As I slowly come into forming an argument, I am finding that the historiography on Bloody Sunday is mysteriously absent. There does not seem to be a highly debatable: most historians and journalists now all agree that what occurred on January 30th, 1972 was a travesty and that the British paramilitary troops were wrong to fire on unarmed people. What I am looking into finding are the motivations behind the British troops who fired on civilians, and also the actions taken by the Unionists and the Republicans in response to the tragic event.
From reading The Troubles: Ireland's Ordeal 1966-1996 by Tim Pat Coogan, the reactions to Bloody Sunday were severe on both sides. According to Coogan, many Unionists (those in favor of keeping Northern Ireland a part of Britain) outright supported and sometimes even relished over what the troops had done (135). Coogan's chapter title "'They Shot Well, Didn't They!'" encompasses the feelings of some of the protestant Loyalists in 1972. Even officials were in favor with the shooting; they justified it. General Ford reported on BBC that "Paratroopers did not go in there shooting. In fact they did not fire until they were fired upon and my information at the moment...is that the 3rd Battalion fired three rounds altogether, after they'd had something between ten and twenty fired at them" (qtd. Coogan 135). Responses became even more extreme through propaganda, with one statement reporting that the troops "came under nail-bomb attack and a fusillade of fifty to eighty rounds" (qtd. Coogan 135).
This, of course, enraged the Republicans into acting out in their own way. As stated by Coogan, "Bernadette Devlin took her protest... to the House of Commons by saying: 'The Minister has stood up and lied to the House. Nobody shot at the Paratroopers but somebody will shortly'" (136). And Devlin was correct on both accounts: no civilians were armed that day with either guns or nail-bombs; and the IRA, not a month later, bombed a British troops' headquarters, killing seven people, five of them women. The IRA officials claimed it was a response to Bloody Sunday (Coogan 137).
Thus, after reading Coogan's chapter over Bloody Sunday, my argument or thesis is progressively developing. I either want to analyze the eyewitness accounts of the civilians and the troops and compare and contrast them; look at their motivations and biases for the things they declared. Or, something that may be more difficult to achieve, I would like to see exactly how much and how long the IRA used the Bloody Sunday massacre to justify future atrocities committed by them. Just from looking at Coogan, it is obvious both are significant factors.
McKenzie, I'm glad to see that you're moving forward a bit with figuring out your thesis and argument! I know it's been something you were concerned about. I agree with you though, that your second idea would be a little longer and more difficult to prove. If I were you, I'd start picking through those accounts on either side, and see what common threads you can find in the motivations. Perhaps the two different sides weren't all that different, or perhaps they were both influenced by an outside source. Either way, Coogan sounds like a useful source, and I'm glad you've got a strong secondary source for your lit review. Good luck as you continue your research!
ReplyDelete