Jonathan Powell and the IRA

Lord Soley

Unfortunately I missed the programme on radio 4 last week when Jonathan Powell (Tony Blair’s political adviser) had a programme about ‘talking to the enemy’. There is a very important debate around this issue and obviously it goes much wider then the talks with the Provisional IRA. Jonathan makes an important point when he says that that talks can rarely work unless there is a recognition that neither side can get outright victory and that also means there has to be an understanding of each sides basic position.

In the early 1980’s when I was a fairly new MP I went to see some of the political party’s in Northern Ireland who had a military wing engaged in violence. I saw both Unionist and Republican. I shall be giving a talk on this in the Irish Centre in Hammersmith on October 13th.

When I met Gerry Adams and Danny Morrison on the second occasion I wanted to know if they accepted that Britain could not withdraw from Ireland and that if we did it would produce greater violence. In order to explore this I asked what they would do if a British government announced a withdrawal. After several circular arguments about what would happen next Danny Morrison said “Look we are not daft – we are not going to invade the Shankill” . I knew then that they were facing the hard fact that a British withdrawal would have been a disaster for them.

I would like to know if the Real IRA currently engaged in a bombing campaign understands the same basic fact. Maybe I should ask them.

19 comments for “Jonathan Powell and the IRA

  1. 19/08/2010 at 8:04 am

    Would somebody please explain to me why so many highly-trained, highyl-paid, and prrsumably highly life-experienced Leaders and public-advocates are unable to become competent in the use of all-round-representative (a-r-r) Win-Win-Win-Win-Win participatotily-cooperative needs-recognition and problem-solving ?

    Supplementarily please explain why there is not one generic-level citizen’s handbook for the individual-citizen to self-equip with scrutiny, reasoning, thinking and decision-making skills ?

    Even a tiny companion for clear-argumentation and cleaning-up poor-argumentation from others is not in common use nor being recommended.
    Check out “A Rulebook for Arguments” (4th edition) by Anthony Weston 2009.
    That the latter is by a USA teacher should surely help us British to become adequate in our use of of own English and now worldwide language ?

    I served in Northern Ireland, in khaki, and I understand both the highest-level strategic needs and the on-the-ground neighbourhood day-to-day living tasks.

    And even as a private soldier I cold communicate with both catholic and protestant (and sometimes ‘atheistic’ local-residents).

    So what is the real problem in doing win-win-win governance and neighbourhood problem-solving ?

    ============
    (JSDM0804Th19Aug10)

  2. 19/08/2010 at 2:54 pm

    Lord Soley,
    I applaud your conversations. I assure you that I mean that sincerely. Real peacemaking invloves conversation and more I think. Not everything need be horrifically expensive for either side. I feel as one who did a tiny bit of work with the Ulster Project bringing Catholic and Protestant teens from NI together here in the USA I can say a few words. Investing in joint worship services on rare but real occasions, seating Sinn Fein somehow, possibly an NI hereditary peer of the most impeccable Catholic old Irish Gaelic background or any number of other projects however slow and faltering may fill a vacuum. Decrying violence alone is perhaps not the most inefective technique imaginable but it is more often used than successful.

  3. ZAROVE
    20/08/2010 at 2:51 am

    Ask and you may end up with a bullet in your brain. The “Real ” IRA are not really real, they are an extremist group who simply want their ends and refuse to see Reason. The IRA of old, while a Militant Terrorist Group, was not so blinded by Ideology and sentiment that it could no longer see anything but its vision, but this group I think is far more Militant, but thankfully also far smaller. Perhaps the last, dying gasp of he Terrors form a small but vocal, and unfortunately lethal, group of Republican Separatists.

    Personally I think they should simply be treated as the Criminals they are, and even the Nationalists think so.

    For God And Ulster.

  4. 20/08/2010 at 7:46 am

    “Sometimes a light surpriseth
    The pray-er as he prays”.

    So says an old spiritual hymn to old or past, to young or future, to all ‘holy’-humans alike.

    Try taking a tiny spiritual-lens here, and through it you may ‘see’ or ‘catch’ a glimpse of such usually ‘hidden’ or ‘taken-for-granted’ ‘divine’-intelligence:

    Lord Soley uses the phrase “talking to the enemy”, which when turned-over we know actually means “talking *with* the enemy”; certainly not to be conflated (confused-in-actual-practice) with “giving the enemy a good talking-to”.

    That we need to be talking *with* each other is immediately relected by FWSIII,who prioritises *conversation* between parties, be we friendly, neutral, or enemy.

    Walking beside me we shall be *in parallel*
    and more likely to reach a positive-resolution to the needs we discuss than we would if we were planted four-square face-to-face, as if in a coliseum-like gladatorial fight-to-the-death or even in a similarly four-square face-to-face ‘examination’ by a psychiatrist.

    Edward de Bono (GB) showed that such a clear distinction needs to have been made prior to entering into “talking with” any-one, so that each party knows when ‘contrary’ thinking is happening and when ‘parallel’ variations are needed.
    Thus his “Six Thinking Hats”.

    Similarly Thomas Gordon saw the need to ditinguish between “methods I, II, and III” in problem-solving. I being the sort of problem that the Parent or the Boss almost always wins such as “ten pm children, off to bed now please”, II being the sort that the children tend to win “Saturday afternoon Dad, we’re off to the park to play ball”; and Method III whereby no party comes to the empty problem-solving table with any comparative or competitive advantage, no ‘professional-stethoscope’ nor ‘age-disadvantage’, but to work ‘in-parallel’ through five simple steps such that every – one finishes having self-realised their own particular need and having considered different possible solutions as to how each and all needs could be satisfied without any-one ‘losing’ or having to make a ‘copromise’.
    Thus his ‘win-win-win’ book “Leadership Effectiveness Training”.

    Johnson and Johnson realised certain contrasts, to the point of ‘conflict’, exist between the ‘successful’ group of people and ‘unsuccessful’ group,
    Thus their book “Joining Together”.

    The UN WHO Declaration of Primary Health Care was intended to supplement, especially to precede primary-medical-care *not* to be dissolved out of existence that pre-existing latter monopoly.
    Thus “Health Care Together” by Johnston (Australia) and Rifkin (UK)on the necessary separation between *competitively directive (one-way)* and *cooperatively participative (multi-way)* skills.

    Chamala & Mortiss thus also contributed “Working Together For Land Care”;

    Cornelius & Faire took the samme ‘win-win-win’ methodology up a serious grade into Conflict-Resolution.
    Thus their “Every-One Can Win” workbook and brief set of “Fouls” to be avoided.
    —–
    Let me suggest one or two questions now (and give the answers in a later Reply under this same Post)

    Q1 Identify the sub-topics, phrases or key-words in Lord Soley’s Post that contain the following cruxes:
    (a) that an antagonistic ‘conflict’ rather than a mere shared friendly ‘problem’ is already deeply established here (between one ‘side’ and another);
    (b) what mediation is being suggested, by whom, and in what sort of timeframe(s) ?
    (c) which of the ‘six thinking hats’ stands out strongly in this Post, and which seem to be totally absent ?

    Q2 In his rejoinder Frank W Summers III strongly recommends one of the two ‘talking-with’ steps that had been missdd-out or had failed in the situation described by Lord Soley.
    (d) What two steps were missed in the reported current Irish-British issue ?
    (e) Which of those two steps does FWS recommend at the outset ?
    (f) Which of FWS’s words show
    (i) a ‘cooperative and participative’ shared-mindset ?
    (ii) a ‘competitive and directive’ confrontational-mindset ?
    (iii) the underpinning necessity of value-appreciation ?

    Q3 (g)Which rules for clear communication and constructive argumentation would best bring such a conflict-situation under constructively-cooperative control ?

    ( ‘Rules’ given by Anthony Weston in “A Rulebook for Arguments” have been suggested above; and also suggested now are the five-steps of a Method III friendly problem-solving meeting, see under Baroness D’Souza’s “Lunch at the Supreme Court” 27 July 2010; and the similar Conflict-Resolution steps plus short-list of ‘Fouls’ under Baroness Deech’s “Summer Jobs” 30 July 2010).
    ———
    JSDM’s own suggested answers may probably follow hereunder in a few days time, DV.
    =====================
    (JSDM0747F20Aug2010)

    • 20/08/2010 at 3:21 pm

      Meanwhile, I agree with Zarove, that a small minority, be they of anonymously balaclava’d terrorists or of highly-respected governance-parliamentarians, can and do play upon Contrasts between the needs and hows of one People as distinct from the different needs and hows of another.
      The traditional political “divide, then you can rule” tenet is the ‘nasty’ here, the small-power-group acting not for the good of each contrasting People, but for their own special-small-group profits.

      That’s my extended sort of ‘paraphrase’, I realise;
      but there are two writers tackling this dual-problem between (1) the contrastingly-cultured Peoples-on-the-ground as the ‘numbers’ and (2) the politically-self-centred manipulators and exploiters of such differences.

      Gary Younge and his currently released book “Who Are We” is interviewed in Booktalk on BBC Parliament channel today (Fri 20 Aug) following the European Parliament which followed in the same overall programme timeframe of the “Disabled Persons Act 1970 Debate” in the Upper House.
      Mr Younge looks coolly and carefully into a number of big ‘differences’ between different communities and nations of people, and shows how such big-issues as “burkhas are terrorist disguises”-versus-“the infidels are only wanting to burn up all our Oil in their own pursuit of drug-taking and other unworthy selfish-pleasures” (my quote-marks not Mr Younge’s), and finds insights for us as individuals as well as as world-citizens.

      A much earlier workbook called “Every-One Can Win” by Helena Cornelius and Shoshana Faire, of the internationally-acclaimed Australian Conflict Resolution Network, points at its outset to the fact that Win-Win-Win methodology requires participatorily-cooperative equality under a necessary sequence and set of rules;
      such that any-one who does not agree to such an equally cooperative method can always turn away into the formal-law-courts, to fight win-lose or lose-win, for whatever it is they need, or for however they want to go about satisfying that need.
      ———————–
      Life, our Identities, and our Needs-problems have many faces, many contrasts.
      In “The King and I” the King often has to say (in broken-English) “Is a puzzle !” – (‘Tis a Puzzle); and we know that many kinds of political and inter- social ‘jigsaw’ puzzle can and often do have several pieces missing, some deliberately ‘lost’ from availability to us.
      Our own Gilbert and Sullivan wrote (and sang) somesuch as follows:
      “There lived a king as I’ve been told, In the wonder working days of old, Whose heart was twice as good as gold, And twenty times as mellow;
      Good temper triumphed in his face, And in his heart he found a place For all the errant human race And every wretched fellow;
      When he had Rhenish wine to drink, It made him very sad to think, That some at junket or at Jink, Must be content with Toddy.
      He wished all men as rich as he (And he was rich as rich could be); So to the top of every tree he promoted every-body.

      “Lord Chancellors were cheap as sprats, And Bishops in their shovel hats, Were plentiful as tabby-cats, In point of fact too many;
      “Ambassadors cropped up like hay, Prime Ministers and such as they, Grew like asparagus in May, And Dukes were three-a-penny;
      On every side Field-Marshals gleamed, Small beer were Lords Lieutenant deemed, With Admirals the ocean teemed, All round his wide dominions;
      And Party-Leaders you might meet In twos and threes in every street
      Maintaining (with no little heat), Their various opinions.

      “That king although no one denies His heart was of abnormal size; Yet he’d have acted otherwise, If he had been acuter;
      The end is easily foretold, When every blessed thin you hold, Is made of silver or of gold, You long for simple Pewter;
      When you have nothing else to wear But cloth of gold and satins rare, For cloth of gold you cease to care, Up goes the price of Shoddy.

      “In short whoever you may be, To this conclusion you’ll agree – ‘When everyone is some-bod-eee, Then no-one’s anybody’! “.

      ==========

      I believe that in a real sense people are coming to see that Friendly Win-Win-Win Participatorily-Cooperative Problem-Solving needs to be made our first and ongoing main resort, for immediate and short-term micro-problems between two or three people as much as for big and long-term needs and macro-problems at high-governance and United Nations levels.

      This Method III is easy to find and to print out, from under Baroness D’Souza’s post “Lunch at the Supreme Court” 25 July2010: see JSDM’s comment at 10.35pm 25 July.
      At least thus one may have a chance to prepare for, and if need be help to steer or lead, such a Method III friendly needs-recognition and problem-solving meeting.
      ==========
      For Country, all Peoples, and for “’God’, Who Alone Can Keep Us From Falling”.
      (JSDM1521F20Aug10)

    • 20/08/2010 at 7:38 pm

      JSDM,
      I appreciate your words of analysis and relative or complete kind regard for my comments. I am not Irish of any kind but am I think an entirely assertive Roman Catholic and have many friends from the Republic of Ireland and the North although we are out of touch. I respect what you have to say because I see that you are a man of action who believes in seeking peace.

      The Catholic Royalists of Ireland were invaded by the republicans of Britain and somehow things have gotten changed since. I do believe that while Zarove may be justified in feeling as he does and I think the death penalty for injury to noncombatants killed in an iregular war is always presuambly the right thing and while I believe that Ulster had a certain claim to autonomy in ancient times that endures — none of that means the situation is really alright.

      The things I mentioned to Lord Soley would not make it all perfect either. I would imagine Sinn Fein would have to wear a kind of scarlet letter on security matters that would be offensive to both sides. There might be a brawl if Saint Patrick’s Day Eve services were held between the Catholic and the Church of Ireland Cathedrals. One Gaelic Thane and Viscount of Armagh even if given a nice house and some acres will neither change the one side nor the other in fundamental ways. But with due respect to the men of conscience such as yourself and some of your terrorist enemies — war of this kind is sad and pathetic. Moving to a new form of social effort is justied if just to end the stultifying effects on the combatants’ souls even if the violence did not decrease.

      • 21/08/2010 at 9:33 pm

        What is the difference beween an ‘irregular’ and a ‘regular’ war ? or peace come to that ?
        JSDM

        • 23/08/2010 at 1:47 am

          JSDM,
          Civilized does not mean good. I know this and know some lovely really uncivilized people you may not have the chance to know. So when I say we are becoming post civilized that is different than saying everything is worse now. But for you to ask the question you do adds to the vast number of facts indicating the death of civilization.
          Regular wars between sovereigns taking responsibility in defined international rules are basic to real human civiliztion sad as that fact is. In practice there is always some deviation from this and often horrible deviation but when socio-political objectives are scarcely furthered by either side and the current phase is part of centuries of conflict that is sadly irregular. When the war is fought without much formal respect between the parties in a way which makes negotiation and central command difficult and one side of a war are cops and politicians and the other side are saboteurs, assassins and folk leaders that is sadly irregular. It is hard for us to believe now but Incas, Sioux Indians, Samurais, Norman Conquerors and French Musketeers really sacrificed for honorable regularity. It does tend to at least build something. Being close to it you may not see how (despite fighting men everywhere respecting courage and skill on both sides)this war has really been disreputable for everyone in your neighborhood. Yes, I mean that — in this big bad nasty world it ought to be a but embarassing.People all over find it a bit shameful.

  5. ZAROVE
    21/08/2010 at 7:13 pm

    To be fair I don’t think Sein Fein is really responsible for the actions of the so-called Real IRA. They are an offshoot orginisation who simply pushes a hard line take no prisoners stance, and in truth aren’t really that concerned with the Religious Matters most think of right off. Many in the Real IRA are Socialists who have little to no affinity for Catholic Teachings, for example. They also have some openly Atheist members, and even some Protestant Members. Much like the Loyalists have some Devout Catholics who simply wish to remain a part of the United Kingdom.

    The main goal of the Real IRA is Nationalism, not Catholicism.

    • 23/08/2010 at 1:33 am

      Zarove,
      You do not have my name on the post but seem to be replying to me based on content. Brevity in this format makes it hard to show how ones does & does not agree in great specificity. I think much of what you say is right. Not the parts that undermine what I was saying I spoke of filling a vacuum. Old fashioned British equity (really old fashioned) suggests the actions I suggested or their analogs. Catholicism is surely an issue as you surely know. The point is does one build an Ulster consensus as part of the UK based in reality and looking toward the future or does one proceed as the trajectory of history there predicts. Reunion with the South is something I can stomach quite well. The current state of affairs and its antecedents are a bit remote. But being where I am commenting and thinking of real folks I know caused me to make the comments I did. Surface issues change but I do not think NI well-governed is that clearer?

  6. ZAROVE
    23/08/2010 at 7:50 pm

    I was actually addressing mostly JD, and my point was mainly this: While the affair is usually seen as Protestants and Catholics having at each other, the reason for the Animosity is usually Political. The Cultural Aspects are that the Unionists are Overwhelmingly Protestant and from a Protestant Culture, while the Catholic Faith is deeply Ingrained in the rest of th Irish Culture generally.

    The Religious aspect o this battle is simply about Culture, with the Catholic Church being a rallying point for the Irish Nationalists, and the protestant faith for the Union Loyalists. But they weren’t shooting at each other over Theological matters.

    I don’t really think Reunion is good, simply because Ulster tends not to have wanted his. Though since 1999 they have let Nationalist Immigration grow so that the Populace is more evenly divided and I suspect that Blair wanted the scales to tip and there be that magical 51% democratic majority in Ulster so that it’d be ceded to Ireland and he could be rid of it.

    Still, my principle point is, you can’t approach this as simply a Religious debate, and must take into consideration what the fight is actually all about.

    And, the Real IRA is still just a gang of criminals who refuse to give up the fight while everyone else has made peace already.

    • 24/08/2010 at 10:49 am

      Zarove,
      I think that as long as the UK holds NI it is in their interest and rights to make provisions to keep it together and make it workable. Secondly, I applaud the current Legislative Assembly and I think that if the ship this blog represnts ever sinks as regards NI then the children of Unionists will have a much stronger basis today going forward for arguing that Ulster be treated as an autonomous region with minority rights more secure for their community than has ever been the case before.
      Your belief that “And, the Real IRA is still just a gang of criminals who refuse to give up the fight while everyone else has made peace already…” is still the same thing that has been said about the IRA minus the Real at various other junctures. I appreciate also that in your own way you are trying to defuse the hostility between faiths. My experience leads me to believe that minimizing this source of conflict rhetorically is not the answer.But it is better than inflammatory rhetoric which I have not used.

  7. ZAROVE
    24/08/2010 at 11:36 pm

    I’m not minimizing the source of conflict, though, and thats the point. If we focus on Religious differences you’ll end up with hugging Bishops talking theology whilst embracing the tolerance of disagreement over the Faiths and stressing unity, while the Loyalists will insist we discuss British Sovereignty and the Unionists Irish Cultural Links. It won’t get us any where.

    There are Catholic Loyalists and Protestant Unionists. The Religions themselves are deeply ingrained in the conflict because they represent the Culture. The Loyalists by and large descend from the Scots, Hence why most are Presbyterian, an why the Presbyterian Church has so much to do with the Loyalist Cause, because it is a rallying point. The Catholic Church is obviously a part of the Irish Culture, too, and makes an excellent rallying point. They are different, so they can also be used to draw lines. But the actual conflict was always over political and social factors, not Theology.

    • 27/08/2010 at 11:16 pm

      Zarove,
      The Brits and the Irish have been having troubles since 1670 more or less continuously. Perhaps it is not too odd we cannot get it all squared away today. I have a feeling that if pressed and willing you could probably expose me to cultural truths about your region (Southern Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee?) that I do not know despite being an American and visiting all these places. I give you a link to my blog to see where I really live: http://franksummers3ba.wordpress.com/acadian-forum-archive/glossary-of-terms-casually-defined/
      But for all our differences your folks and mine get along most of the time. I am just saying that I think cultural differences cause undesirable conflict less than is believed. The same may be true of religion. But whatever is true — this si not an easy question…

  8. ZAROVE
    28/08/2010 at 9:41 pm

    Thats sort of my point. The conflict can’t just be Religious, as Catholics and Protestants aren’t shooting each other in Edinbourough, Canterbury, Cornwall, or the Isle of Man.Nor in the USA.

    The trouble in Ulster is the struggle for National and Cultural Identity between Loyalists and Nationalists. Protestant Culture as understood by the Scots-Irish in the North VA Catholic Culture by the Irish Nationals.

    As to the US, we have a mor eintegrated sytem now than before 1865. The Southern States tend to have a lot roe in common than western or New England or other Northern States have with the Souh, but even so there is a difference ebteen Tennessee culture and Georgia Culture. ( And I live in South Eastern Tennessee, closer to Georgia than Kentuky.)

    Durin the Civil War, the North and South fought a bloody conflict, which was over far more than just slavery. It was baotu Culture, and how rthe Southern States didn’t feel as if they were represented properly in the Union.

    The aftermath of the Civil War din’t lead to automatic reconciliation either, snd for decades Southerners hated Northerners. Lincolns face added to the Penny was seen as an outrage, especially to Confederate Veterans. This Tyrant is being Honoured?

    Still, over tie all the States seem to have adopted this idea that “We are Americans”, rather han ” We are tennesseeans” or “We are Louisianans” or “We are Virginians” or “We are Georgians”.

    Only Texas retains any of its independant identity as a political and cultural Unit, the rest of the states are sublets of a regional clure that is a sublculture of Greater America.

    Ireland simply never fully aquiesed and a large part of this is becsue Westminster was a lot nicer to Ireland than Lincoln and his successors weee to th States they occupied after conwuest.

    While the irish may remind us of abuses, it was nothign like the Union occupation during reconstruction.

    Beides, the irish are a tenacious people, and had a distinct national idenity since before England came along, muh less henry Tudor.

    The States, except texas and Lpuisiana, trace back to colonial origins, either direclty or indirectly, and had the same basic history.

    Still, there are differences, but we favour Union now and, Ironiclaly, the Suth is th emost patriotic region int he whole Union.

    But the point remaisn that Ulster is a lot more ocmplex than mere Theology, and the battle is not over Theology alone, else simle Religious Tolrnce woudl hve set in there as it has elsewhere.

    • 29/08/2010 at 1:52 am

      Zarove,
      I am afraid you kind of took a nose dive on historical accuracy. The Spanish and French colonial influences are huge so was the Mexican sythesis and cover a larger area than the Brits and still have huge institutional support in those regions. The Dutch, Russian and Swedish colonial influences are harder to catalogue in their regions but still are very real. Anglo to American is a very important story but it is not the only story except in the fairy tales of some periods of American elementary school texts. But I think we have gone on far enough and should leave this post to others so I may not answer your rejoinder and you can ignore one of mine somewhere in return….
      Most of what you said I agree with however.

  9. 29/08/2010 at 1:09 pm

    Answers JSDM’s proffered ‘quiz’:

    Q1 Identify the sub-topics, phrases or key-words in Lord Soley’s Post that contain the following cruxes:
    (a) that an antagonistic ‘conflict’ rather than a mere shared friendly ‘problem’ is already deeply established here (between one ’side’ and another);

    Answer (a): “talking with the enemy”, “very important debate around this issue”, “Provisional IRA”, “military wing engaged in violence”, “Britain could not withdraw from Ireland” (jm qua Ulster not Eire ?) nor do so without it “provoking violence”, “outright victory”, “invade the Shankill – British withdrawal would be a disaster” (for the Danny Morrison –Gerry Adams Irish);
    Lord Soley’s closing line also indicates the absence of any win-win-win resort “I would lke to know if the Real IRA currently engaged in a bombing campaign understands the same basic fact” (as does the Adams-Morrison Irish population).

    Q1(b) what mediation is being suggested, by whom, and in what sort of timeframe(s) ?
    Answer (b): ‘LS “a very important debate (going much wider than)””talks with the Provisional IRA” ‘;
    ‘LS (intimating that one-to-one mediation e.g. by himself and (i) in the early 1980’s some of the political-party’s (sic) who had a military wing, both Unionist and Republican” and (ii) on the second occasion Gerry Adams and Danny Morrison, is a part of the Mediation: ‘.

    ‘JSDM intimates that “A Rulebook for Arguments” by Anthony Weston; and a win-win-win governance resort; would help in mediation.

    ‘LWSIII suggests that: (i) Lord Soley’s reported conversations are eminently helpful as mediation in real peacemaking (ii) joint worship services between Catholics and Protestants (iii) seating contrastingly different Irish members and project-leaders (iv) not using ‘decrying violence’ as the most effective technique’.

    ‘Zarove: that the republican separatist (‘real’ IRA) should be treated as Criminals’.’

    ‘Edward de Bono: “Six Thinking Hats” (helps in all kinds of problem-solving and mediation’).

    ‘Thomas Gordon: Method III win-win-win participatorily cooperative problem-solving (could peacefully resolve all needs, hows, and affordable-costs problems)’.

    ‘Johnson & Johnson: (people-groups having effectivising skills will achieve success whereas people-groups not having such effectivising skills will fail)’.

    ‘Johnston & Rifkin: (people-groups becoming competent in two-way communication skills, being conversant with the contrasts between competitively-directive and cooperatively-participatory meetings and choosing dominantly the latter will succeed, whereas people-groups choosing dominantly the former will fail)’.

    ‘Chamala & Mortiss: (win-win-win succeeds in land-care management and problems)’.

    ‘Cornelius & Faire: (not simply ‘friendly-stage’ problems but ‘stand-off conflicts’ can be best-solved by win-win-win methodology)’.

    ‘Zarove and LWSIII seem to agree that the Ireland South versus North conflict consists of a complex of needs-and-hows seen contrastingly by more than one sector i.e. by different Cultural, Religious, Social, Economic and Political bodies; and that neither military-warfare nor civil-violence either is or produces the lasting constructive peace that practically every sector and body says it needs’.

    —————-
    (c) Which of the “six thinking hats” stands out strongly in this Post, and which seem tol be totally absent ?
    Answer (c): In Lord Soley’s Post, the Black-hat stands out most strongly; followed closely (and sometimes overtakingly) by a largely-unconsciously-dominant Red-hat.
    Much White hat basic-factual material is absent; much Green-hat ‘creative-potential’ is missing; some Yellow-hat news (positive and successfully-happy life material and potential) seems sadly missing: in short one has to look carefully for signs of the Yellow, Green, and White modes of thinking.
    The Blue-hat disciplinary-need very often appears , though unconsciously and not overtly as “let us now plan what order of Thinking-modes to go through in or next session”.

    End of Q1 answers-by-jm.
    =======
    (Answers to Q2 intended for early next month, DV).

    (JSDM1309Sn29Aug10)

  10. ZAROVE
    03/09/2010 at 8:47 pm

    Mr. Summers, I am not being inaccurately, just not thorough, in regards tot he Americas. When I was talking, I spoke mainly of cultural, and more importantly legal, customs. Despite the fact that other bodies Colonised the North American Continent, the Truth is, the legal base in 49 out of 50 States is still rooted in English Common Law, and runs along the lines of England or Great Britain.

    Wyoming, California, and Alaska were never Colonies of Great Britain but their legal codes are still rooted in English Common Law and Practice. They are still divided into Counties, and still run according to a very British, if modified, model.

    Louisiana alone as a State runs its laws on earlier French Precedent, and divides itself into Parishes rather than Counties. French Law is also heavily base don Roman Law, though so is French.

    Culturally, the same holds true. Despite the differign Colonial pasts, most states, except Hawa’ii and Louisiana, tend to have the same overall “American” CUlture, which is a shared view about hwo society shoudl run. But everythign Americans think of as Distinctly American tends to be modified form the British CUltural past.

    Hawa’ii and Louisiana still have divergent Cultures, though Hawa’ii uses the British Based Legal system.

    Though qwith the increasing influence of Hispanic Cultures the cultural aspect is changing, its tsill basiclaly the General American Culture as given to us by Americas Founding Fathers, who base dit on British Custom.

    Except in Louisiana, and Hawaii.

    And the Law Codes are still base don English Common law and principles of British Legal and Govenrmental THought. Excep tin Louisiana alone.

    • 04/09/2010 at 1:40 pm

      Quite true!
      For those reading along but not enough to avoid being confused I am from Louisiana and my ancestors arrived here in the eighteenth century on the Broussard and Leblanc sides of my family. Quite a good summary Zarove considering space limitations…

Comments are closed.