Essay on Different Historical Interpretations of Bloody Sunday

In August 1998 the IRA claimed responsibility for a car bomb which killed 28 and injured 220 in the Northern Irish Town of Omagh. The bombing was the worst terrorist activity in nearly three decades for Ireland. While claiming responsibility for the blast an IRA representative anonymously told an Irish newspaper “Despite media reports, it was not our intention at any time to kill any civilians. It was a commercial target, part of the ongoing war against the Brits. We offer our apologies to the civilians,”

The five deaths were unjustified and unneeded. All of the five men were unarmed at the time of the shootings. If someone throws an apple at you, you don’t shoot him or her. In a today’s court system I believe them British soldiers would have been guilty and been convicted with murder. “Adams said, the killing were justified and blamed the violence of the immigrant Patrick Carr and Crispus Attucks'; (Mahin 1). So if Adams believes the death of the five men were blamed on them two how come they weren’t just arrested and how come the others were shot. “Adams told the jury

Flanagan shot himself during the car chase with police officers that ensued following the attack and died of his injuries. As previously mentioned, there has since been discussion surrounding the appropriateness of the coverage that followed these attacks. It is relevant to analyse and examine the media coverage of the tragedy in order to gain a thorough understanding of how this incident is indeed an ethical dilemma.

On April 29th the day of the verdict, there were reporters both inside and outside the court room. This would add to how wide spread the unrest would occur and how fast it would develop. The verdict had come out that all four police officers were found not guilty on all accounts except for one account on one officer in which it was ruled a mistrial on that account.4 With the large amount of media coverage and the anticipation of a guilty verdict by many of the local citizens, the disturbances and violence spread quickly .

Therefore the march was announced to gain back voting rights. The march was sought out, approximately a hundred years after the civil war, on March 7, 1965. Martin Luther King Jr. along with key organizer, John Lewis who was the leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, led the march to Selma. John Lewis emphasized the idea of protesting without retaliation, despite situations where others commit violence to them (the protesters/demonstrators).18 Once Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, and six hundred others reached the Ettmus Pettus Bridge, they were approached by Alabama State Troopers who ordered the protesters to halt their march. The protesters continued to walk, then were suddenly attacked by deputies. “The demonstrators were tear-gassed, clubbed, spat on, whipped, trampled by horse, and jeered by others.”19 This event displays the unlawfulness of society, who would much rather treat/ assault unarmed African Americans as if they were criminals. Even if the demonstrators did not pose as a threat to the community, regardless the demonstrators were still physically punished. The news media and newspaper articles called this event “Bloody Sunday,”

I do understand that they used multiple media sources so the information they gathered is most likely factually sound, but media sources also tend to “steal” information from other media sources as well, so there is a possibility of the information being misconstrued.

Was D-Day a good idea? How did we overcome their army of soldiers? How is this still affecting us in the life we live today? D-Day was a battle of WWII that was the most important because it turned the war towards the allies. It was a surprise blitz, a huge turning point in the war, and a response tactic to the allies.

The first source is a Newspaper article from The New York Times dated May 5th, 1970, a day after the shooting. This second hand source is filled with first hand quotes from people who were there and experienced the shooting. This article also includes the basic information of how everything happened at that tragic event. This newspaper article was used to tell the people of America, what tragic event had happened which ended up increasing the antiwar movement because of the anger that it sparked in Americans and the repression on the first amendment to freely and peacefully assemble. The New York Times is an extremely reliable source. This article in particular pertaining to the shooting does not hold many opinions, but only shows the true fact of the incident.

To begin with, there were a few witnesses present during the shooting and were later brought in for questioning. One of the biggest controversies begins with the question,

The People’s Temple was a new religious movement founded on April 4th, 1955 by founder James Warren Jones. The movement had over 1000 members and lived on together, segregated from the outside society in a small encampment of Jonestown in the country of Guyana. The encampment which claimed to be a utopia, over time changed into an environment delegates have never signed up to be a part of, being part of one of the world’s most unfortunate massacre incidents.

Arthur Massacre) and comparing these with acts committed in the name of a “cause” (terrorism) by

On one very sad day last year in 2014 there was a shooting at parliament hill . A man named Zack killed one soldier. Tons of people were stacking up furniture blocking doors and praying for their lives. Police came as soon as possible, but it was very risky for people to be anywhere near the building because shots were heard multiple times. There was a policeman near by but he had to wait outside for backup because it was to dangerous to go in alone. Eventually the backup came and there was a total of fifteen policemen at the parliament hill building. The man made a video saying why he did this just after the shooting and the police did not catch him in the act, but they did eventually arrest

Due to all these external factors including the presence of British troops and an us vs. them mentality all legitimized collective violence. “…their acts are often considered retaliation or rebellion against repression rather than acts of random violence.”(Byman, 154). They were defending themselves and their people by killing the enemy not another human. No other story better showcases this then the story of Billy Giles a Protestant boy who was pushed to commit physical violence to avenge the death of a woman who he did not even personally know. A Protestant woman was killed by the IRA, and in response Billy, “…wanted to see people killed over it.”(Taylor, 4). So Billy killed a random man just because he was Catholic and even though he regretted it later in life at the time he justified it as a you kill one of ours we will kill some of yours manner. Collective violence was in defense of the group and against an enemy that was seen as not

In the coverage of the events in The Guardian, the author Jon Boone explained the facts surrounding the incident; including how and why this tragic incident occurred. The role and work of the military and militants was also mentioned in the article as a cause of the incident. The author spoke about how the military is not protecting the people but making it more dangerous for the community especially women and children like Malala.

The findings came out six months later and Lord Schuman’s, who led the inquiry, recommendations sent shock waves throughout Britain. For the first time in History, he put the police as an institution on trial and found them guilty. He said a large degree of responsibility lay at the door of the