Therese, I think you raise a valid point. Honestly, how can one plant bombs and then make a statement that there was no intent to kill? I am reminded of a certain mentality that men of the American revolution had when it came to the consideration of violence, and its perceived “necessity” in the realm of generating change within a firmly rooted ideological structure. Consider this quote from Thomas Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” This quote is from a letter that Jefferson wrote to W. Smith in 1787. The mentality it presupposes is relevant when discussing the uprisings in Ireland. Along these lines, I resonated with another sentiment in the video, which implied there can be no peace without war or violence—in other words, the light does not exist if there is no dark. I’m not entirely sure where I fall on the spectrum of these ideas—I would not want to project a view that insinuates I am a supporter of wars. I will note, however, that the video footage we’ve been exposed to has put my opinion of revolution and revolt in a new frame. I understand better that there are moments when forceful retaliation is needed in the face of injustice.
I say the above fully aware of the contradicting ideas that spring from it. For example, there is much to be gained by meditating on the political tactics of Ghandi and the “eye for an eye” argument… even still, I do see that uprising is sometimes the action that must be taken–the action that will elicit the most change in the quickest amount of time. These thoughts are challenging my interpretation of poetry’s role in political discourse: what is it in poetry (and even in other dimensions of art) that incur change and inspire/fuel revolutionary movements? Heaney himself seems to ruminate on this question, for example in part six of “Singing School”: “How did I end up like this? […]/ As I sit weighing and weighing/ my responsible tristia./ For what? For the ear? For the people?” In this section of the poem, it seems to me that Heaney is questioning poetry’s place within the violence of revolution. If the writing is for the people, how is it justifiable when people are causing chaos and killing one another? If he is writing for the ear, how is that any good in the face of greater forces that are causing destruction? Is there room for art in midst of the raging tides of uprising and war? I would personally say yes: Heaney’s poetry—at least in the context of our class—provides a lens through which the reader can learn to humanize the conflicts in Ireland at the time of the Terrors. Heaney’s act of writing poetry is an admission, and arguably a counter to the quote from Jefferson, that there are non-violent responses to war that can elicit change and challenge the roots of ideological systems. Heaney bring this idea to light in his reference to Goya: Art has an important place in the discourse of political change, and ignoring that fact only fosters greater violence to an already chaotic circumstance.
.