Consequences. Ireland..

 

 Éire derives from the old Irish Ériu, a legendary goddess

One might imagine that the recent resurgence of violence in Ireland would make the 'old warlords' sigh dismally and turn once more in their graves. In such tragic cases the cowardly attacks seem more to stem from callous ignorance and belligerent nostalgia than anything else.

The war in Ireland is over, or at least it should be. Dominion status was granted to the Irish Free State (renamed 'Éire') in 1936 and full republican independence came in 1949. Sinn Féin, ('we ourselves') founded in 1905, is now the second largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and an important party in the Irish parliament of the Republic of Ireland. If not officially considered the political wing of the Provisional IRA, it certainly has close, historic ties with the movement. Such results and representation could be regarded as essentially what the IRA had always been fighting for.

The numerous PIRA attacks include the callous assassination of Earl Mountbatten with members of his family in 1979. Also notable and tragic was the death of IRA member Bobby Sands, leader of the 1981 hunger strike in Maze Prison. He had been elected member of Parliament for the Northern Ireland constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

There are much older wounds, some which date back to the sixteenth century. Their healing process always seems to have been hindered by intolerance, Irish obstinacy and intransigent, historic celebrations.

Since Henry VIII, who in fact had never intended to renounce Roman Catholicism and was firmly anti-Protestant, imposed his Act of Supremacy of 1534, also as head of the Church of Ireland, this led to increased repression of the Irish Catholics. Irish subjugation had little to do with religion. It was a question of power, wielded then by the Vatican. Roman Catholicism then represented a threat to the newly acquired independence of the English Crown.
The repression led to revolt (the Irish victory of Battle of Yellow Ford in 1598). The increased repression and confiscation of land continued into the following century when in 1649 the Irish Catholics loyal to the Stuarts were massacred at Drogheda by Cromwell.

One of the most important and determining events of Irish history was the Battle of the Boyne which took place some forty years later.
For the French and their king, Louis XIV, James II, a Catholic and last of the Stuart monarchs (also known as James VII of Scotland) was the legitimate king of England. For the English however, it was essential that the crown of England maintain its independent status from the Vatican. The 'glorious Revolution' consisted of the replacing of abdicated James II by his hero son-in law William (of Orange) and his daughter Mary, and a restatement of the Bill of Rights. This included a token of religious tolerance towards non-conformist Protestants, although Unitarians and Catholics were excluded from public office and universities. William and Mary had to accept the Bill of Rights which established the supremacy of Parliament above the Monarchy.

Fortunately for England most of Scotland accepted William and Mary, although those under Viscount Dundee loyal to James (including the Camerons) won a costly victory at Killiecrankie (July 27, 1689). Provided they swore allegiance to William before the 1st January, 1692, the king had agreed to pardon the chieftains. All but the Macdonalds of Glencoe did so, and this led to their treacherous massacre by the Cambells.

But to return to the battle of the Boyne.
William arrived in November 1688 with an army of 15,000 English and Dutchmen. His real interest was the defence of Holland from the threat of the then powerful and ambitious France of Louis XIV, but he claimed to have come to safeguard the reformation, and to have no particular quarrel with James, his father-in-law.

Helped by France, James II landed with French troops in Ireland in 1689. On the 1st July, 1690 William crossed the river Boyne with his army and completely routed Jame's mostly inexperienced and badly led recruits. History alleges that William and the Dutch were aghast by the savagery of the English who massacred the Irish prisoners and drove heavy carts over the bodies of the wounded. Such unjustified, needless cruelty could have been incited by the siege of Derry in 1689 when this fortified city of northern Ireland, considered disloyal to James, suffered appallingly from the siege of 105 days beset by the Jacobite army. 4000 died of starvation during this siege, twice as many as those who perished in the battle of the Boyne.

The battle of the Boyne should not be regarded as a religious war either. There were Protestants with Catholics on both sides. In fact the Dutch Blue Guards even flew a papal banner, for many of them were Dutch Catholics. It was however a crucial battle not only for interests of land and patrimony, but above all for the maintenance of independent English sovereignty, and for European political and strategic interests.

Thus William's victory saved the 'Glorious Revolution', and it is thought to have saved Europe from eventual French domination as well. But the Catholics of Ireland lost everything.
Ironically, to add to their suffering, they were even abandoned by Pope Innocent XI who had supported William of Orange against the ambitions of Louis XIV. This was claimed to be in order to maintain a balance of power on the continent. He didn't even disapprove of William's accessions to the throne of England, Scotland and Ireland. In fact on hearing the news of the victory of the Battle of the Boyne, the Vatican celebrated the event with a Te Deum.

Both the siege of Derry (Londonderry) and the Battle of the Boyne are celebrated annually with the Maiden City Festival (the siege) and the Orange March (Battle of the Boyne). Considering the deprivation of the Irish Catholics of virtually every human right, including education, as a result of William's victory, the Orangeman's Day celebration especially, could be regarded as an insensitive and arrogant annual reminder of the unjust and demeaning consequences inflicted on the Catholiques. As such it seems a contemptuous way of aggravating old Irish Catholic wounds, shunning good will and thus the possibility of full, sincere reconciliation.

The war is over. The page should be turned, and all those who have perished due to the interminable conflict, should finally be allowed to rest in peace.

_____

Sources: F.E. Halliday 'A concise History of England', 'An illustrated History of England' John Burke, Battle of the Boyne, Wikipedia, 'The Irish Experience' Thomas E. Hachey, Joseph M. Hernon, Lawrence John McCaffrey. Satellite Image by kind courtesy of Nasa.

Text © Mirino (PW) March, 2009.

La Chute des Anges

Lucifer, réputé être le plus fort et le plus beau de tous les anges, se considérait trop important pour être au service de l'homme mortel et trivial, comme lui avait commandé Dieu, et comme c'était toujours entendu. Car les anges sont les messagers, les porteurs du verbe de Dieu, les serviteurs.
Lucifer cultivait donc son orgueil et influençait d'autres anges rebelles pour défier la volonté de Dieu, ce qui déclencha la guerre entre Lucifer, ses séides (Belzébuth, Bélial, Abaddon), et l'archang Michel et les fidèles de Dieu. Ces derniers réussissaient à chasser Lucifer ainsi que tous les anges rebelles à Dieu, à jamais du ciel.
Lucifer était destiné à devenir l'opposé de Dieu. Il incarne le diable, Satan dont les lettres pourraient signifier: Sacrilège, Athéisme, Turpitude, Antéchrist, Négation.

Si selon la loi de la polarité, Satan est le 'mal nécessaire', la chute de Lucifer ne serait-elle pas un événement de principe précipité par Dieu lui-même? Ce mal nécessaire comme l'exemple essentiel que l'homme a besoin pour mieux s'orienter 'tant bien que mal' sur le chemin de sa propre vie?

C'est en effet un message primordial. Peut-être le plus fondamental des tous ceux qui constituent les religions de l'homme.
Si être religieux est croire en une doctrine établie, personne n'a besoin d'être religieux pour en tirer cette leçon, tant qu'elle est essentielle et évidente. L'humilité ne dépend pas sur la théologie. Elle dépend sur une conviction personnelle que l'on n'est pas grand chose par rapport aux merveilles qui nous entourent, à la vie même, à la beauté du monde, à l'ordre planétaire incroyable, aux mystères de plus en plus vastes qu'au fur et à mesure que nos capacités de comprendre progressent pour pouvoir commencer à les discerner, semblent toujours nous fuir encore plus loin.
Elle dépend aussi sur la conviction que nous sommes quand même une partie infime mais essentielle de cette merveille, et que peut-être, sans le savoir, ce chemin sur lequel on s'oriente, tant bien que mal, est déjà bien tracé.

Le destin fatal des anges déchus projette la lumière de sa braise dans les coins sombres où se trouvent les négationnistes, les orgueilleux, ceux qui commettent le mal au nom de Dieu. Prétendre ainsi que l'on a des droits divins de s'imposer, de tuer, de ne pas respecter ou tolérer la vie ou le droit d'exister des autres, de répandre la haine, c'est défier Dieu. Et dans cet égard il n'y a jamais deux côtés, l'un qui a raison, l'autre qui a tort. La vanité de ceux qui prétendent- ou veulent bien le croire- mériter le paradis éternel, même pas pour avoir fait du bien aux autres, mais pour leur avoir fait du mal, est encore plus condamnable que celle de Lucifer. Autant que ceux qui prétendent être le bras droit du Seigneur pour mieux subjuguer un peuple sous le joug de la tyrannie. Ils sont tous les séides du mal.

La vie est bien trop précieuse pour être ainsi abusée. Même si la conception du paradis céleste et de l'enfer abominable n'est qu'une conception spirituelle et métaphysique, mieux ne pas se tromper dans sa vie pour ne pas alors courir le risque de se tromper dans sa mort.

__

Text and Image © Mirino (PW) March, 2009

Le jour de notre naissance nous sommes condamnés à mourir. Tel est le temps. Le feu, même le plus sauvage et destructeur, peut être contrôlé et éteint. Mais jamais le temps. Lui, il nous échappe toujours. On n'arrive jamais à l'éteindre, tandis que lui, semble pouvoir tout éteindre.

Mais ce Chronos qui dévore ses enfants n'est pas pour autant un monstre goyesque aussi cruel. Il a le loisir de nous enseigner, si nous avons le désir d'apprendre. Et finalement il nous révèle toujours la vérité, si nous sommes aussi disposés à la connaître.

S'il peut détruire les hommes qui méritaient mieux pendant leurs vies, il peut aussi les élever plus tard au ciel glorieux d'une immortalité relative.

Avec nos vies, nos réussites et nos échecs, nos tribulations et nos jours de bonheur, il nous sculpte inlassablement comme la mer ronge la falaise.
Comme un parfum exquis d'une fleur balayé par le vent d'un instant, même les souvenirs les plus chers deviennent les éclairs du moment d'une vie.
 
Mais il y a une seule chose que le temps insatiable n'arrive pas à prendre. Jamais il ne pourra l'éroder ou l'emporter.

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temporate.
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date.
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimmed,
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimmed;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st,
Nor shall death brag thou wander'st in his shade
When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st.
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
__

Qui mieux que Shakespeare peut le souligner, peut nous faire sourire à notre réflexion dans le beau miroir du temps, en nous rappelant de ce qui émane aussi de l'art à travers les siècles de la civilisation? L'amour est aussi intouchable que l'éternité.

__

Italiano
 
Shakespeare's sonnet  from 'A Lover's Complaint'. Text and Image © Mirino (PW) February, 2009

The Iraqi Dream

Like life itself, nothing good, real and true is born easily. And the birth of the democracy of Iraq was especially difficult and complicated. One closely followed the whole painful process, pacing outside, aware of the dangers, the carcinogenic forces of evil and destruction sapping the strength of a people who had made its choice and was making that infinite sacrifice that life demands of us, when life itself is the creation.

For if life is freedom, then so must also be democracy.

The first election should have been proof enough, but there was scarcely an international nod of approval. Certainly not a European one, with the exception of the courageous few who have always understood that freedom is not necessarily 'made in America'.

As truth is revealed, hypocrisy often accompanies it. When the former Secretary General of the United Nations suggested that Iraq was better off under the Saddam Hussein regime, it was an incredibly thoughtless and revealing declaration for one who is supposed to represent freedom and international law.
Today one still hears the 'concocted for the occasion', contrite, purse-lipped phrase from those who pretend to have so much experience in the matter- that "one cannot export democracy".
As if an entire population is so mentally retarded as to take the trouble to lay the foundation stones of its new democracy just to please the Occident! Surely this enormous engagement entailing so much sacrifice merits a bit more respect and consideration.

One wonders how much courage those who wave away a new democracy with such pompous disdain would have in comparison with the elected representatives of the first newly formed Iraqi government who risked their lives every day for the very sake of their new democracy?

If the first election did not merit the applause of Europeans perhaps spoilt by too many years of freedom, this second one didn't do much better to raise their approval either. Yet it is even more significant. Monitored by almost 300,000 local and international observers it confirms the freedom of Iraq. It confirms the end of the American occupational of security forces, for also on the strength of the results, the state of law has won in all nine southern Shia provinces, thus introducing new power and greater control. Barack Obama should, in principle, be now more able to accelerate the withdrawal of American troops. No one expected such an achievement, especially in Basra, Nassiriya, Kut and Samawa.

In his words of praise, also to Nouri al-Maliki, Barack Obama alluded to it as "a victory for all the Iraqis".

They have every right to be proud of their achievement. And when such a birth is so painfully demanding, in blood, tears and so much sacrifice, then the new born child of freedom can only be all the more cherished, fiercely defended and protected. For whatever the opinions of those who do not wish to see, it represents the realisation of the Iraqi dream.

___

Text © Mirino (PW) February, 2009
(With grateful thanks to the AP for the use of the image)

'Là, où les rêves deviennent réalité'..

Conclusion..

On suit de près les événements du monde, surtout ceux du Proche-Orient, puis un jour, on part au Pays des Merveilles, 'là, où les rêves deviennent réalité'..

Pour une toute petite période de temps néanmoins infinie, on redevient enfant et là, comme un enfant, on voit tout.
Le meilleur du monde entier est mis en valeur. C'est le monde où l'amour vainc toujours la haine, où il y a toujours 'happy endings' et tout est donc possible. C'est le monde où, non seulement on a bien quelque chose de beau, de créatif et de vrai à raconter, mais où l'on trouve- comme par magie- la meilleure manière de l'exprimer, surtout avec amour, et sans trop se soucier non plus de moyens et de limites. Telle est cette volonté de transmettre aussi bien que possible ce beau message, de réaliser ces rêves fabuleux.

Mais lorsqu'on revient sur terre, aux autres réalités plus ternes, quotidiennes, là on se rend compte d'autant plus du triste ampleur des sentiments négatifs qui s'y trouvent. La mauvaise volonté, la haine, l'esprit quasi vide de tout ce qui est beau, profond et positif. Le contraste en est si frappant que l'on se demande plus que jamais, comment peut-on être aussi médiocre? Comment peut-on vivre et être à ce point aussi vide d'amour, d'imagination, de tout ce qui contribue à rendre le monde meilleur?

Les pays arabes ont le droit d'être fiers du fait qu'une fois dans leur histoire ils rayonnaient d'une culture des connaissances la plus dynamique du monde. Mais peut-être ces pays ont bien moins le droit d'être fiers de ne plus la représenter aujourd'hui.
Depuis cette époque rayonnante du moyen âge, les exigences rigides de l'Islam semble avoir coupé les ailes de ce peuple davantage. Au lieu de regarder les étoiles comme l'avaient fait certains de leurs grands ancêtres astrologues, ils ne semblent que regarder par terre, comme s'ils n'ont plus le droit de lever la tête, d'être inspirés, ou d'avoir de telles aspirations personnelles.

Si une religion n'évolue pas avec la civilisation, éventuellement il y aura une crise, un choc culturel. Les exigences rigides et dépassées freinent un peuple à évoluer et peuvent aussi le contraindre à se diviser. Elles peuvent également l'inciter à créer des monstres programmés à utiliser la force pour essayer de satisfaire des anciennes revendications.
Pendant que telles revendications pour certains pays puissent devenir relativement moins importantes, les monstres par contre, risquent de devenir quasi incontrôlables. C'est alors le moment de la vérité, où l'hypocrisie se révèle, et peut-être un jour ces monstres seront capables de se retourner contre leurs propres créateurs, justement comme dans les contes de fées.

Même si on trouve de tels monstres un peu partout, en règle générale ils sont plutôt l'exception. Nous pouvons par contre affirmer qu'en règle générale certains peuples sont plus créatifs, entreprenants et positifs que d'autres. Naturellement ces peuples contribuent davantage au bien du monde.

L'ironie c'est qu'un tel peuple créatif et entreprenant vit dans un pays très petit par rapport à ses voisins. Mais malgré cette différence, y compris le manque de ressources naturelles, jamais ce peuple troquerait son pays avec l'un de ses grands voisins, malgré tous les avantages qu'un tel échange lui apporterait. Et jamais un de ses grands voisins abandonneraient les richesses naturelles qui vont de pair avec son grand pays, en échange pour ce petit pays, malgré tout ce qu'il représente d'autre.

Dans telles circonstances, ne serait-il pas mieux de laisser ce peuple continuer à y vivre en paix? Car c'est justement ce peuple là qui est capable de contribuer à rendre le monde meilleur. Et parmi ce peuple il y en a certains capables de nous faire rêver, capables même de transformer les rêves en réalité.

___

Text and Image © Mirino (PW) January, 2009

Consequences (suite)

 

The Palestinian Plight

And 'Palestine' ?
Apart from several other names given to this area (including Canaan, Israel, the Holy land, Kingdom of Jerusalem etc.) 'Palaestina' was the Latin name that the Roman emperor Hadrian gave to the region after the Bar Kokhba revolt was crushed (132-135). It was assumed that this would also help quash the national sentiments of the expelled Jews. The name derives from 'Philistine'.
At the latter part of the Bronze Age, 'Philistia' was believe to be where the present Gaza strip is situated. Philistia consisted of five states each with it's own central city: coastal Gaza, Ashdod and Ashkelon and inland Ekron and Gath.

Certain scholars maintain that the ethnic origin of the Philistines have links with Southern Greece from the Mycenaean civilisation but this has not been clearly established.

The name 'Palestine' remained, as did many of Roman Empire origin, and as did the countless generations of people known as the Palestinians.
Yet whether a people aspire to build fabulous cities for posterity, or is content to continue to nurse old olive groves and orange orchards, they are still in their own home-land as were their ancestors and as are their children. No one can assume the right, even divine, to deny a people such a fundamental easement, and this, whatever history, including what might be considered the most sacred, might otherwise decree.

But history can never essentially be 'individual', although even today each nation's version of history, depending also on the historian, would never entirely correspond with that of their neighbour nation. Often this difference increases and is embellished through time, space, culture and religion. Yet the essential ancestral birth right, whatever one's religious convictions, is undeniably sacred.

By defending this, by extension, one cannot deny the ancestral birth right of one's neighbours. One cannot deny or disprove the facts of history in this regard, or deform them to suit one's purpose or cause.

What applies to Jerusalem must apply to the 'Holy Land'. The 'Children of Abraham' represent the three monotheist religions, Muslim, Hebrew and Christian. Thus no single child should inherit everything that would create an interminable family conflict.

'The Children of Abraham', and of Israel should again be able to live together in peace as they once did for thousands of years. Why do the futile claims caused by war and religion, especially religion, make this so difficult? If in the final analysis of historical fact, it is unanimously agreed that no single, Abrahamic religion can claim the 'monopoly' of the 'Holy Land', why continue such a useless dispute?

The flames of this furnace are not rekindled and continually fed by moderate Palestinians and Israelis. They have been fanned by neighbouring States and nations for at least a generation, without considering more ancient history. These States have contributed to foster conditioned movements capable of indoctrinating their own children with racist hate. They seem inclined to maintain intolerable conditions in order to perpetuate the idea of representing a people who are constantly oppressed by their 'tyrannical' neighbours.

But surely the majority of Palestinians and Israelis wish to live together in peace.
Would not those states and nations who use the Palestinians to defend an unjustified cause do better by first improving their own standards and sweeping clean their own front doors?

The choice the Palestinians opted for in Gaza will never lead them to Paradise, and it is another, terrible, modern day tragedy that they seem to have to find this out in the worst possible way in order to perhaps understand.

There is no hope for those who are obsessed with hate. Nothing positive has ever been its effect. Hate is a living death.

The Palestinians deserve their State. It is essential that they have the peace and freedom to be able to properly negotiate and agree to acceptable bilaterally terms covering all concerns.

Ironically, but also understandably, Israel was more intent on their obtaining such conditions to finally permit them to establish their State, than perhaps any other country or international institution in the world.

Sometimes, it only takes the right amount of good will to realise dreams.

____

Satellite image of Israel, by kind courtesy of Nasa.
Text © Mirino (PW) January, 2009