Tom's Musings

I have been brought back to my recent sojourn into Northern Ireland by a 5 part series on ‘the troubles’ shown on PBS. It ended last night. Hopefully, they will repeat the series. It is definitely worth a watch as it demonstrates the utter folly of sectarian hate as well as the compelling reasons why it is so prevalent.

There are plenty of scenes of street battles, firebombings, car bombings, burning buildings, devastated neighborhoods, and destroyed families. But the gut wrenching part of this documentary is found when now older men and women come to terms with their pasts.

It is a complex story. But right now what I can best do is relay small moments that captured my attention. The troubles started in 1969 in Derry (or Londonderry) where a Catholic majority was dominated by a Protestant minority through unfair voting rules … only property owners could vote and the Catholic population was, in general, too poor to own much. Their resentments simmered for many years until, inspired by the American Civil Rights movement, their anger and frustrations boiled over.

Constant street battles ensued until British Troops arrived. At first, both sides, the Republicans and the Unionists, brought the troops tea and biscuits. But the good feelings didn’t last. I was shocked to discover that the infamous Bloody Sunday massacre happened after the Catholic marchers had retreated back into the bogside (their area of Derry). British paratroopers ran after them and killed over a dozen, wounding many more. It would take almost 4 decades before the British Prime Minister (Cameron) admitted in Parliament that their military forces were totally in the wrong and formally apologized for the unwarranted slaughter.

That event proved totally counterproductive to the Brits. After this event, recruitment to the IRA soared. A lovely woman wearing a green dress for her interview related her own outrage and then mentioned how her 16 year old brother lied about his age to join the IRA. He died 4 years later … being shot by a British soldier. She remains angry to this day.

Another man told of joining the UDA, the Protestant paramilitary to defend his community. That force grew to a small army of 50,000. He was sent to plant an explosive device which went off prematurely. He survived but was sent to prison for 8 years. While there, he talked to another inmate who told him how he was ordered to kill a shop owner. None questioned orders so he did it. Then the man’s wife walked in the shop, so he killed her. Then the young daughter entered the establishment and he killed her. The unionists listening to this story returned to his cell vowing never to pick up a gun again.

They also touched on the story of Jean McConville, a Protestant mother of several children whose Catholic husband died early on from cancer. Through marriage, she yet lived in Catholic housing project in Belfast. One night, a British soldier was hit outside her door. She responded to his pleas for help. This outraged her neighbors. Several days later, local women came and took her away, telling the children that their mother would be back in half an hour. Her body wasn’t recovered for some 30 years. She was another tragic victim of the paranoia of the time, a suspected tout or snitch who had to pay the ultimate price. She was one of 17 who simply disappeared in the middle of the night.

Another woman relayed the story of being pregnant and in the hospital to give birth when the father of her baby gave her name (among others) to the British Security Branch. She went to jail. Through tear filled eyes, she related how her new born daughter was brought to the prison but she did not recognize the child as hers. Her shame at this resides within her to this day.

A then young Catholic lad shared the story of his father who, on hearing the news that several Protestant workers had been slain in an explosion as they came from work, prophecied to his son that innocent Catholics would soon die. This father, who had no role in the IRA or the troubles was soon gunned down in a retaliatory ambush. Tit for tat. An eye for an eye and soon, as Gandhi said, the whole world is blind.

By the early 1990s, the Unionists were killing more than were the IRA. It became clear that the British Security forces, including Special Branch, were colluding with the unionists paramilitary side in strikes against the Catholics. Paranoia ran rife … whom could you trust? Everyone was a potential traitor or tout.

International attention to the Troubles had peaked in the 1980s. The Provos (Provisional IRA) felt that Britain could care less if Irish killed other Irish. So, they brought the war to Britain itself, bombing targets in London and elsewhere. The IRA prisoner’s incarcerated in the Maze were suddenly stripped of their rights as political inmates or POWs. Now, they were treated just like ordinary criminals. In response, many of them first refused to wear prison clothes, or bathe, and smeared feces on their cell walls. Those futile gestures led to the hunger strike. Bobby Sands was the first to die after 66 days, only to be followed by another and another. Some 10 martyrs perished before the hard line Thatcher government silently accommodated many of their demands.

The war on Britain reached a crescendo when a resort hotel in Brighton Beach was bombed. The annual meeting of the Conservative Party was being held there, and the Iron Lady was the target of the attack. This came not all that long after Lord Mountbatten (and others) were blown up by an IRA bomb on his yacht during a holiday retreat off the coast of the Irish Republic (1979). Mountbatten had been a much loved member of the Royal family and held many positions including the being the last Viceroy to India.

Amidst all this horror were a few positive moments. The Harp Bar was a grungy place that catered to punk musicians. It was a place where both sides could congregate to listen to the music they loved. More than one interviewee mentioned first going there with hate in their hearts for those on the other side. But, to their amazement, they found that they all were more alike than they realized. Breaking down the extreme segregation each side had faced was critical to communication and ultimate acceptance of those on the other side.

One man recalls how his friends back in the day were sure they could spot Catholics by sight. In fact, they were certain that Catholics smelled different. When you live in a highly segregated world, you can so easily demonize the other. And when the killing starts, perceptions further harden. Some of those being interviewed for this documentary had set aside past hates, others not so much.

There is this. There are many, many other stories I’m glossing over. But how many does one need to hammer home the basic lesson that sectarian conflict is pure insanity. It rots your soul and deprives you of any remaining humanity. It is the ultimate folly.

Nevertheless, there are those in America calling for a civil war. They seem bent on hurting and killing and maiming those whom they have already demonized. The insurrectionists who rampaged through the nation’s Capitol looking to hang Pence and Pelosi for imaginary crimes are just the tip of the swirling anger out there.

One must ask, is this what the far right wants? Watch this documentary and point out one positive lesson from those years other than they ended with the Peace Agreement in 1998, after some 30 years of slaughter and carnage. I can’t find any.

Biden’s issue of forgiving some student loan debt has raised many hackles out there. Of course, in this political climate nearly everything does, so that’s not surprising. Whenever one group is favored by our tax laws or our public policies more generally, questions of fairness inevitably arise. I can hear my dear neighbor now … why should these elite kids (elite by virtue of having access to higher education) get this windfall while others before them struggled to pay off their college loans. There is a surface inequity lurking here. So, how should we look at this, and other benefit programs for the public good.

I remember way back in my youth as a policy wonk. I was staffing a Wisconsin legislatively mandated study of welfare programs. One set of reforms we considered involved making substantial changes to the state tax system. For example, we proposed a state level earned income tax initiative that would employ the tax system to incentivize work and provide some benefits to low-income workers. It was, in fact, enacted. This was back when this was a novel idea.

Another colleague from the university was involved in a mandated study of the tax system. He pulled me aside one day,  chastizing me for laying on further bells and whistles to an already complicated tax system. His message was clear. The tax system should focus only on raising revenue. All these other deductions, exemptions, and writeoffs (sometimes justified on noble grounds) merely introduced inefficiencies and inequities.

My reaction was classic. I understood the principle he espoused, but my social ends were too important and deserved to be an exception. And there you have it. Anything that favors my ends is justified but everything else is a boondoggle. A classic case of self interest.

A few years later, in the mid 1980s, there was another push to rationalize the federal tax system. That push was to streamline the rules. You know, replace the thousands of pages of the tax code with something simple. For example, how much money do you have? Send it all in to Washington.

This remarkably effective set of reforms is well told in the book … Showdown at Gucci Gulch. This book relates a fascinating story. It was assumed that the reform would flame out as all the high priced lobbyists (who tended to wear Gucci loafers) attacked the bill to advantage their individual clients. If anyone of them had said, ‘let’s meet in this corner and form a united front,’ the bill would have collapsed. But they didn’t, each pursuing their own agenda. The bill passed.

Almost immediately, the lobbyists regrouped and began passing a host of special tax provisions. Republicans loved this tactic since it provided benefits to one of their prime constituencies (the super rich) without expanding the bureaucracy, at least not by much. It took no time at all to recreate the complex tax system everyone loathed because few could understand.

Anyone who was paying attention could figure out what was happening. From the 1980s on the tax system became a massive vehicle to redistribute wealth and income to the top of the pyramid. Not surprisingly, the share of all goodies going to the top 1 percent exploded from less than 10 percent in 1979 to almost one quarter in recent years. This is a tectonic shift and risks destabilizing our democracy.

Let us go back to the student debt question for a moment. Would the forgiveness program penalize those who paid their debt already. Perhaps, but here is how I look at it. Most other countries substantially subsidize higher education. Our public universities once did the same, but those days are long gone. Whereas other places see this as an investment in overall human capital and the public good, we tend to see education as a private benefit, to be paid for if the student is able. It is a classic example of a collective versus an individualistic perspective.

It doesn’t take much to flip this issue on its head. The loan forgiveness program is merely a long overdue way of back dooring a higher education public subsidy. In effect, we merely would be joining so many other countries in making higher education broadly available and affordable. The loans you take up front that are later forgiven. The public subsidy occurs at the end of your education and not at the beginning, and it includes private schools. I’m sure we can debate the details.

There are other tax issues we might look at anew. Take corporate taxes for example. Their contribution to the overall revenue base has diminished radically. As far as I can see, these tax provisions are merely a full employment scheme for corporate tax attorneys. Why don’t we end this program outright. From what I recall, the ultimate burden of corporate taxes falls on either the consumer or the shareholders, though economists never quite agreed on which. But one thing is sure, the big firms often get substantial pay outs in terms of tax refunds.

Of course, we would have to recoup lost revenue somehow. I would raise the personal income tax rates substantially while eliminating all these egregious give aways. In this, I’m arguing forca broadend tax base with few loopholes.

We would be hit with ‘the sky is falling’ doom and gloom predictions by the right. But remember this. America became the economic envy of the world when we had top tax rates around 70 percent. When Clinton raised the top rate in the 90s (after they had been cut by more than half in the Reagan years), Republicans were apoplectic. They screamed that we were in the end times.

What actually happened. Our economy boomed. Our annual deficits became surpluses. The stock market flourished. The Republicans, once again, were dead wrong.

Ben Franklin asserted (allegedly) that nothing is more certain than death and taxes. How odd he would associate taxes with death. Taxes are not the equivalent to death. Far from it. They are an investment in the public good. The happiest countries in the world (according to repeated international hedonic studies) are those that pay the highest taxes. Why? They realize what they get for their investment. They recognize that much of the stress of modern living is diminished by these public investments.

Ultimately, taxes are an expression of a nation’s values. They can be positive or negative, a classic tale of the devil being in the details. Perhaps it is time for a renewed look at an old issue. Perhaps we can recreate a system that reflects positive norms and a collective sense of community values.

Earlier this month, way back in 1939, Leo Szilard visited Albert Einstein to convince him to sign a letter to be forwarded to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Szilard, a Hungarian born physicist, had conceived of the potential of nuclear fission earlier in that decade, though Einsteins work provded the basis for such intellectual breakthroughs. One consequence of their theoretical work was the potential for a weapon of fantastic destructive potential.

By 1939, it was more than apparent that the Nazis were on the road to war. In fact, when Szilard petitioned Einstein to join him in pushing the President to be aware of this new atomic age, the Polish invasion that made this a worldwide conflict was just days away. Szilard was particularly anxious to get Albert’s support since he was virtually the only egghead of sufficient public acclaim to possibly get Roosevelt’s attention.

Einstein, in fact, needed some persuading. He was, by instinct, a pacifist. He had been very critical of some of his academic colleagues who had helped the German government during WWI, especially in developing nerve gases and more destructive technologies for use in that conflict. He was torn by Szilards request.

In the end, he did sign on. We believe his rationale was understandable. Einstein was now at Princeton, having left Germany when the Nazis came to power. In fact, he was in the U.S. giving lectures when that happened. He was denied reentry and, after spending some time in England where he felt his life might not be safe from Nazi assassins. He soon migrated to the States but retained personal experiences of the depth of Nazi perfidy.

He, and most other top scientists, knew that Germany had many top brains available to them, brilliant men such as Werner Heisenberg and Wernher von Braun. They concluded that the Nazis might just get the jump on the allies in developing the next generation of super weapons. In fact, the Germans did develop ballistic missiles and jet planes, but too late in the war to do much good.

However, what if they beat the allies to the forces of nuclear fission? Of course, this is one of the core moral issues underlying the compelling and riveting movie … Oppenheimer. Scientists, even those morally opposed to war, felt they had no other choice. Robert Oppenheimer was a classic example of such an internal debate. He, including many of his colleagues, was trapped in what economists call a prisoner’s dilemma. Not knowing what the other side was capable of achieving, could they stand by and do nothing?

The other moral question was whether to use this new power or not. By the time it was realized that the atomic bomb was feasible, the overarching calculus had changed. By late 1944, those working on the bomb suspected, or began to believe, that Germany did not have the head start initially feared and was nowhere close to having a bomb. Their fears from a few years earlier were not to be realized.

Some considered delaying the culmination of their work, or at least demonstrating their concern by opposing their own creation in some fashion. However, their drive as scientists, along with the motivation inherent in being a part of the most exciting scientific enterprise of the 20th century, pushed them on. I believe that were some of the complex emotions brilliantly conveyed through this masterpiece of a movie.

When they saw the mushroom cloud on July 16 at the Trinity site in New Mexico, they fully appreciated the consequences of what they had done. Some remained enthusiastic, others immediately regretted their participation. Oppenheimer quoted an ancient Sanskrit text … I am Shiva, the destroyer of worlds. Einstein would later say that signing Szilards letter to Roosevelt was the biggest mistake of his life.

Then there was the decision to use the bomb. Once it existed, the scientists would lose control over its use. As depicted in the movie, Truman tells Oppenheimer that he dropped the bomb, not some egghead. But the scientists who came to regret their participation could not so easily forgive themselves, not totally.

So, how much guilt and remorse should they carry? How much guilt, if any, should Truman carry for actually using the weapon? These are all questions embedded in much moral ambiguity.

Can anyone blame the scientists who worked on the bomb for doing so given the information set available to them at the beginning of their work? If you thought the most evil regime imaginable might develop this awesome weapon, could you stand by and do nothing? Oh, I can think of rationales for taking that chance (on doing nothing), but they are not convincing even to me.

And Truman’s decision to use it. Think of his world in that moment. As allied forces got closer to the Japanese mainland, the ferocity of the fighting grew along with casualties. The two atomic bombs incurred sone 120,000 immediate deaths and thousands more later. The scenes of unimaginable suffering haunt some of us even today.

However, any conventional invasion of the mainland would have resulted in many times that number of casualties. The saturation bombings of Tokyo alone (to soften up the population prior to an invasion) would have resulted in many more deaths. That city was made mostly of wood for crying out loud. Just think about the horrors of allied bombings in Dresden and Hamburg that generated fire storms of unspeakable fury.

Many argued that using the bomb made it permissible to use it again in the future. Again, the movie touches on this brilliantly. As Oppenheimer argued, the only way to show the world how awful this weapon is demanded an actual demonstration or two. Yes, this might be a convenient rationale, and these examples might have had the opposite effect. However, the world has lived with this power for almost 80 years without using it again. Mutual destruction has proven an effective deterrent, though we have come so close to the apocalypse more than once.

Yes, we might have created a weapon so destructive that we cannot use it again. When we did use it, there might well have been fewer deaths and less destruction than we otherwise would have seen. We can never know for sure.

We have the benefit of hindsight. Perhaps that’s why I loved the movie so much. It put me in their shoes. What would I have done? What choices would I have made? Few of us are thrust into a situation where such monumental decisions are demanded. Few of us confront such existential choices of such enormity.

Thank God for that. They are not easy ones to make … not when you are in the center of the storm. I am thankful that I have been so irrelevant in life.

I once read a piece about a man of some intellectual note. This luminary was asked what he disliked most in contemporary society. His answer was ‘monotheistic absolutism.’ My reaction was ‘what?’ The wisdom of his response, however, grew on me over time and has risen to the top of my own pet peeves, a rather lengthy list indeed.

If you also responded with a ‘what,’ let me add a brief explanation. Strictly speaking, monotheistic absolutism is a belief that one’s own perception of the divine (or truth) is the correct one, despite all the alternatives out there. That is, there is only one truth, it is known, and you possess it.

One might argue that more people have been slaughtered in the name of God (or received truth) than for any other reason. While I cannot prove such, the assertion seems plausible. However, this human affliction goes beyond a devotion to a narrow interpretation of the divine. In my mind, it speaks to all those who insist on rigid truths about the world and on an irritating obsession respecting the righteousness of one’s own peculiar approach to reality. In such people, nuanced thinking, empathic connections, and flexibility are rarely found and often considered verboten.

This struggle among world views is nothing new. As we first emerged from the darker ages, sometime around the later part if the 15th century (if not a bit earlier), certain humanistic views began to replace the rigid, hierarchical views that had previously dominated Europe, at least since the fall of the Roman Empire a thousand years or so earlier. During this period of stagnation covering about a millenia, intellectual progress and creative thinking shifted to the Middle East, especially to Baghdad. This was the so-called Islamic Golden Age, which emerged as Europe foundered in ignorance and a startlingly narrow approach to the world in which the masses struggled to survive.

The European perspective, rooted in Scholasticism, assumed that all had been revealed by God in scripture and that was that. Man’s concerns were with the next life, not this one. Besides, all authority flowed downward, given by the church or appointed leaders, and nothing was to be questioned. Any extent progress in human understanding took place elsewhere, in China and in the larger Islamic Caliphtes where inquiry into mathematics, astronomy, optics, medicine, literature, and other disciplines were encouraged. That Islamic impulse to better understand our world came to a crashing halt when the Mongols sacked Baghdad around 1250 AD and when China cut itself off from the rest of the world.

Slowly, the centers of human inquiry and investigation shifted to Europe. By the early 1500s, Erasmus was writing scathing critiques of the old order, including the Vatican, and their ‘head in the sand’ attitude to change. Martin Luther was leading a revolt against obvious failures and greed found in the Church’s hierarchy. Gutenberg revolutionized communications with his movable type innovation. And more and more secular centers of learning (Oxford was formed around this time) began to consider a new approach to learning, one that would come to he known as humanism.

Imcrementally, it was reasoned that all knowledge was not lodged in scripture nor the ancient texts from Greece and other past ‘golden ages.’ Rather, our world remained open to rigorous observation and deductive investigation. Science evolved slowly and hesitantly, but it kept improving as a strategy for understanding things, though not without risk to those who pursued it. For example, Copernicus didn’t permit the publication of his ground breaking work disputing an earth centered universe until after his death. Galileo, who confirmed his predecessors theories, was forced to recant by the Vatican. Still, their scholarly works, once unleashed on the world, proved that nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has arrived. Once we began to look at the world about us in an open and honest fashion, there was no looking back even if this new way of looking at things spread very incrementally.

Why now belabor this period of social and cognitive transformation? Well, I was reminded of all this on my recent trip to Belfast and Northern Ireland. No one could help but notice the obvious evidence of divisions and hate that separated people who looked so much alike but who saw the world through different lenses. Seeing the tribal limitations of ‘my people’ reminded me how easy it is to close our minds and then our hearts.

In Belfast and Derry, walls divided communities whose elemental distinctions were rooted in religious conflicts that go back many centuries. Relatively minor differences in how each side had approached God resulted in salient cultural rationales for bombing and killing one another.

Of course, nothing is that simple. Religious intolerance segues into cultural distinctions which then translate into political and economic consequences of substantive importance. God can too easily become a convenient basis for distributing society’s goodies in unfair ways. In each case, however, some people get stuck in their set beliefs, unable to see beyond their narrow views even as others can bend and find opportunities for compromise and change. The 1998 Easter Peace agreements between Protestants and Catholics did happen.

I cannot help but wonder if our American cultural conflict is of a similar character. Is the separation between our Red and Blue political nations essentially based in some fundamental dichotomy in how each side views the world. One side is stuck in a hierarchical world of fixed beliefs rooted somehow in a cultish devotion to the notion of a strong man or demigod who would rule over an ordered and unchanging society.

The other side believes in things like science and progress and the perfectibility of society through collective action. The world is not fixed in their view but is amenable to change and improvement through science and experimentation. One side is driven by fear and unquestioned faith, the other by hope and reason. This is not all that different from the tensions that existed when our world took tentative steps from an irrational devotion to absolute truths in the so-called dark ages toward a new humanism in the Renaissance as a step toward the modern world.

Most agree that our existing cultural divide is growing. The last time we were so polarized was in the years before our Civil War. The divisions then were more complex than merely a belief in slavery or not. What separated us were more fundamental differences in how each side saw the world. One side desired a hierarchical society based on fixed truths, an institutional framework where people were assigned to higher and lower positions based on ascribed and usually immutable attributes (like race). In that world, one ordained by the creator, there existed little opportunity for change. The world was perfect as it was, a reflection of divine will.

The other side saw all kinds of new possibilities, as reflected in the emergence of the new Republican Party of that era. That new philosophy was premised in progress and the promise of a better world if the shackles that limited individuals might be torn away, especially with the help of government and a focus on the public good. Thus, one side invested in education and infrastructure and experimentation while the other sought desperately to resist all change to an already perfect world.

Such fundamental differences were not amenable to discussion and compromise back then nor now. In the middle ages, Europe convulsed in several periods of constant war between cultures associated with religious differences, the 30 Years War being particularly savage. In America, during the middle of the 19th century, we dissolved into a fratricidal civil conflict to determine which world view might dominate as the country expanded westward. That dispute cost us between 600 and 700,000 lives and did not bring us together in our hearts.

Even on a micro-scale, violence prevailed. Southern Congressman Preston Brooks almost beat Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts to death for speaking out against slavery. Other political and media spokespersons from the south defended this vicious attack in Congress. Violence was sanctioned politically and morally in the pursuit of unassailable values of highly questionable merit.

Recently, we have witnessed an insurrection against the orderly transition of power, a fundamental precept of our democracy. A still sitting President urged a violent mob on. And then, an entire major political party accepted this treasonable act.

Have we learned nothing from history? At long last, have we learned nothing at all? All around us, we see walls being erected, mostly symbolic, but real nevertheless. We cannot talk to one another. We cannot understand one another. We have no common narrative nor set of norms to share. We are strangers, no different than the citizens of Belfast or Derry who erected tall, thick walls to keep the other at arms length, at least when they were not trying to kill one another.

We have one planet on which we all live. We will either work together to make the best go of it or watch the human experiment dissolve in its own folly. Once again, I’m glad I’m old.

The country, and the city, no longer can be considered the backwater of Europe, which it was in 1969 during my first visit. Dublin is alive and vibrant and growing. In a few days, Notre Dame will play the Naval Academy in a contest of American football in an ultra modern stadium. Many high tech companies have relocated here to take advantage of the political stability and the educated work force. The so-called Celtic economic tiger remains alive.

Now, I am home. My spouse and I used to travel frequently. Then she fell victim to Alzheimers, the long good by, and then along came Covid. So, this was my first trip overseas in some time, the first to Ireland since 2001, and the first to Dublin since 1969. To say the country has changed a bit would be an understatement.

On the streets of Dublin you see people from all over the world, many skin colors and languages and accents. One reaction I had was ‘this might be New York or London.’ These are not all tourists. Retail and restaurant workers are likely to be from all parts of the EU and beyond.

And the food! Long gone are the days when haute-cuisine was fish and chips, though they remain ubiquitous. Now, all forms of ethnic foods are available, even in mid size towns. Remarkably, even in domestic restaurants, you can find curries and even more exotic dishes. I had the best Chicken Tikka Masala in my life in a regular restaurant in a small Irish town on the west coast.

Of course, the Irish have not lost their identity. Their love of native music, of art, of language, and of their history remains. Long ago dates and events remain close to the surface. Cromwell, the Flight of the Earls, the famine and the diaspora, the 1916 uprising and their independence in 1921 are real events to the native population.

The ‘troubles’ remain way too close to be dismissed, as testified to by the walls that remain, the opposing flags being displayed, and the murals still adorning many buildings. While it is good to recall history, one hopes the correct lessons have been learned. Not all the bitterness has disappeared.

Another change is the secularization one feels. Two generations ago, the country was yet in the grips of the Catholic (or Protestant) Churches. That allegiance is broken, and thus peace is possible. Ireland has quickly become a progressive state on social issues. Their recent history gives me a glimmer of hope for America.

But most of all I am taken with the beauty of the place. This is one of the few places I have visited where the sights are more dramatic than the post cards you can buy in the shops. The fields really are brilliant green. The coast is marked by dramatic landscapes and pristine beaches. Our tour gasped many a time at what lay before us. No wonder the place produced so many poets. It is magical.

More to say but I’m still a bit jet lagged. I just may have to go back.

Coming to the end of my adventures in the north of Ireland. And a grand tour it was. A few highlights!

Now on to one of the highest ocean side cliffs in Europe.

The castle in Donegal played a key role the defeat of the Irish chieftains and the English conquest of Ireland.

The O’Donnell clan had ruled the castle and area for several centuries. But in the late 1500s, the ‘nine year war’ started as Elizabeth 1st decided to settle the Irish question once and for all. She didn’t like a Catholic nation to her west. It might be the back door that one of her Catholic enemies, France or Spain, might use to threaten England.

After several years of stalemate, she sent a larger army to the Emerald Isle. At the request of the northern Chieftans, Spain sent an army to reinforce their Catholic allies. But through misfortune or misunderstanding, the Spanish force landed in Kinsale and not Donegal as expected. That was at the other end of the island. The northern chieftains marched South but, exhausted when they arrived, were defeated by the English army.

By this time, Elizabeth had died and James was on the throne. She would have had the Irish traitors drawn and quartered, with their heads on spikes. But James spared the lives of the Chiefs, gave them some of their land back, and made them Earls. However, they would have to renounce their culture, their language, and their religion as part of the deal.

In the end, that proved too much for them. The chiefs fled to Spain and Italy, looking to raise armies and money to return and reclaim their ancestral lands. However, they never returned and this episode became known as the ‘flight of the Earls.’

In 1610, James began the ‘plantation’ of Ulster province, most of which is now known as Northern Ireland. Plantation is another word for colonization. He brought in thousands and thousands of Scottish and English Protestants to take over the land. That was the beginning of the religious and cultural conflict that was most recently expressed in the ‘Troubles,’ and which remains today in a more subdued form.

We next head east. A quick stop at an ancient graveyard. The Janus stone dates to pre-christian era while the other is a recent marker dating to 1810.

Then we are back on the road heading toward Dublin and typical scenes from the Irish countryside.

Just a few more pictures.

A bit of explanation: Malin Head is the very top of Ireland. The start line is where they begin a bicycle race that goes the length of the country. The term ’80 Eire’ was painted during the war to tell German planes that this was neutral Ireland and not to bomb.

Just above is one of Ireland’s iconic lighthouses.

Below is how the rich lived in olden days.

Above are several millenia old ceremonial and burial remains. Perhaps they will put my remains here?

Dunes and a beach above … smuggler caves below.

A robust waterfall after a bit of rain.

I’m not commenting at length here, or at all. I’ll let the pictures do the talking.

Continuing on with my discussion of the ‘Troubles,’ this time from the place where the fighting started. This is Derry, as the Catholics call it, or Londonderry which is preferred by the other side.

When Irish independence was declared (won in hard fought battles) in 1921, Derry was included in Northern Ireland despite having a majority Catholic population. The rules were such that the Protestants held local control for decades, setting up the seeds of future conflict.

Historically, it was a walled city, the walls of older times yet standing which is rare indeed. One moment in the Catholic-Protestant divide occurred around 1698. The deposed Catholic King of England (James II) was fighting to take back his throne. As he approached Derry, a group of (Protestant) apprentice boys hurried to close the gate and raise the alarm with the iconic call of NO SURRENDER!

A long seige ensued with resulted in the deaths of 7,000 of the 20,000 trapped inside the wall. James eventually left and was defeated by William of Orange (his son-in-law) at the Battle of the Boyne, thus ensuring Protestant rule in England and eventually Ireland.

Below is a picture of the Bogside, which I believe is now 97 percent Catholic. The Protestant minority would March to celebrate the Apprentice Boys and then the Battle of the Boyne. They did so with flourish which pissed the Catholics off no end.

Finally, inspired by the American Civil Rights movement, the Catbolics, seeing themselves as 2nd class citizens, fought back for the first time in August of 1969. This militancy spread to other cities.

The conflict exploded in 1972 after British soldiers fired on an unarmed Catholic crowd killing 14. It was known as Bloody Sunday. The British initially whitewashed the event until the British PM admitted total wrongdoing on their part in 2010.

An earlier set of executions also proved counterproductive to the Brits. At the end of the Easter Uprising of 2016, one that did not have broad support across the Republic if Ireland since many Irish had sons fighting in Europe with the English. But the British summarily executed the leaders of the uprising after shelling the revolt into submission. This enraged the general public and led to a more effective uprising that, in turn, resulted in independence in 1921.

Within the old city are some significant churches and government buildings. Like Belfast, there were walls everywhere to separate Protestant and Catholics, some were more recent barriers built atop the ancient city walls. Even churches were not exempt from sectarian conflict. One Presbyterian church near the old wall was further protected by additional structures to prevent missiles and explosives from being hurled from the Bogside direction.

The court house in the above pic is a good example of the ongoing tensions. It was bombed 13 times during the Troubles.

Peace finally came in 1990s. David Hume won the Nobel Peace Prize, plus the Gandhi and Martin Luther King Peace Prizes. He managed to bridge the gap between the warring parties. In the Protestant church below, Hume, the Chief of The British Police forces, and the local Catholic Archbishop all gathered to commemorate the new and more peaceful era. A miracle indeed.

In the pics below are two of the many murals that are found through the Bogside. I’m not certain of the meaning of the second, but the first captures a British soldier breaking down a door looking for IRA soldiers.

Below is the city’s Guild Hall. Here, the Peace prizes won by David Hume are on display.

Hopefully, the Peace will last and sanity will remain. Only time will tell.

Scenes from along the Antrim coast in Northern Ireland. I believe I can let the pictures speak for themselves.