis on which large numbers of Irishmen fought, with those who survived subsequently being treated appallingly by the new Irish Free State. However, once the Easter Rising/”Stab in the back” had occurred, the whole pot was poisoned. Not only did Irish/British relations enter the deep freeze, a pattern of doing unspeakable things to secure whatever political end was being sought, was established. What was even worse was that it had seemed to pay; hence the very many imitators.

      In reality, as in WW2, a deal done at the right time could have resulted in an independent and united Ireland. This would have spared everybody years more of conflict and saved the UK a whole heap of money as well as blood. It follows from this that I would not favour any Briton bending their neck in commemoration of what I will always think of as bloody murders who left the world a distinctly worse place.

      • roger

        I always wonder what would have happened if the 36th (ulster) division had not been sent (deliberately?) to destruction on 1/6/16 and instead had their full covenant strength in Ireland.

        • Kennybhoy

          Just the 36th…?

        • mikewaller

          I think that the “deliberately?” is totally uncalled for. I am old enough to have spoken to men who served on the Somme. They, along with their officers, having witness the massive preceding barrage were convinced that Day 1 would be a walk-over. Sadly they had not allowed for the quality of German dugouts and the very limited effect high explosives had on barbed-wire.

      • Kennybhoy

        mikewaller .

        I am not sure that the British Empire was inevitably “time expired” but you are entirely correct that it was fatally undermined by contradiction…

        Regarding paragraph 2. Missed opportunities…

        And the Irishmen who fought for Britain in World War II and then were naive enough to return home were treated even more appallingly than the veterans of The Great War…

        Regarding the Easter Rising. It was indeed a traitorous “stab in the back” but, as alluded to in my post above, in slightly different circumstances it could just as easily have been the Ascendantists doing the stabbing. The pot was already poisoned long since…

        You conclude:

        “…a deal done at the right time could have resulted in…”

        Those missed opportunities again…

        It will kick off again at some point. Celtic history tends toward the cyclical…

        God bless…

        • mikewaller

          Thanks for the kindly final sentiment! It is a shame that bigots of all persuasions cannot raise their eyes to the hills and see that the whole of Europe is now in desperate struggle to cling on to some part of their standard of living in a globalised world that is going through unprecedented changes.

        • allymax bruce

          You’re a Kochzucher; no wonder why you call yourself kennyboy. Nothing much to say, but all the time, hate, and evil to say it.
          Don’t you ever, EVER ! use our Lord’s name in vain.
          You don’t deserve to believe, nor be forgiven.
          allymax.

          • Kennybhoy

            Jew hating blasphemer writes:

            “… no wonder why you call yourself kennyboy.”

            That’s Kennybhoy not kennyboy you functionally illiterate wee man.

            And continues:

            ” Nothing much to say, but all the time, hate, and evil to say it.”

            As clear a case of projection as I have seen hereabouts.

            And ends:

            “Don’t you ever, EVER ! use our Lord’s name in vain.You don’t deserve to believe, nor be forgiven.”

            Jesus wept.Who taught you your catechism…? Just on the possibility that this is another instance of projection, please be assured that His mercy and forgiveness are limitless.

            You are in my prayers.

          • Kennybhoy

            PS

            How did you find your way to this particular post so long after the fact and what precisely set you off…?

          • allymax bruce

            Ha! I don’t hate Jews; I don’t hate anybody. You’re evil is showing; Kenny-boy!
            You’re an idiot; you believe everything they tell you. They tell you they like Christians, but they don’t believe in Jesus, they actually murdered Jesus, abuse Christians as Goyum as dogmatic credence; and have a Zionist purpose ‘against Christians’, that is on-par with the Islamic caliphate; like I said, you’re an idiot. You know nothing; go back to your Jewish institutionalised religion dogmatic ideal of what they tell you to believe in.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    “Some men fight for silver
    And some men fight for gold
    But the IRA are fighting for
    The land that England stole.”

    • Toby Esterházy

      You are still a Japanese, boyo! Even the last German Kaiser was more of an Irishman than you!

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        Who was the other idiot that gave Jock McNutter`s contribution a thumbs up? Unless the Rochdale looney has figured out a way of recommending himself more than once.

    • terence patrick hewett

      Perhaps you would care to go to Nanking for your holidays.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        Perhaps you like to reconnect your logic circuits. One major point that residents in their own country (aka risk averse losers) fail to grasp is that when resident abroad, you are not obliged to feel guilt or culpability for your host nation. Taking on trust the ravings of a proven lunatic; you`re a bit of a thicko aren`t you Terry?

        • Toby Esterházy

          A Catholic Englishman with an Irish surname may be called a “plastic Paddy”, but an Oriental chap (like you) trying to pass off as an Irishman (but without the passport or the accent) is just simply called a bit of an “eejit”.

          How does having been to a (rubbish) boarding school in Oxfordshire suddenly make you Irish?

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            Another day, another illogical fantasy, from the up-north cyber stalking xenophobic liar.

          • Toby Esterházy

            Answer the question. How does having been to a (rubbish) boarding school in Oxfordshire suddenly make you (a Japanese from a **it place from Tokyo without called Chiba) British or Irish? And if you are not Irish, then why are you posting “Rebel songs” like one?

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            Rewrite.

          • Toby Esterházy

            Were you angry that the Home Office deported you back to Japan?

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            I`d be over the moon to be shipped somewheres east of Suez and out of that $ister-$hagging multicultural $hithole known as the United Kingdom. Now that really is untended irony. HMG paying my passage to sunny Japan, luxury. But I`d insist on BA First. Why should the working class get all the luxury?
            Jack, the Japan Alps Brit

          • Toby Esterházy

            Since this is an Irish article after all, “Japan Alps Brit” is about as making sense as “Connemara Brit” or “Dartmoor Irish”. Not even the stickiest of Plastic Paddys are remotely close to your absurdities.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            To Jock, the Rochdale retard:
            That`s the 105th time you repeated the same stupid lie. Which makes you a fool 105 times over.
            Jack, the Japan Alps Brit

    • Kennybhoy

      C**t!

      • Toby Esterházy

        And the same applies to you, really!

        • Kennybhoy

          Speak when spoken to ya Jew hating loon!

          • Toby Esterházy

            What are you? An Orangeman?

          • Kennybhoy

            “An Orangeman with an English surname?”

            ROTFLMFAO

            You really are a f*****g loon?

          • La Fold

            Cant really see anyone calling them selves anything with Bhoy in the name being an Orangeman.

          • Toby Esterházy

            The drunk ones in Glasgow might!

          • La Fold

            Glaswegians are a terribly confused lot to be fair.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        Don`t be so hard on yourself, Kenny.

    • mikewaller

      Or as an Irishman put it: “The IRA love to fight for Irish freedom, with the emphasis on the fighting”. After the appalling B specials episode, the great preponderance of British opinion was solidly on the side of the Catholics. Had that been followed up with a civil disobedience campaign as in the US in respect of Afro-Americans and in India, pre-independence, that is where public opinion would have remained. It took the murderous activities of the IRA to change things. Not only did this encourage a visceral hatred for things Irish on this side of the sea, it enabled the Unionists to undermine attempts to improve the situation by arguing that any concession would be seen as a reward for terrorism. But if you actually like blowing people up, torturing them and making uninhibited use of a gun, it is a pretty smart way to get your kicks.

      • Kennybhoy

        mikewaller.

        The “great preponderance” of mainland opinion was largely indifferent to matters over the water.

        ” Had that been followed up with a civil disobedience campaign…” . It was.

        “It took the murderous activities of the IRA to change things.”

        Historically inaccurate and simplistic to the point of being partisan.

        “…a visceral hatred for things Irish on this side of the sea…”

        Duh…?

        “… it enabled the Unionists to undermine…”

        Ascendantists not Unionists. That said there is a wee nugget of truth here. The greater blame lies with the authorities, particularly the military such, for allowing themselves to be played by the hard, bad and committed on both sides of the divide.

        ” But if you actually like blowing people up, torturing them and making uninhibited use of a gun, it is a pretty smart way to get your kicks.”

        Just like the Ascendantist terrorists.

        • mikewaller

          Your final point makes my case. For the most part, the behaviour of what you term Ascendantist terrorists was viewed with contempt in the UK. It was only the IRA’s unfailing ability to match, and more, horror with horror that saved the AT’s bacon. Most people I know deeply despise both.

          As for the civil disobedience campaign, I agree and what became “Bloody Sunday” was part of it. Sadly the IRA had already started its killing-fest and no British politician had the courage to face up to the UK’s responsibilities on that occasion for about 30 years. Even so, had it been properly milked as a superb non-violent stick with which to beat the British, it could have paid handsome dividends. Instead it was treated as the open sesame for Nationalist terror.

          As for British indifference, you make a very serious mistake. Following the Birmingham Rotunda bloodbath, there were thousands of anti-Irish attacks in the UK and St Patrick’s Day marches in Birmingham had to be discontinued for about 20 years. Although we are less inclined to public displays of hatred, don’t think that we just let murderous displays wash over us. I can think of several ways in which “the troubles” had a negative impact on me and mine – nothing, of course, compared to that experienced by those directly involved; but I would have had to be a plaster saint to have no strong feelings on the matter.

  • roger

    A visitor to Ireland, North or South, in the late sixties would have thought they were stuck in the late forties or even earlier.
    Societies that are well off don’t really burn with political passion, don’t want to fight or destroy, just live in peace and prosperity. Allowing Ireland to stagnate has always been the problem. Of course squalor and poverty is only reinforced by ‘pie in the sky when you die’ ideas.

    • Kennybhoy

      roger wrote:

      “A visitor to Ireland, North or South, in the late sixties would have thought they were stuck in the late forties or even earlier.”

      There are some around here would consider this a good thing! 🙂

      Seriously. No more so than parts of mainland Britain, the Continent or the US.

    • Kennybhoy

      Have you edited your original post?

      Anyways!

      You wrote:

      “Societies that are well off don’t really burn with political passion, don’t want to fight or destroy, just live in peace and prosperity.”

      Aye. Very true. But is this always and/or necessarily a good thing?

  • Jonny Dee

    oh dear we see from previous comments here, especially jingoistic ones why troubles persist in one form or other… I would, if with republican leanings, follow the example set by Samus Heaney…

  • Lugh22

    The British propaganda machine continues to react whenever someone tells the truth about Ireland and Britain’s post imperial pretensions. It reminds me of the way Ken Loach was attacked by right wing British apologists for daring to make a film about the British army in 1920’s Ireland, without even seeing the film or how the British Empire has been so sanitised that the establishment can continue to bribe the uncaring or ignorant with Britain’s highest civic awards which bears it’s blood soaked name. This article follows that contemptible tradition.

Close