FOREWORD
It is a thought-provoking and deep-dimensional analysis. Therefore, it is bound the boggle the mind of the person who asked the question, and anyone trying to answer it! This should be analyzed and answered in the 17th or 18 Century. Then the whole world should have functioned in a very different political and social infrastructure! I f? Me mill it is worth it in the archives of the 21 Century, bibliographic collections, to help change many developing margins with underdeveloped & L? (The “nor” with a strong belief in the “old” communism) to formulate an appropriate strategy to “the pace of their socio-? economically in development. ”
A) SURVIVAL & THE PEDIGREE
Charles Darwin (1809-1882), British naturalist, revolutionized the science of biology by his “evolution by nat? Natural Selection” demonstration. In the 19th Century, Green Belt it? About the survival? And extinction of biological species. He said: “Survival of the Fittest” dedicates itself to grow all kinds and continue in a particular geographical and ecological infrastructure in the world to survive?. (Note: He did not say “survival of the gr th, fastest, total ndesten, M most powerful, most intelligent or Tough?” Etc..!). He concluded that the organism is best “fits” into its environment, sets up with suffering, and fit to continue progress, had the best chance of? Survive in the world.
Human species are very well a part of this concept? Survive on Earth. However, people with an additional keeping attribute intelligence provided. Therefore, they have an additional keeping “economic” and “social” survival? Dimension. This is in addition to the nat? Natural Environment and physical size? E, share with all other species.
All people, therefore, try to survive n fit into a 3-dimensional? Concept? Namely the (a) the geography and the environment (b) the social status and (c) the economic infrastructure.
Within this framework, all species rely on the earth and protect their pedigree (family tree) to grow and prosper? Over centuries
B) Socio-? Economically in layers
The generation of mankind in the past millennium, many designed, worked and installed themselves in particular combination of socio-? Economic level saturation.
1) To Grundbed rfnisse? Only (food, shelter and clothing) f? R which are daily survival?. (Kategorie-C. least of the economic burden? Survival)
2) capture, store and hoard the Grundbed? Rfnisse f? R a limited time future. (Category B1 -. lower level, the economic burden? Survival).
c) St refreshment needs the comfort of the acquisition of luxury, in addition to performing additionally the Grundbed rfnissen (category -? B. media effort, the economic survival).
? Only certain people, the “extra” economic and social concepts of “Intelligence” and “Risk taking” r escalated certain economic and social acquisitions f below –
d) Devise new ideas, gadgets, social motivation techniques and procedures, to achieve a “Human Leadership” in the world. All actors, politicians, academics, sports, etc. … M? Men go? Ren to this group.
(Category A1 -. h? Higher social + business? Survival rate).
e business) risk by not earned and hoarded wealth in (b) and (c) above, in the direction of an “economic-F? Channel. Ftsleute business?, Gamblers, investors, producers (entertainment, product or process), H? Dealer etc.. Format of this number of people. (Category -? A. H Next business with online survival guide by-product?).
Inference – wealth and prosperity of an individual is classified in direct proportion to their efforts and objects, C, B1, B, A1, A top
Note – The basic human tendency is never the self wealth with others to share, but others share wealth wherever possible m f, r the people in all of the above classifications, C, B1, B, A1, A
!
C) Capitalism – wealth DIVIDER
Human generation from the Stone Age, analyzes the continuity t of their very existence, and formed groups. These developed into societies. The Grundbed rfnisse? These companies were food, shelter and clothing. Sub-groups of the society members decided exclusively? Only be valid for each bed? Requirements and your produced agricultural products f? R food, clothes made of cotton base f? R clothing and wood / earthen structures f? R shelter. This included the construction of h? Lzernen cart by bulls or horses, f? R dragged the transport. All of these materials and the animal was under? Superiority of man, the master behind them. In this old world environment, there were no significant differences in the wealth and “economic wealth” among people.
The industrial revolution was responsible for creating a wedge between the eternal unity between the man and the materials / animals. born from 1563 with Reverend William Lee, in Woodborough (in the N? he from Nottingham, England) invents the stocking frame, a mechanical device f? r Str cramps? knit until 1801, when Robert Trevithick (Cornwall, England) a steam locomotive demonstrated. Then, the productive work of the human brain functions + groups were taken over by the mechanical machines?.
(Subsequent inventions at accelerated rates are classified as scientific research and development)
Machines produced the goods f? Ben r basic research? Account + h? Bed rfnisse here? Of people in Large quantities in better quality? T and at lower costs.
In 1800, when machines became superior to the people who take risks and buy the machine (which is a substantial investment) was able to take risks Capitalist k (Category – A)?.
They considered the non-capitalist like-minded work force as a commodity, and began to hire and fire them. By using the improved productivity? T the machine, it pays f is a far less pay? R the human operators and supervisors? Gestures of the machines to turn? Via a big it volume of products with an advantageously higher tariff per unit , because of the cost reduction.
This created more people to think you only for the Grundbed? rfnisse look, with limited power? about other h? here Bed? rfnisse, and zero risk tolerance F? ability (Category B and C). Capitalism divides the pattern of wealth holding, among the people. But due to competition, f? Sample capitalists of the need for Arbeitskr? Ften participation in management, labor training and incentives f? R the Arbeitskr? Forces. Dilute it? NNT of capitalism with more reasonable share of the wealth of work, and ended in a concept of “socialism”.
However, the rule of capitalism in the world fr? Hen 1880s by the rich richer, poor? Warmer. She initiated a capitalist (A) against the work (C) fight between rich and poor have a few large groups. This environment has some polotico? Economically in person to nlichkeiten? Think and reach an early L? Solution to thwart and eradicate the growing “capitalist” trend.
D) WEALTH ACQUISITION – birth COMMUNISM
? If K body mentally and come to think of the number of people in the world go rt be related to the above categories A, A1, B1, B and C, mathematically and logically, the conclusion should be as follows: –
;
A = Very few. A1 = only a few. B1 = Some.
B = C = A lot of very big e
This is a guide f? R answering the question “Why go? Stiffnecked Quantum wealth by a few people at one end besa?, And why very big e people are poor at the other end, in this world? Economics !!!!”. This is the basis? Arisen over the question of communism? Survives in the world.
INFERENCE # 1 – Wealth Assumption is directly proportional to the “Risk taking” F ability and partly proportional to N tzlichkeit of intelligence?.
INFERENCE # 2 -? To buy luxury, exceed the limit of Grundbed rfnis acquisition is directly proportional to white to a wrap-around-and medium-sized economic prosperity status (all s collar and F hrungskr fte professionals in the world -? Middle class people in category B).
INFERENCE # 3 – Limited economic survival meant and prime focus only on the Tagesgesch ft economic necessity is directly proportional to a wrap-around bad economic prosperity status?. [? Over 70% of the Bev? Population in the world are poor (B1) and below the poverty line (C)]
In 1897 showed a Paris-born engineer named Vilfredo Pareto, the distribution of wealth in Europe, a simple power law model, which essentially followed meant that the extremely slowed reaching most of the wealth of a Nation (New Scientist, August 19, 2000 p. 22). ? Economists sp? Ter realized that this law applied just the very rich, and not necessarily to how wealth was distributed among the? Brige. But mathematics is a Pareto distribution h has been used frequently to quantify the distribution of wealth in the world is as “ABC analysis” or a power law (a polynomial relationship – a term of one or more variables and constants is constructed using only the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and constant positive whole number exponents). It shows the ownership of the probability distribution, filled with social, scientific, geophysical, and many other types of observable Ph? Nomenen Combine?.
It is known that wealth is shared out unevenly and unfairly. The people around usually have attributes, talents and motivations distributed, but it ends with unequal distributions of wealth in any ratio? Ratio to the real talents of the people
LESSON: wealth equalization is a marathon task in the world. It is because every person has a unique S? Ttigungsgrad in the socio-? Economically in layers, between A to C. Very few aim at A. But most get at B or C level remained unchanged.
E) communism – WEALTH EQUALISER
Karl Heinrich Marx? (5 May 1818 -? M 14th March 1883), a German philosopher, economist, and a national revolution re, was a pioneer in Bew ltigung the dominant role of capitalism in the 1880s, worldwide?.
Marx addressed a wide range of topics. He was famous hmt f? R his analysis of history, summarized in the first line of the introduction to the Communist Manifesto (1848) as “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of fighting Klassenk? Is.” Marx believed that? capitalism must be replaced by communism w? rde? over a period of time that the People’s Revolution.
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known under the pseudonym “Lenin” known (April 22, 1870 – January 21, 1924) was a Russian Revolution, r, a communist politician, the main guide and F the first director of the Soviet Union (USSR)?. Lenin f? Hrte communism in Russia. This changed? The story f? For Russia as well as in? Rest of Europe. Lenin used Marxist ideas in Europe and Russia, a threat f? R Europe and the rest of the world. In developing his plan of socialism in Russia, Lenin followed the examples of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels [28 November 1820, - 5 August 1895, 19th Century German sociologist and philosopher, developed communist theory alongside his better-known collaborator, Karl Marx, co-author of "The Communist Manifesto (1848)", and originally? ACCESSIBLE developer of the communist theory]. Lenin explained? Hardness in him? Economic theory, called “Imperialism”, the first step was gradually? Hlich connected to a monopoly of the capitalist phase, the sp move? Ter to communism. He said, Monopoly and capitalism are completely contrasting? Tzlich each other, and should lead problems in order to survive it? F the people?.
F) The Communist APPROACH
Both Marx and Lenin were revolution? R “Social F? Guide” and composed an “economic-F? Channel” theory under the assumption that a big e amount of people in the lower economic strata (B, B1 and C) Revolt on the wealth of the few stocks in the top? economically in layers (A and A1). It was as if in a big cast, it Reservoir water is related to their level. ”
The other European?’s Politically? Economists such as Marx and Lenin thought, in? Similar formats. It f? Leads to the formation of the Communist dominated “East Germany (GDR) by the construction of Gro? En Berlin Wall on 13 August 1961 and the formation of the world’s gr th Communist empire, the? “USSR – Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” in 1922 with Russia + 14 other like-minded communist L Santander in Europe and North Asia?.
But communism all national wealth with the centralized “state” in Apex, so that each individual does not have enough? Mer. At the same time all individuals have all the Volksverm saws that aggregated at the state level. The state controls and einged? Mmt all individuals below to respond to any kind of risk, or use their brain power of innovation or a say in the use of wealth at the state level top. In this environment, only rich, the state was (A) and all the people were earning wages below the worker (C), but shops protected by the state to meet all their Grundbed? Rfnisse. This situation heats the urge among the people f? R individual freedom and desire, their self-awareness of economic and social level to update.
Marx and Lenin believed that the big e volume of the bottom in the layers of economic and social revolt and is an equal F gain? Lle such as satisfaction, when in a big cast it reservoir, “Water is your level to find” . But what happened was that people have the freedom to decide their own economic and social strata through which the reservoir (the state), they held in the revolt. As a result, st? Doctors of communism in the world of 1991.
* The Communist Germany in? Eastern side disappeared in their socio? Economically in set-up, the wall collapsed to 9 November 1989, and merged with the capitalist West Germany.
* USSR disappeared in St? Bridge of several smaller nations (and officially on 31 December 1991 resolved? St), each dominated Verw? Sserung their communist principles (full state control), towards Private entrepreneurship and verb? Be and cooperation with the capitalist West.
G) why communism failed?
It is a million dollar? Economically in question! The size? Walls are carried us from the originator, the assumptions, the application of the methodology and survive? Performed orientation of the people?.
a) The author of Communism in the world, were both Marx and Lenin revolution? re or Online-F? Guide “. Each social f? While lacking in the world “futuristic management thoughts”. They had the ambition to share and an equalization of wealth among all people. But they h tte? Never thought such as the common Verm? Gene could be put into productive operation, create one? Surplus and recycled to grow more and more.
b) Both East Germany and the USSR all Verm? combined assets of their nation and made their “State” as the sole mean? mer. Therefore, it is the state as a monopoly and all the people to grow as a simple work supported? Protected, even without ownership.
The state took the job as a commodity, without motivation, ideas and incentives to use in order to improve the productive contribution spirit.
c) This in turn produces more T? Subtlety and disappointed Subtlety in the K? pfen which a big amount of e distributed work groups around the nation. The state erf? Filled the k? Anxiety further bed? Rfnisse and Grundbed? Rfnisse (food, shelter and clothing). But verse? Umt, the h? Higher economic and social Bed rfnisse embedded? In the human mind cases erf?. No one can one? Excess economic establishments or of a F? Leader of the local groups. This in contrast to the? Conviction of both Marx and Lenin, the human economic and social freedom depends dr? Bed? Rfnisse against the state and the “care-taker” of the state in the revolt.
It ended one? Ra of 69 years (1922-1991) of communist rule in the world. Since the communist principles applied with an emphasis on STATE orientation and not with a human orientation.
H) How could communism ht bleached?
It is as one million Euro question! If communism was a bit futuristic lead management famous, k nnte? It as an international standard f? R the human survival?, Prosperity and peace have emerged.
1) The Communist nations should not have united all the wealth of the nation? Transmitted it to the state, by its weight? Hlten caretakers are managed. This monopoly was a head weight in the tip.
2) The State and the weight? Hlten F? Guide should not be considered all domestic? Ndisches have public? As work, without playing any role in the management and operations of the national wealth, born at the top? Ndelt.
3) f the methodology? R the survival of communism w? Been re, “to pr affected? Local Bev? Lkerung and its economic / social survival? Aspirations” than? Superior to the “head heavy state orientation.” ? Have to share Without Dilution the concept of equal wealth, that approach should be to: –
a) Make groups of domestic h? lt of 1,000 to a maximum of 10,000 to manage, to progress and prosperity Pool ear marked segments.
Example.
* Pool arable land in 1,000 hectares Chen Fl?. Allot it to a domestic? Ndische group of 1,000 agricultural Sachverst? LinkedIn people to work, cultivate, produce ear marked to sell crops in each season / export and deposit the revenue in the central bank. (Mass Agriculture bottom down? Receive a high volume for? Strength performance at lower cost). The central treasury should ben all? Saturated materials? Over head expenses etc.. on justified and supported? protected in force, the GE group members. set a target sales quantum.
* Build car factories say with an investment of 1 million Landesw? Guide ever. Allot of work each unit to a domestic? ndische group of 5,000 people car expert, manufacture, test, assemble, sell / export and deposit the revenue in the central bank. The central treasury should ben all? Saturated materials? Over head expenses etc.. on justified and supported? protected in force, the GE group members. A goal should also sticking? UFE quantum
be fixed
* Same applies f? R aerospace, chemical, hospital, shipping, textiles, etc. … Industries. The entire Bev? Lkerung should work some members of the group, and no one should be unemployed.
b) The state should k? us take care to include housing, food, clothing, education for children, recreation, health, etc … f? r all members in the groups.
c) The central bank should be paid a fixed salary, all members of the group, independently? REGARDLESS of how they Gruppenzugeh? difficulties (agriculture, industry, health, etc..). An adjustment amount nnte k f? R some groups on the location and other criteria are acceptable except where justified.
d) The industry groups that have not achieved the sales target quantum should be questioned, the size should be? walls are analyzed, and Ma? measures should be established by setting achievable goals and the cause against the realization should be cut to be about? into account.
e) A reasonable sum of the net total surplus (or profits – losses) from the group all work in each year, f r further investment / development to be preserved and the balance is from the central bank equally among the group? members are distributed in all areas, as an incentive.
should f) If the balance is a loss in any year, it should by the central bank, f? r the basic sectoral analysis of Bourne, and Corrective measures? f? r not in the n occurrences of the same? next year are made.
The Communist cause? Tze should strongly on HUMAN orientation as prime? Acid and secondary? Re STATE orientation
be applied
g) In addition to productivity? t approach should be towards “Socio-? economically in Development (SED)” as its output-oriented evaluation as a critical tool “Quantum” Ma? participated. Accordingly, the “management decision” methodology should be well coordinated.
h) Socio? economically in accelerated development drive must come from within a nation, as a command / motivation from the outside? en. This is m? Possible if the “Domestic investment from domestic? Ndisches savings” and “building services” (even if foreign f with a believably Mediterranean Help? R small beginners) (latest technology moderated adapted to the local conditions) should be manned with the “homework”
See the book “SED BY DRVSRS” and “SOMA BY DRVSRS (SOMA = Social Management) at http://www. Lulu. com / drvsrs
I) Summary
a) Human reproductive function, in a 3-dimensional? survival concept of the environment / geography, economic and social dimension? over centuries and their pedigree technical progress. under these guidelines.
b) The varying H? he of? survival goals in the economic and social strata of every human being flying, t Verm? assets based equal among men.
c) Industrial Revolution mechanized the human work, with cost reduction and quality? tsverbesserung / volume optimization. This planted capitalism in the world, created a wedge in the trailer? Testing process of wealth. This additional class war included. between the actual? chambers of the wealth of recourse against the employee, hired and fired by them. The competition has the capitalists recognize the importance of work and the concept Use screen? Ssert as “socialism.”
d)? disproportionately Anh? testing of wealth among the people of the notion of communism throughout the world sat? t.
e) The communism of Marx developed in Germany, Russia and spread was guided by Lenin? promoted. Both believed that the big e volume of people in the world of small Verm saws that have prospective employees? Ren. Therefore, they will revolt against the same to share wealth, and communism will dominate the world soon.
f) But both Marx and Lenin were “social revolution? re” and lacked “futuristic management thoughts” as the common Verm is? gene recycled to more and f lead? growing prosperity, to resemble the Bev? Lkerung its parts? This Descr? Nkten thought were the USSR (1922) and East Germany (GDR 1961) and created the wealth of this nation to the extreme “state”, is mentioned the whole Bev? Lkerung!
g) The state has a monopoly and all the people were were ordinary workers, without being held. The state took the job as a commodity, without motivation, ideas and incentives to use in order to improve the productive contribution spirit. AResult as the GDR collapsed in 1989 and the USSR in 1991 shrank, making the end of the 69-j? Olds communist concept. ? Both started about the F? Promotion of diametrically opposed capitalist approach and cooperation with the (imperialist) USA. (There was state primary orientation bears, secondary? People was orientation).
h) Communism could? survives and continues to have f as a guide? r f wealth and prosperity? all r V? peoples of the world if the local Bev? Lkerung “superior to” as the “State” was considered. The national wealth by the “state” owned sector projects should have been invested and committed to work the best group of people to manage and erf? Fill a targeted sales. State should all Bed? Rfnisse this group of people have taken. A fair share of the profits should have been distributed equally to all, as an incentive. Below and loss targets should have been called into question and Corrective measures? should have been taken. . (People should focus primary bears, state orientation should be secondary).
Dar? Over addition, the productivity of t and the decision by management to socio? Be economically in developing units oriented “. The domestic? Ndisches investment was from domestic? Ndisches savings and building services should be made to be occupied by domestic? Ndisches labor market < br />
J) REFERENCES
The whole matter is created and presented from the pr pioneered originally thought, know-how, innovative ideas, research and development orientation of the DR VSRS, with additional tzlicher supported estimation of: -?
< br />
1. http://www. drvsrs. com / polifina. htm
2. http://www. drvsrs. com / sedfull. htm
3. http://www. drvsrs. com / mgmtfull. htm
DR VSRS
Book Store – http://www. Lulu. com / drvsrs
Website – http://www. drvsrs. com
p>
Tags: Analysis, Attribute, Biological Species, Boggle, British Naturalist, Charles Darwin, Communism, Dimensional Analysis, Dimensional Concept, Economic Infrastructure, Extinction, Human Species, Margins, Natural Environment, Natural Selection, Organism, Pedigree, Science Of Biology, Social Infrastructure, Social Survival, Strong Belief
A critical commentary of Northern Irelands’ changing face of Community Work and the importance of the political sphere of influence
November 20th, 2010 by Admin | No Comments | Filed in CommunicationIntroduction
The context of construction for this paper is relatively simple and focuses on a personal need to bring one area of life to a close while opening the door to another. Three years of academic study of Youth & Community work – often related to a Northern Irish context – in England is concluding, while a career in that profession combined with further study beckons. Therefore a need for the author to fully understand the circumstances in which Northern Ireland resides in 2010. It is also intended that this paper will form the basis of the next period of academic study, further pursuing the issues and history which are touched on briefly in this paper.
To achieve the above, the important historical events which created and shaped the secular communities of Northern Ireland will be analysed and critically discussed. Using arguably the most important document of Anglo-Irish politics, it will be seen how secular has become singular, however is still challenged by the socio-religio-cultural web of influence which has been present. This paper is not placed to answer the questions of what went on previously, perhaps that is a discussion for the future. It will however, analyse key events, people and organisations in respect to the culture, politics and religions of Northern Ireland in order to link it to Community Work’s past failings. Once this has been achieved, recommendations will be drawn out, set out for all interested and engaged parties to see what a viable pathway for development is.
The Northern Ireland Context & Community Power
The history of Northern Ireland since it’s conception in 1921 is laden with key events, both positive but often negative. Such is the complexities of the community framework; these historical events have been instigated on very different but interrelated realms, including the influences of; political parties; religious sects; cultural organisations; community & residents groups; the British & Irish governments; international leaders and paramilitary organisations.
When attempting to analyse where our current facet of community has come from, it’s important to look at more recent key events rather than delving into the deep rooted past of over twenty years ago. This said, context remains important, and will be primarily called into question to understand developments of the society.
On the 30th of January, 1972 (Museum of Free Derry; 2005), thirteen men were shot dead by the British Army in Londonderry while taking part in Civil Rights Movement march which had been banned. While many believe these actions – and others relating to the social mobilisation of Catholics in this period – by the British Army to be the conception of thirty years of violence in Northern Ireland (Probert; 1978), the march itself was part of a wider series of events organised by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) (Widgery, Lord; 1972) who were organising against the corruption of a majority protestant local government (Minahan, J.B; 2000 & Lydon, J; 1998) lead by Faulkner. Prior to this in 1970, born out of the uprising of ill-feelings from the nationalist community, the Provisional IRA was created, a ruthless band of militants preparing to take the British State to account with the use of force (McCreary; 1975, Probert; 1978). There has indeed been a number of positive examples of community power coming into action within the country such as The Peace People led by 1976 Nobel Peace Prize winners Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan (Nobel Web AB; 2010 & Peacepeople.com; no date). As the example of the NICRA shows, it can often be overshadowed by the violent acts surrounding it. The NICRA movement and that key march in Londonderry, in personal opinion, must be accredited massively with being the catalyst of change against a corrupt Protestant majority oppressing a Catholic minority. Instead, it is memorialised – and rightly so – by many due to the losses and violence it suffered, and accused by some in the loyalist community as being trouble makers who deserved what they got. Wilson (1998) We will never know if NICRA’s peaceful means could have brought down the Northern Ireland government, rather than it being dissolved into direct rule due to the violent crisis in which the British Government had to be seen to be dealing with swiftly and effective. It is the opinion of this paper that it would have achieved this in a peaceful manner, however the timescale would have been much longer and the struggle against the sectarian government at Stormont much greater.
The Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement
Many believe The Good Friday Agreement (GFA) was only born out of talks taking place in Stormont from the new year of 1998 up until Easter, however this is a misconception. Many commentators (Craig, J; 2002, Morton, A; 2009) suggest the roots of the GFA where planted at the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1984. Personal feelings sugesst that the Downing Street talks of 1991 and the subsequent risks taken by John Hulme was the catalyst for change. Simply put; there can be little argument against the fact that the events of 1991 sparked a change in paramilitary circles, leading the IRA and Loyalist Ceasefires of 1994. For the first time in almost thirty years, the people of Northern Ireland faced a minimal level of conflict, albeit briefly.
The British Governments acceptance of Sinn Fein lead to a change of psyche within republican circles, and was a long way from the voice bans of the Thatcher years only three years prior (BBC News; 2005). Republicans were accepted into the political talks with British government officials, which not only angered unionists, but hard line republicans in the process as well, in the end, forcing a split which resulted in the Real IRA. It would be foolish to say that this was a cataclysmic event in republican communities, however the choices which the Loyalist and Unionist community of Northern Ireland were about to face would be much more demanding. In personal opinion, the key event which directly led to the development of the GFA was the democratically elected ‘Northern Ireland Forum’ of 1996 (Whyte, N; 2003). This was the first major step towards devolved, cross community government by getting political representatives from all sides of the divide to begin communicating with each other.
The Changing Face: Pre-GFA Community Work
In majority Catholic areas, “Concerned Resident’s Groups” received a large amount of publicity by the press surrounding their objections to Loyal Order parades through their areas. These received a lot of criticism in Loyalist circles, as often there would be a distinct connection to Sinn Fein as well as the ‘chairperson’ of many of these groups being found to be not from these areas. A well known example is that of the Garvaghy Road, were Brendan McKenna was leader of the local residents group in protesting against Portadown Orange Lodge’s demands to walk down that particular road (BBC News; 2007). While being leader of this particular residents group in Portadown, he was a resident of West Belfast, over thirty miles away.
Where community work in republican areas have always been associated closely with Sinn Fein, in loyalist areas, the links have not been with political organisations, but more with the paramilitary groups associated with the ‘policing’ of the local area. Of course there have been aligned Political parties such as The Progressive Unionist Party (PUP), and to an extent historically, Ian Paisleys’ Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) were closely aligned to the loyalist workers movements of the 1980′s and was seen as the face of the Ulster Workers Council strike of 1974 due to his opposing of the Sunningdale Agreement (BBC News; no date, Probert; 1978). Indeed, Paisley is regarded as the godfather of Ulster Loyalism and the face of Northern Irish Politics, his famous speech in November 1985 cemented his legacy and outlined the depth of opposition felt towards a more extensive agreement, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which Prime Minister Thatcher supported due to wanting to create better links between Britain and the Republic of Ireland. In this renowned speech to over 100,000 people at Belfast City Hall, Reverend Paisley stated;
“I want to ask a question today. And the question is simple. Where do the terrorists operate from? From the Irish Republic! That’s where they come from! Where do the terrorists return to for Sanctuary? To the Irish Republic! And yet Mrs. Thatcher tells us that that Republic must have some say in our province! We say NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!”
(Youtube.com; 2009).
This is not to say that the paramilitary’s themselves were openly the face of community work, rather it was well known names of the organisations or ex-members being seen in the press as ‘community workers’ (BBC News; 2009). Grass-roots, front line community workers have a great deal of scepticism surrounding them due to this, and it will take a lot before the general public will be won over by the profession.
The Good Friday Agreement and Community Work
Although not totally explicit in its intentions, The Good Friday Agreement does make quite a number of references to Community Work, particularly in respect to reconciliation initiatives (Northern Ireland Office; 1998). In respect to institutions which would be established; The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission would have a “…membership from Northern Ireland reflecting the community balance…” (Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity – Human Rights -Section 5); Equality Commission to replace four sub-commissions (Section 6) and discussions to further consider a dedicated Department
Tags: Academic Study, Changing, Changing Face, commentary, Community, Community Framework, Complexities, critical, Critical Commentary, Culture Politics, Face, Further Study, History Of Northern Ireland, Importance, Important Historical Events, Influence, Irelands', Irish Context, Irish Politics, Northern, Northern Irelands, Pathway, Personal Need, political, Political Parties, Political Sphere, Religions, Secular Communities, Singular, sphere, Sphere Of Influence, Work