Astounding document

[swizz]

I have to agree with Des - if the contents of this album were, say, published in book form, who knows where else they would end up? The Ulster Division and the Somme are a popular source of inspiration for loyalist murals and if these pictures were published I would say it wouldn't be long until they started appearing on gable walls. My great-uncle served in the Ulster Division and I know I wouldn't want photos etc that he had taken being used to glorify loyalist paramilitaries.

Quite apart from the fact that the album is the property of that particular family to do what they want with, this is another aspect which I think would have to be considered.

Swizz

[ianw]

Quick, let's destroy and censor all images of Che Guevara because his image has been used on a T-shirt by folk with left wing leanings. We could similarly erase all images of Hitler in case the Right mis-use them. Not a valid argument in my opinion.

[swizz]

I'm not saying that the images in the album should be either censored or destroyed - I'm just saying that once they're out there then they are probably going to be used in ways which might not be what this soldier's family want.

The image below is an example of what some of the murals are like - this one draws an equivalence between Billy McFadzean VC and a loyalist paramilitary shot dead in 1983. My point is not that this album should not be made available to the public, but rather that I can understand why the possibility of this soldier's photos being used in a similar way to this mural might put his family off.

Surely the decision on what they do with their own private property is up to them.

[ianw]

I suppose that for every viewer of that mural that appreciates the juxtaposition of a great humanitarian VC winner with a member of an illegal organisation there will be another who is revolted by it. But it would be absurd to supress Macfadzean image to avoid the potential creation of the mural is surely a nonsense. Similarly absurd to contemplate the supression of images of the Ulster Division for the same reason.

I hope we have not reached a stage when we cannot honestly contemplate the actions of our forefathers and our nation without paralysing ourselves with fear that some people in the present might manipulate this history. Surely we can only fight such Orwellian manipulation by knowledge and education - as does this Forum when it brings people of all nationalities together as friends.

[Desmond7]

Ian .. I'm afraid it goes deeper than that.

My grandfather and all the rest of family were UVF and Ulster Div.

They were products of their times when B was for British and E was for Empire etc.

They were patriotic loyalists - and yes they were also motivated by sectarian issues (like everyone was in Ireland, let no-one talk horlicks on that point)- at a time when the highest in the land from Gough to half of the British Parliament thought in the same way.

When I showed my mother her father's name on a UVF roll of honour, she was shocked. After all the years she didn't know. Her response ...

"Your grandad was a British soldier, he wasn't like those other boys today," was her reply.

And she was right .. he was part of a citizen army of 80,000 -100,000 drawn from University Professors to BB captains. A far cry from the 200 odd activists involved (in an average year) in the so-called UVF of post 1966 era.

We in historical circles can (thank God) discuss, analyse and interpret what was done 'then' and realise we live 'now' ...

That is probably the kind of sub-conscious, deep rooted fear which lies at the heart of the issue.

Quite simply, the history is there ... it is how it is interpreted. There are too many twisted minds who could take this up the wrong way. It is entirely possible that this man is very aware of this scenario.

BY the way - anyone who is following this thread should saslo check out post ..

'Jim Maultsaid's Diary' for additional context to 14th R Ir. Rif.

Edited 7 June , 2005 by Desmond7

[John_Hartley]

Personally I do not accept that they have any moral  "right" to do this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ian

I'd like to hope that you are merely being provocative here in the expectation of a good debate and are not really serious about this.

If, on the other hand, you are serious then, frankly, it is an absurd view to hold.

Which is why I think you are on a bit of a leg-pull.

John

[ianw]

No John, I am perfectly serious. I accept that they have a legal right to do precisely what they like with this archive. However, as a matter of moral principal, I find it repugnant that very important historical items can be withheld from study at the whim of an individual. Mere ownership should not grant unfettered rights. How would you feel if they chose to destroy this archive ? A perfectly legal action, but it would still be morally "criminal" in my opinion.

In this case it has been suggested that there may be a political aspect to their decision i.e they fear that the information and images could be hi-jacked and mis-interpreted by sectarian interests. Whilst I accept that those involved know a great deal more about the Irish situation than I ever will, again I find this sad. Not re-writing history so much as destroying and bowdlerising it .

[John_Hartley]

Ian

I entirely agree with you about the "political" aspects. It is, or at least should be, a red herring in this context.

However, until the "revolution", ownership is ownership and morality has little to do with it. There is a wealth of difference betwen a someone not wanting to make a personal document public (not harmful to others) and you being able to drive your car at its top speed (potentially harmful to others if in public) or your large trees (I would also be a whingeing neighbour).

Not so long back, I received an email from a descendent of a casualty mentioned in my 17/Manchester article at Hellfire Corner. They had personal letters including from comrades who were able to give details of the chap's death and subsequent burial (the grave was lost). The descendent was very happy to send me a transcript and it makes fascinating reading (especially the immediate aftermath of the 1 July attack). However, they were not willing for me to make it public by inclusion in the article. To the best of my knowledge, it is the only document of its kind relating to the Battalion but I have to respect their wishes. It's a matter of moral duty to them.

John

[ianw]

John,

I note that you do not address my point about your feelings if this "astounding" document was destroyed. Do I take it you would be quite happy about it and lend them a box of matches and some lighter fuel. Sorry, I am being facetious. I am sure you would regret the loss.

If you read the thread carefully and particularly the contributions from Irish Forum members, it would seem that the possibility of supression of this resource for broadly political reasons is a very real possibility rather than a "red herring".

I have no problems with the attitude of the owners of the 17th Manchesters documentation. I think the importance of the item in question is critical here. In the case in point the resource would appear unique.

I similarly think it regrettable when major art works of world importance disappear into private hands. Worse still when valid "ownership" is established but after items have been stolen or looted in the first place e.g as in the recent case of Iraqi antiquities. That is why I think ownership carries with it a moral responsibility as the temporary custodian of an item.

[John_Hartley]

John,

I note that you do not address my point about your feelings if this "astounding" document was destroyed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ian

Apologies - I had assumed it was a rhetorical question.

I would, of course, be unhappy if the document was destroyed as it would eliminate the possibility of a change of mind in the future (or by future generations). I would be particularly unhappy as it is a a subject in which i have an interest. However, it remains a matter for the owners.

Where I think we probably agree is that the primary responsibility of a custodian is to take care of the item.

Roll on the revolution and we can eliminate private ownership of things deemed to be important by The People's Committee For Important Things.

John

[ianw]

John,

Personally I think vandalism is still vandalism even if you happen to own the item being wrecked ! Here we differ , I think, because I would certainly not hand them the matches and dance around the flames celebrating the sanctity of private ownership but rather grab the item and run off with it and hang the consequences.

I like the idea of that Commitee and will certainly apply when membership of this quango is advertised in The Guardian. I may then co-opt you on to it ! However, some of it's possible activities are adequately covered by the death duty system at the moment.

[Patrick H]

Disagree Patrick - and its arrogant of you to more or less demand that all discussion of this point should stop forthwith. 

We live in a society thankfully where pure rights of ownership are not paramount

- even my 40 foot leylandii are now threatened by my whingeing neighbour and I can't drive my car at anywhere near its top speed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ian,

I stated that I didnt understand where this discussion was going, since if the family do not wish the photographs to be published then that is their choice ! Where is the arrogance in that ? As John points out ownership is ownership and the family may have all sorts of reasons why they have decided as they have, if that turns out to be their final decision! I had rather hoped that you might have answered Johns query as to whether this was a "wind up" in the affirmative !

As for "arrogance" surely this could be applied to demands that the family's wishes be ignored.

Nobody questions your ownership of your car or your trees, its potentially what you do with them that affects others; and yes I would be a whingeing neighbour faced with 40 foot leylandi trees ! These photographs may well be of tremendous historical value and interest to those of us who are fanatical about The Great War, but they are still in private ownership and I for one would not to ride roughshod over the family's wishes, nor be a party to advocating this

Patrick

I for one, will not be following this thread further !!

[ianw]

Patrick,

Glad you felt minded to add another comment. After all , this is a forum and all about exchanging views rather than attempting to curtail them. Quite respect anyone's right to call time on a thread as regards their own input but I would not seek to impose my view on other people.

I must confess that I am perhaps taking a bit of an extreme position but it is not a wind-up and I genuinely think the case merits some discussion. John has duly elected me as Chairman of the Important Things Commitee so I suppose I must accept that I am indeed arrogant.

By the way I do not have 40 foot neighbour irritating trees neither do I drive particularly quickly. I was being ironical and seeking rather clumsily to illustrate my point.

Ian

[John_Hartley]

John has duly  elected me as Chairman of the Important Things Commitee

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An interesting interpretation of the facts, Ian.

I see that you are not only "up" for grabbing all the interesting stuff out of people's private hands but, come the the revolution, you are also "up" for grabbing the good jobs.

Remember what happened to Trotsky.

John

[ianw]

John,

Yes, I accept that my enthusiasm ran away with me and you only anticipated the creation of the committee and not my membership, let alone chairmanship, of it. Delusions of grandeur on my part.

As regards grabbing the interesting stuff out of private hands, I must say that I would immediately return it all to the rightful owners for incineration, pulping or whatever , once facsimiles had been made.

By the way ,do you recall the scene in the film "The Magic Christian" where Peter Sellars buys an old Master painting from a very superior art dealer played by John Cleese and then tells him he only wants the nose and makes Cleese tearfully hack said proboscis from the centre of the canvas.

[Desmond7]

Folks - a discussion on general issues of ownershipo/the rights and wrongs of keeping historical documents in private hands has developed from discussion of a very specific issue.

Can I formally ask that this discussion end here? The general issues raised here can and should be discussed under another 'thread'.

I have not 'taken the hump' or been annoyed by anyone ... I just feel it's time to end it.

Hope you all understand.

Respect to all ... peace etc

Des

[ianw]

No problem Des. No offence or embarassment to yourself intended.

[John_Hartley]

Des

No problem. I'm gone

John

[Desmond7]

Ta troops.

[Patrick H]

Nuff said Des and I'm outa here !

Patrick

[Auimfo]

B*gger,

I read all this and was just about to add my thoughts when Des put the kibosh on the whole thing.

Tim L.

[BatterySergeantMajor]

B*gger,

I read all this and was just about to add my thoughts when Des put the kibosh on the whole thing.

Tim L.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Idem

Erwin

[ianw]

Tim/Erwin,

Des actually suggested that we could start a general discussion of the points made on the thread elsewhere on the Forum so please feel free.