In 1945, as the world emerged from the ashes of the Second World War, little did people know that it was about to be engulfed by a new wave of conflict, destruction, and mass migration. A new wave that historians today call the wars of decolonization (or national liberation). The imperial governments that opposed them at the time steadfastly refused to call them wars, opting for terms like “uprising,” “rebellion,” “insurgency,” and “emergency.” For about three decades, the efforts of various special interest groups led to the dissolution of several European intercontinental empires and the creation of nation-states all around the globe. But what do we mean by special interest groups and how have they concretely affected the decolonization process?

Decolonization, a Complex Process

Obvious as it may seem, decolonization is the process of reversing colonization, more accurately, the political, economic, and cultural undoing of colonialism. 20th-century decolonization is usually framed between two dates: 1945, marking the end of the Second World War, and 1975, the year of the Carnation Revolution in Portugal and the dissolution of the Portuguese Empire. However, its actual temporal boundaries are more unclear.

Colonialism rarely ends with the departure of the colonial authorities from a colonized country. The internalized psychological and cultural effects of colonialism linger on, as generations of the colonized try to shake off the negative and stereotypical self-understandings imposed on them by decades (and sometimes centuries) of colonialism to create what Frantz Fanon (1925-1961) calls the “new” self.

Decolonization, he writes in The Wretched of the Earth (1961), “… never takes place unnoticed, for it influences individuals and modifies them fundamentally. It transforms spectators crushed with their inessentiality into privileged actors, with the grandiose glare of history’s floodlights upon them. It brings a natural rhythm into existence, introduced by new men, and with it a new language and a new humanity. Decolonization is the veritable creation of new men.”

In some countries, independence was achieved peacefully through negotiations, treaties, demonstrations, mass strikes, and boycotts. Ghana, for example, was the first African colony to achieve independence from Great Britain in 1957 through non-violent means. That was also the case in other African countries, such as Botswana and Zambia.

In many former colonies, however, the colonial authorities refused to relinquish power and accept the transition initiated by local leaders. Various nationalist movements in two of Portugal’s most important colonies, Mozambique and Angola, waged a guerrilla campaign against Portuguese forces for more than a decade before the fall of the Portuguese Empire in 1975. Thousands of people paid with their lives for the blind determination of the French, Portuguese, and British governments to deny them self-determination. Thousands more died in the political instability that followed decolonization, as in Angola, which was plunged into one of the deadliest wars in the history of the African continent, a 26-year-long war that, it could be argued, was the direct result of decades of colonial rule.

What Do We Mean by Special Interest Groups?

Special Interest Groups (SIGs) are formally organized associations of people who share the same goals, demands, and concerns. These groups can be made up of specialized individuals or organizations and companies, ranging from Indigenous and non-Indigenous environmental organizations (such as the World Rainforest Movement, which protects and advances the claims of forest-dependent communities in the Global South, or Amazon Watch, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the Brazilian rainforest) to labor organizations (such as the Irish Farmers’ Association, founded in 1955, which represents the rights and demands of Irish farmers) and civil rights groups (such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in the United States).

SIGs also include religious organizations such as the American Jewish Committee (AJC), LGBTQ-rights groups, and international human rights NGOs such as Amnesty International and Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders).

What unites these diverse groups is their determination to influence and/or change government policy on a particular issue. They do so in a variety of ways, from lobbying to mass strikes, from political negotiations to (violent and non-violent) demonstrations. Special Interest Groups can exist at all levels: local, provincial, national, and international. Some are defined as single-issue groups because they promote and raise awareness on a single issue, while others are more broadly based. Sometimes their actions enjoy general public support, particularly in democratic parliamentary systems.

Others, such as LGBTQ-rights groups operating in authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes, often face discrimination and opposition from both an unsympathetic public and the government and may have to operate unofficially and in secret to protect the physical well-being of their members.

Empowerment Through Education

In many museums across Canada, visitors are now greeted by explanatory panels written not only in English and French (as in Québec), but also in the Indigenous languages spoken by the local Indigenous groups. Many museums in North America and Australia include opening messages on their websites to acknowledge the Custodians of the lands on which they were built.

For example, the Western Australia Museum and the State Library of Western Australia recognize the strength and culture of the Nyoongar Whadjuk people, while the Museum of Contemporary Art Australia  “acknowledges the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, the traditional owners of the land and waters upon which the MCA stands.” In Toronto, Canada, the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO) acknowledges that it operates on “land that is Michi Saagig Nishnawbe territory,” which over time has also been occupied by “other Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, and Wendat confederacies.”

One Way Ticket to Hell, a painting by Aboriginal artist Aunty Fay Moseley remembering the tragedy of the Stolen Generations in Australia, 2012-2020. Source: Australian Museum

The McCord Steward Museum in Montréal/Tiohtiá:ke not only acknowledges that its building “sits on land used and occupied by Indigenous peoples for millennia that has never been ceded by treaty,” but also that “colonialism has had devastating consequences on First Peoples.” Thousands of miles to the west, the Manitoba Museum recognizes that “We are on Treaty No.1 land, the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg, Ininíwak, and Michif,” and that these “lands, water, and waterways are the unceded territories of the Dakota, and the homeland of the Red River Métis Nation.” The list goes on.

These are the most visible results of decades of efforts by Indigenous anti-colonial movements and organizations across North America to raise awareness of the continuing impact of colonialism on their lives and their determination to ensure the revival of their ancestral languages and cultures.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC), the Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF), the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN), and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᐱᕇᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ) are just a few of the many political organizations created by First Nations across what is now Canada to defend their rights.

By organizing protests, hosting powwows (most of which are open to non-Indigenous audiences), and using their ancestral languages in books and music alongside European languages, Indigenous activists, politicians, and artists continue to prioritize education as a tool for revitalization, self-determination, and, ultimately, empowerment. But Canada’s First Nations are not alone.

In Australia, the Kimberly Land Council (KLC) has been “working with Aboriginal people to secure native title recognition, conduct conservation and land management activities and develop cultural business enterprises” for over 40 years, since it was established at Noonkanbah Station, on the Fitzroy River in the south-central Kimberley region of Western Australia, in May 1978.

In Colombia, the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (Organización Nacional Indígena de Colombia) has been fighting since 1982 to defend the autonomy, history, and culture of Indigenous Colombians, the country’s Indigenous peoples. Similar peaceful organizations exist throughout Central and South America, in Peru, Mexico, and Ecuador, as well as in Africa.

Fostering and Celebrating a Pan-African Identity

In December 1958, the All-African People’s Conference (AAPC) galvanized the struggle of African colonies against British (as well as Portuguese and French) colonialism. Held in Accra, Ghana, it lasted six days, from December 8 to 13, 1958, and was the first major pan-African conference to bring together hundreds of leaders of various groups, from youth organizations to nationalist movements, directly on African soil, away from the centers of European power.

The location was highly symbolic. Under the leadership of Kwame Nkrumah (1909-1972), the first president of Ghana and father of the influential Ghanaian activist and politician Samia Nkrumah, Ghana became the first African colony to gain independence from Great Britain on March 6, 1957. Nkrumah’s opening speech set the tone for the conference as “a gathering of Africans speaking for Africa and Africans.”

Before that, Africans had “had Pan-African Congresses before — in fact, five of them — but all of these, by force of circumstances, were carried on outside Africa and under much difficulty.”

The 1945 Pan-African Congress, for example, organized “and made up largely of those outside Africa who had the cause of African freedom at heart,” had been held in Manchester, on British soil.

By the late 1950s, however, circumstances had changed. The purpose of the 1958 Conference was to promote solidarity and cooperation between colonized nations (and diaspora communities), primarily in Africa, but ideally throughout the world. As Nkrumah said in his opening speech, “If we are to attain the major objective to which we are all committed — the total liberation of Africa — then it is necessary to bury our political hatchets in the interest of Africa’s supreme need.”

At the conference, in a powerful celebration of African identity, Nkrumah urged his fellow African leaders and citizens not to be afraid to proclaim their right to self-determination openly and freely to the world, to “make no apology to anyone” for seeking self-determination and freedom.

By encouraging grassroots participation and involving civil society in the anti-colonial struggle, the 1958 Conference also emphasized the importance of Pan-Africanism in achieving independence. It also served to reinforce the belief that the freedom of an African nation was inextricably linked to the freedom of the African continent as a whole, therefore creating and nurturing a cohesive, all-encompassing anti-colonial narrative.

The cause that African nations are called to embrace, Nkrumah said in his opening speech, “is a noble and irresistible Cause. As long as we remain true to that Cause — the Cause of national freedom and independence — we have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

Paramilitary Groups or Special Interest Groups?

Paramilitary groups, like Special Interest Groups, are organizations made up of individuals who are committed to a cause and have a particular political and/or religious agenda. This has led some to include paramilitary groups in the category of SIGs, but it is not that simple. What distinguishes paramilitary organizations from SIGs are the methods the former use to achieve their goals.

Paramilitary groups typically operate outside the law and outside the normal military framework. Their heavily armed members use force, coercion, and violence, both physical and psychological, to achieve their goals and punish or kill anyone who does not share their aims or prevents them from achieving them. In many cases, they target members of the police, as well as public and private property. On the other hand, Special Interest Groups are inherently non-violent and determined to abide by the law.

Some paramilitary groups are politically motivated, such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA) or the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), while others, such as Boko Haram in Nigeria, pursue an agenda rooted in religion and animated by the belief that state and religion should go hand in hand. Some organizations, such as the Coordinadora Arauco-Malleco (CAM), in Chile, operate on the borderline between violence and non-violence.

CAM’s actions have a very clear, anti-colonial aim: to regain control of the ancestral lands of the Mapuche, the indigenous people of south-central Chile and south-west Argentina, which were seized during the so-called Pacification of Araucanía, and to protect them from the invasive and destructive power of mining and logging companies. These lands are now owned by landowners and corporations. To this end, they have allegedly often resorted to arson attacks and sabotage against the companies’ machinery and property.

Some paramilitary groups operate in the context of civil war. This was the case with the IRA and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), two of the various paramilitary groups active in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. While Irish Nationalists in the IRA sought Irish unity and the withdrawal of British forces from the island of Ireland, the UVF and its members, Loyalist Protestants, fought to maintain Northern Ireland’s status within the United Kingdom. While paramilitary groups can’t be categorized as special interest groups because of their reliance on violence, physical and psychological, they share with SIGs a determination to champion a cause, in some cases directly linked to decolonization.

From Africa to Chile, from Australia to North America, the actions of Special Interest Groups (SIGs) have contributed to the dissolution of European empires and the creation (sometimes peacefully, sometimes violently) of nation-states around the world. The process historians call decolonization continues in many countries today, albeit in different ways.

When visitors enter a museum and have the opportunity to read explanatory panels in English alongside the language of the indigenous group on whose land the museum was built, they are engaging in a form of decolonization, decolonization through education and culture. Decolonization continues in the form of sabotage, demonstrations, boycotts, and legal battles, such as those many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have waged since the 1970s to have their connection to their ancestral lands officially recognized.

American foreign policy shifted on December 2, 1823, when President James Monroe announced the Monroe Doctrine in his yearly address to Congress. President Monroe reaffirmed that European colonial expansion in the Western Hemisphere would be considered a hostile act to the US, while also pledging non-intervention in European matters. Despite this bold declaration, the US lacked the military, especially naval, strength to enforce it. Instead, the British Royal Navy played a decisive role in upholding the doctrine throughout much of the 19th century, aligning it with Britain’s own economic and political interests in the Americas.

Why & How the Monroe Doctrine Was Born

The origins of the Monroe Doctrine can be found as early as 1783, when the United States declared the policy of isolationism following the American Revolution.

American historian Samuel Eliot Morison pointed out that:

“as early as 1783, then, the United States adopted the policy of isolation and announced its intention to keep out of Europe. The supplementary principle of the Monroe Doctrine, that Europe must keep out of America, was still over the horizon.”

By 1823, the Latin American Republics had achieved long-awaited independence and diplomatic recognition from the United States. These territories had been under Spain’s colonial rule for centuries. The Napoleonic Wars and the subsequent invasion of Spain in 1808 weakened Spain’s colonial control, laying the foundation for the Spanish colonies to seek independence. In the following years, the waves of the independence movement spread across Latin America.

When Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated in 1815, the Congress of Vienna did not take into consideration the independence struggles in Latin America. However, the United States saw the opportunity to support the revolutions in the Western hemisphere. The Congress of Vienna intended to restore the balance of power in Europe, reinstate monarchies, and prevent the spread of revolutionary movements. On the other hand, the United States, influenced by its own revolutionary past and economic interests, viewed the colonies’ independence movement as a way to weaken European dominance in the Americas.

The formation of the Holy Alliance on September 23, 1815, changed the power dynamics. The alliance, composed of the European powers of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, aimed to strengthen monarchism in post-Napoleonic Europe. To achieve this goal, the Holy Alliance authorized the use of military force to re-establish the rule of the Bourbon dynasty over Spain and its colonies. At the same time, France had already agreed to re-establish monarchy in Spain in exchange for control over Cuba.

As a constitutional monarchy, Great Britain did not join the Holy Alliance, whose members supported the principle of absolutism. Instead, British Foreign Secretary George Canning proposed to American President James Monroe a joint Anglo-American action that would constrain the Holy Alliance’s influence in the Western Hemisphere.

The British proposal was dictated by several calculations. In particular, as a great European power, Britain sought to maintain its current colonies as well as expand territorially to meet the increasing demand for new markets and sustain its quick industrialization. While the Spanish Empire struggled to survive, and France was still weak from the Napoleonic Wars, Britain remained the only European power able to influence the power dynamics with the United States, whether through support or coercion.

In 1821, the Russian Empire also entered the contest between the powers set on gaining influence in the Western hemisphere with the Ukase (proclamation), claiming territorial sovereignty over northwestern North America (present-day Alaska) and most of the Pacific Northwest. Under this proclamation, the Russian Empire also forbade non-Russian ships from approaching the coast.

Simultaneously, the Monroe administration was negotiating with Spain to purchase Florida to increase its influence in the region. The negotiation resulted in the Transcontinental Treaty, signed in 1821. Following this, the United States proceeded to recognize the Latin American republics of Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico as independent states in 1822.

While the United States sought to keep the old European colonial powers out of the Americas, the Monroe administration recognized that the United States lacked the necessary military strength to achieve this goal. As the historian Caitlin Fitz pointed out: “Great Britain was the preeminent global power, while the United States was little more than a “second-ring show in the high-strung Atlantic circus.”

Although President Monroe did not turn down British suggestion to join forces to deter European colonialism in the Western hemisphere, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams disagreed, claiming that “It would be more candid as well as more dignified to avow our principles explicitly to Russia and France, than to come in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war.”

Despite these concerns, the conflux of interests between the two countries, ensuring the stability and independence of Latin American republics while preventing European intervention, led to the creation of the Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed by the United States, but enforced by the Royal Navy of Great Britain.

The Monroe Doctrine

In his yearly address to Congress on December 2, 1823, President James Monroe unveiled a new American foreign policy strategy, later known as the Monroe Doctrine. According to this doctrine, the New and Old Worlds, having distinct socio-political systems, should remain divided.

James Monroe outlined four key points of the new approach:

• The United States would refrain from interfering in the internal affairs or the military conflicts between European powers.
• The United States would recognize and would not be involved in the affairs of the existing European colonies in the Western Hemisphere.
• The remaining territories of the Western Hemisphere were closed to future colonization.
• Any attempt by a European power to gain control over any nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States.

The address read:

“In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparations for our defense.…With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition to oppress them or control in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.”

Initially, President Monroe’s address was not perceived as the foundation of a foreign policy “doctrine” but rather as an answer to the security challenges and the compromise between passive and aggressive policy options in light of the rising threat of the re-colonization of the newly independent republics in Latin America by the reactionary European powers.

According to author Leonard Axel Lawson, avoiding entering the Anglo-American alliance and instead declaring the unilateral Monroe Doctrine was part of Secretary Adams’s diplomatic game. In his book The Relation of British Policy to the Declaration of the Monroe Doctrine (1922), Lawson argues: 

“England possessed, at that time, a navy as large as the combined navies of all the other powers of the world; and, insofar as the existence of the British navy compelled respect for those interests, it also compelled respect for and observance of the Monroe Doctrine.”

Indeed, Secretary of State Adams, in explaining his position regarding the relation with Great Britain, declared: “My reliance upon the cooperation of Great Britain rested not upon her principles but upon her interests.”

By adopting the Monroe Doctrine, the United States needed a formidable maritime presence, especially a powerful navy, to safeguard the vast coastline of the Americas from European colonial powers’ intervention. The British Royal Navy would play a decisive role in enforcing the doctrine throughout the 19th century, even if it acted out of self-interest in expanding and maintaining trade relations.

The British Royal Navy’s Role in Enforcing the Monroe Doctrine

In the 19th century, the British Royal Navy maintained a dominant presence in key strategic regions, particularly the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and the South Atlantic, to prevent European intervention in the Americas and to deploy rapidly in case of a threat.

One such example was the Falkland Islands Dispute in 1833, when Britain deployed its fleet to curb Argentina’s claim over the islands. While Argentina was not a European nation, Great Britain illustrated its intention to uphold the Monroe Doctrine with this move.

Similarly, when France invaded Mexico and installed Emperor Maximilian I, a French-backed monarch, in December 1860, Britain decided to withdraw its support for France in 1866. Without British diplomatic and naval support, France was forced to retreat from Mexico.

The event effectively deterred future French ambitions in the region and reinforced the Monroe Doctrine.

Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary & the End of British Royal Navy Dominance

During the second half of the 19th century, the United States emerged as a leading naval power.

By this time, the United States had undergone a rapid industrialization process and expanded its economy and infrastructure through global trade. Regarding territorial expansion, in 1867, the United States acquired strategic locations such as Alaska. However, the Spanish-American War of 1898 appeared to be a turning point. The United States emerged victorious and gained control over former Spanish territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. This victory demonstrated American military strength and capabilities.

This period also saw the influence of Alfred Thayer Mahan’s naval theories, which emphasized the importance of a strong navy for acquiring and maintaining global influence. Alfred Thayer Mahan’s naval theories inspired Theodore Roosevelt who emerged as a leading maritime strategist. After 1901, when Roosevelt became the president of the United States, he linked the Monroe Doctrine to his new foreign policy approach. In this context, he secured the construction of the Panama Canal connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and sent 16 battleships, also known as the Great White Fleet, on a world tour.

The introduction of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904 marked the beginning of the United States actively enforcing the doctrine itself, rather than relying on the British fleet. The Roosevelt Corollary ensured that the United States could intervene in the internal affairs of the Latin American countries if necessary. Throughout the 20th century, the United States would play a decisive role in world politics as a new global power.

When scores of Scottish Presbyterians and English Anglicans first set foot in Ulster, then the most Gaelic region of Ireland, in the early 17th century, they may not have imagined that their presence on Irish soil would lay the foundations for centuries of conflict. Generations of 20th-century men and women, both Protestant and Catholic, would pay with their lives for the decision of a Protestant English king three centuries earlier, James I (1566-1625), to colonize Ulster and consolidate his power. In a sense, the history of Derry/Londonderry is a lens through which we can read and study Irish history.

A Border Town

Derry is a city of many names. Among its Protestant and Unionist population, as well as within the United Kingdom, it is usually referred to as Londonderry, reflecting its loyalty to and association with London and the United Kingdom. Catholics and Nationalists prefer the name Derry, an anglicization of Doire from the Old Irish (or Old Gaelic) name Doire Calgaich, meaning “oak wood of Calgach.” It is believed to be in honor of a (now unknown) pagan or of Calgacus, although the latter interpretation is less likely.

Historically, the city walls, now lined with more than 20 cannons and fully accessible on foot, have never been breached despite the many sieges the city has withstood over the centuries, hence, Derry’s nickname the “Maiden City.” Derry is the only city on Irish soil to have completely intact and walkable city walls.

The border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, curves just around Derry/Londonderry, skirting the outskirts of the city. To the west, the border runs parallel to the River Foyle, a river which is itself a symbol of the border, as it originates from the confluence of the Finn and Mourne rivers and straddles two Irish towns, Lifford and Strabane, which are themselves divided by the border. While Lifford is in County Donegal, one of the 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland, Strabane, on the east bank of the Foyle, is in County Tyrone, one of the six counties of Northern Ireland.

The River Foyle also runs through Derry/Londonderry, one of the oldest continuously inhabited places in Ireland, and divides the city into two areas: the so-called Cityside (on the west bank of the river) and the Waterside (on the east bank of the Foyle).

It was the construction of the first wooden bridge over the Foyle in 1789-1791 that led to the creation of the Waterside, now a predominantly Protestant (and Unionist) area. The Cityside, on the contrary, is home to Derry’s Catholic (and Republican) population. Today, the two areas are linked by three bridges, the Craigavon Bridge, the Foyle Bridge, and finally the Peace Bridge.

Opened in June 2011, the Peace Bridge physically and symbolically connects Ebrington Square in the Protestant Waterside and the Guildhall, in the Catholic Cityside. The opening ribbon-cutting ceremony was attended by then First Minister of Northern Ireland Peter Robinson, then the Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness (1950-2017), and then Taoiseach Enda Kenny, as well as the EU Commissioner Johannes Hahn and former Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) leader John Hume (1937-2020).

From the Plantation to the Rebellion of 1641

The Irish Rebellion of 1641 shaped the perception of Derry as a loyal Protestant stronghold and set the stage for further division and death. Like many other violent events in Northern Ireland’s history, the rebellion had its roots in the “Plantation,” the colonization and settlement of Ulster by King James I in the 17th century. It was during the Plantation, between 1613 and 1619, that the walls of Derry were built and that the city was officially renamed Londonderry in the Royal Charter of 1613.

More than ten centuries earlier, in the mid-6th century, St. Columba (or Colmcille) had built a Christian monastery on the west bank of the Foyle on land granted to him by a local king. It was on this land that Derry/Londonderry was eventually built. In the 6th century, Derry was still known as Doire Calgaich and remained a predominantly monastic settlement with people living in the surrounding area.

From 1609, however, the British Crown embarked on a major colonial project, the so-called Plantation of Ulster. On the one hand, the Crown wanted to bring the region, then one of the most Gaelic areas in Ireland, under its control and to spread Protestantism and English laws. On the other hand, it also wanted to completely eliminate the rule of the native Gaelic-speaking Irish lords. As a result, thousands of Anglican and Presbyterian settlers (“planters”) from southern Scotland and northern Great Britain who were loyal to the Crown were encouraged to move to Ulster.

Derry/Londonderry was founded as a Protestant town and remained a predominantly Protestant town for almost two centuries, from the early 1600s to the late 1700s. During the Plantation, thousands of acres of land in the present counties of Donegal, Cavan, Tyrone, Armagh, and Londonderry were confiscated and distributed to Protestant landowners.

Thousands of Gaelic Irish Catholic families were dispossessed and lost their lands and influence. Sir Phelim (Felim) O’Neill (1604-1653), one of the leaders of the Irish Rebellion of 1641, was one of them.

During the seven-month rebellion, which lasted from October 23, 1641, to May 1642, O’Neill and his men were responsible for occupying strategic points and towns throughout Ulster, from Dungannon to Lisburn, from Derry to Coleraine. In mid-November, Irish rebels marched 100 Protestant prisoners from the Loughgall prison camp to a bridge over the River Bann at Portadown, stripped them naked, and forced them off a broken wooden bridge down into the cold river below. Anyone who tried to swim ashore was shot with muskets. The Portadown massacre was the largest and bloodiest (but not the only) massacre of Protestants during the rebellion.

At this time, Derry/Londonderry became a refuge for thousands of Protestants who had fled from the surrounding countryside, which had been devastated by clashes between the Catholic Irish rebels and the British forces. The 1641 Rebellion and the massacres of Protestants that took place in various Ulster counties, from County Armagh to Tyrone, served to exacerbate sectarian divisions and deepen mistrust between the Irish Catholic population and Protestant settlers, not only in Derry/Londonderry but throughout Ulster. Indeed, because of its strategic location and defensive walls, Derry was chosen by the Crown as a military base to restore order in Ulster.

Ensuring Protestant Ascendancy

Brian Walker effectively sums up the history of Ulster when he writes in his article for the Irish Review: “These three dates mark what are often regarded as key events in Unionist and Protestant history. 1641 is the date of the outbreak of the rebellion in Ireland, 1689 is the year of the Siege of Derry, and 1690 marks the date of the Battle of the Boyne. (…) 1641 represents a time of betrayal and death, 1689 marks a famous siege, while 1690 is the date of a great victory.”

The Siege of Derry in 1689 was a direct consequence of the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89, which led to the deposition of the (Catholic) King James II (1633-1701) in favor of the (Protestant) William III (1650-1702), or William of Orange, and his wife Mary II (1662-1694), James II’s daughter. In Ulster, the Catholic population largely supported James II, while the Protestants sided with William of Orange.

When James’s troops, the Jacobites, arrived outside Derry in April 1689 and the (deposed) king himself called on the city to surrender, the defenders fired cannons at them from the city walls. Some of them were heard shouting “No surrender!” a slogan that can still be seen painted on the walls of Derry more than three centuries later.

The siege, the longest in Irish history, lasted for 105 days, and up to 10,000 people died within Derry’s fortified walls, mostly from disease and starvation. Relief came three months into the siege in the form of four ships, the HMS Dartmouth and three merchant ships, which managed to break through a blockade on the River Foyle and bring food to the exhausted people of Derry. By the end of the month, James’s forces had lifted the siege.

On the morning of August 1, the besieged, leaning over the walls of Derry, discovered that the army was gone. The Siege of Derry, like the Battle of the Boyne, is part of what British historians call the Williamite War (1689-1691). In Ireland, it is known as the War of the Two Kings.

The Boyne is the name of a river that rises near Carbury in County Kildare, in the Republic of Ireland and flows northeast through County Meath and County Louth before emptying into the Irish Sea. In July 1690, a force of some 23,000 Irish Catholics and French allies led by James II clashed with (and were defeated by) William of Orange’s army—a multinational force of 36,000 English, Danish, Dutch, and Huguenot men—on the banks of the Boyne River at Drogheda.

If the Siege of Derry had consolidated Protestant control in Ulster, the Battle of the Boyne dashed the Jacobite hopes of restoration. It also cemented William III’s rule over Ireland (as well as England and Scotland). From this point on, the Penal Laws further segregated Irish society, preventing Catholics (and Protestant dissenters) from participating in public life, serving in Parliament, joining the army, possessing firearms, marrying Protestant men or women, inheriting “Protestant land” (i.e. land that had previously belonged to a Protestant), buying land on a lease of more than 31 years, or building stone Catholic churches near main roads. William III’s victory at the Battle of the Boyne had the effect of securing the ascendancy of Anglican Protestantism in Ireland (and particularly in what is now Northern Ireland) and set the stage for the Irish Rebellion of 1798.

The Partition of 1921

By 1850, although Catholics comprised most of the population in Derry, the city was ruled by a Protestant oligarchy. This significant imbalance continued after the Government of Ireland Act 1920 (or Fourth Home Rule Bill) and the 1921 partition of the island of Ireland into the Irish Free State (which later became the Republic of Ireland) and Northern Ireland (which remained part of the United Kingdom).

By the end of the 19th century, Hennessey writes in his A History of Northern Ireland, “There was a new divide, that between nationalists who wanted self-government for Ireland—which had been absorbed into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801—and unionists, who wished Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom.” This divide was to shape the history of Derry/Londonderry and Ulster throughout the 20th century.

In early June 1920, Derry entered a week of bloodshed. At the time, the West Bank was still a largely mixed area, where Catholics (who were the majority) still lived side by side with Protestant families. After a group of Unionists shot dead five people, Nationalists began to mobilize.

Over the next few days, as gunfire ripped through the walled city, shops were looted and destroyed, many residents were forced to flee their homes, thousands of Catholics and socialist workers were expelled from their workplaces, and bystanders were caught in the crossfire. On June 24, ten-year-old George Caldwell was killed as he looked out of a window in Nazaret House. A woman, Margaret Mills, was killed in her own home after answering a knock at her front door. Howard McKay, the son of the governor of the Apprentice Boys of Derry, was abducted, blindfolded, and shot by nationalist gunmen. Bodies were found floating in the Foyle.

British troops arrived in the city on June 23, 1920, to restore order alongside the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC), further enraging Nationalists. In the two years between July 1920 and July 1922, 557 people were killed in the widespread sectarian violence that accompanied the birth of Northern Ireland. The majority of them were Catholic. The level of violence that shook Derry/Londonderry in June 1920 was a grim harbinger of what would happen in Derry some 50 years later, with the outbreak of the Troubles.

A City of Riots?

Derry/Londonderry was one of the cities that suffered most in the early years of the Troubles, the conflict that brought death and destruction to the people of Northern Ireland and isolated the province from the rest of Ireland and Europe for thirty years, from 1968-69 to 1998. Although the Troubles did not begin on a specific date, most historians agree that the conflict started on the streets of Derry/Londonderry in August 1969, following the Battle of the Bogside.

The Troubles, writes Irish historian Niall Ó Dochartaigh in his From Civil Rights to Armalites (1997), grew out of a “… situation of rapid social and political change that began after the end of the second World War in 1945,” changes that, year after year, eventually “disrupted a set of relationships, in particular a tradition of quiescence by the Catholic population in Northern Ireland, on which the very existence of the Northern Ireland state had been based.”

The activism of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), an organization founded in 1967 which began campaigning for reforms in housing allocation and voting rights through marches modeled on those of the American civil rights movement, was one of the factors which, in the eyes of many Protestants and Unionists, posed a threat to the status quo. It was during a peaceful march organized by NICRA that 13 demonstrators were killed by British soldiers from the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment in the Bogside on January 30, 1972, during one of the most violent years of the Troubles. Another died of his wounds a few months later. All the victims were Catholics. In the aftermath of the massacre, now known as Bloody Sunday, thousands of young men and women joined the ranks of the Irish Republican Army (IRA).

The Protestant Exodus

Niall Gilmartin notes that the violence of the Troubles “… has typically been measured using standardised assessments,” assessments that have primarily taken into account the fatality rate, the number of people injured and the economic impact of bombings and related attacks, and that “much of the focus with regards to addressing legacy has, understandably, centred on the needs and interests of those who lost loved ones or those physically and psychologically harmed through shootings and bombings. But there are other forms of violence, harm and trauma which need to be considered.”

The so-called Protestant Exodus is one of them. Following the outbreak of the Troubles in 1969, thousands of Protestants decided to leave their homes and flee Derry. In the decade between 1971 and 1981, the Protestant population of Derry fell from 8,459 to 2,874. By 1991, it had fallen to 1,407, with a reduction of 7,052 in just two decades.

Forced displacement during an armed conflict is traumatic in itself, as it involves the disruption of one’s community and social networks. Many of the people interviewed by Niall Gilmartin and whose stories he shares in his Trauma, Denial, and Acknowledgment: The Legacy of Protestant Displacement in Londonderry/Derry during the Troubles, recall the heartbreak of leaving their homes, homes that “you had paid for, that you had furnished and done up, built on a bathroom and kitchen.”

Interviewed by the News Letter, Doris Carruthers, a Protestant living with her husband and three-year-old child in a predominantly Catholic area in 1969, recalls how, after the Troubles broke out, “we had to live with the back windows boarded because Jeanette was a young child in the back bedroom. We had the wire cages on the front of the house. We had to basically barricade ourselves into the house.”

In 1971, the Carruthers were finally able to move into the newly built Newbuildings estate in the Waterside, on the east bank of the River Foyle. A report commissioned in the autumn of 2016 by the Pat Finucane Centre, “a non-party political, anti-sectarian human rights group,” named after Irish human rights lawyer Pat Finucane, identified housing and employment issues as some of the factors behind the Protestant Exodus. However, based on his own field research, Niall Gilmartin writes that “The overarching reasons for many were intimidation (direct and indirect), the targeting of RUC and UDR personnel by the IRA, bomb attacks in the city centre, feelings of insecurity and vulnerability, and an overwhelming sense that Protestants, their identity and culture were not welcome in the West Bank.”

Since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, Derry/Londonderry seems to have struck a new, albeit precarious, balance. The checkpoints have largely disappeared. The city center has been revitalized. In 2013, Derry/Londonderry was named the UK City of Culture, attracting visitors from across Ireland and Europe. And while parades and commemorations, particularly in July, continue to highlight the long-standing sectarian divisions at the heart of Derry/Londonderry, for more than two decades after the end of the Troubles, its citizens have been able to work together to secure peace and cross-community dialogue and cooperation.

When it comes to biblical immorality, no one quite delivers like King David upon seeing Bathsheba. Their story reads like a fever dream of soap opera scandal: a king’s rooftop lust, a bathing beauty, a husband sent to his doom, and a prophet with receipts from the Almighty. Oh, and let’s not forget the aftermath: a dead child, a cursed lineage, and a second son who would go on to build the Temple and become one of the wisest (and most infamous) monarchs in history. Bathsheba emerges as a cunning power player, securing her son Solomon’s place on the throne. The tale is as layered as it is unsettling, leaving us questioning the nature of power, agency, and how one royal misstep has echoed throughout history.

King David on a Rooftop, Instead of Fighting a War

By the time of the infamous rooftop incident, David had been king for over 15 years. He had transformed from the shepherd boy who took down Goliath to a seasoned ruler, well-established in his palace in Jerusalem. His kingdom was flourishing, his conquests were piling up, and his personal life was, let’s say, complicated. With six wives already sharing his royal quarters, David wasn’t exactly experiencing poverty in the consort department.

By ancient custom, spring was the season when kings went out to war. Yet David, the once-hands-on warrior-king, stayed behind in his palace, delegating the campaign to his loyal general Joab. Joab and the Israelite army were laying siege to the Ammonite capital, Rabbah; a grueling campaign. Among those enduring the brutality of the battlefield was Uriah the Hittite, one of David’s elite soldiers. Calling him a Hittite, and remembering him thusly, also seems to be a bit of a literary backhand. He was probably a second-generation Israelite, as the name Uriah isn’t one of Hittite origin.

Uriah was part of “the Thirty,” a group of highly skilled warriors who formed the backbone of David’s military might. To reach that rank required immense courage and skill; Uriah had earned this place. Yet as he fought on the front lines, his king stood on his palace rooftop, enjoying the comforts of home. It was there that David noticed Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba, bathing nearby.

The story spiraled from there. David, already married in the multiple, was overcome by his desire for Bathsheba and summoned her to a meeting.

The Girl on the Rooftop

Bathsheba’s story invites modern readers into deeply uncomfortable territory. When modern folk imagine her bathing on a rooftop, the titillating scene conjured is often one of a grown woman intentionally seducing the king, soaping up where he can easily spy on her. But let’s pause and look at the context: Bathsheba was likely very young. Young enough, in fact, that she just may have been purifying herself after experiencing her first menstrual cycle.

Bathsheba wasn’t a stranger to King David, either. Her grandfather, Ahithophel, was one of David’s most trusted advisors, a man renowned for his wisdom and influence. Her father, Eliam, had been one of David’s elite warriors, also counted among “the Thirty.” Bathsheba had grown up in a family that served David’s court and military. She wasn’t some unknown beauty who suddenly appeared on a rooftop one day. She was part of the extended network of loyalty and service that bolstered David’s reign.

Additionally, historical context can clear up a lot of common misconceptions about the rooftop. The bath Bathsheba was taking was most likely part of a mikvah, a ritual purification mandated by Jewish law. She wasn’t luxuriating in plain sight to attract attention; she was following religious tradition. The very idea that she was seducing David collapses under scrutiny. If anything, she was fulfilling a religious and cultural obligation, not orchestrating an affair.

What makes Bathsheba’s situation even more tragic is her youth and vulnerability. She had been married to Uriah the Hittite, but given her age, their union was likely a political arrangement rather than a marriage of equals. Some scholars argue she may have been too young for the marriage to have even been consummated yet.

The story of Bathsheba as a “siren” says more about historical biases than the truth of her circumstances. She was a young girl from a family who gave themselves into the service of the royal house, married to a soldier, and likely living under the shadow of courtly politics. Her “choices” were shaped by the world around her, where a king’s summons was not a request but a command. She simply had no choice.

David Summons Her, She Gets Pregnant, Then What?

They meet. They “know” each other. Then, as far as the king is concerned, the tryst is over and his hunger is sated. That is until Bathsheba notifies him that she is carrying proof of the affair. If, as some suspect, she hadn’t known any man before the king, her life was suddenly in even more dire straits. The consequences of being labeled an adulterer were fatal: stoning was the punishment prescribed by law. Bathsheba’s fate, and the fate of the child that grew within her, were tied to David’s decisions. Both of their survival depended on the king’s willingness to protect her, and his choices left much to be desired.

David’s first attempt to cover up his actions was riddled with faulty smoke and mirrors. He summoned Uriah back from the battlefield, ostensibly for a report on the war. The king’s real intention was to send Uriah home to sleep with Bathsheba, creating the illusion that her child was conceived within the bonds of matrimony. However, Uriah’s loyalty to his comrades and his unyielding sense of duty prevented him from enjoying comforts denied to his fellow soldiers. Not even David’s ploy of getting the soldier drunk could sway him.

When deception failed, David’s solution turned deadly. He sent Uriah back to the front lines with sealed orders instructing Joab to position him where the fighting was fiercest and then withdraw support, ensuring Uriah’s death. The man unknowingly delivered his own death sentence. The plan worked, and Uriah was killed in battle; a betrayal that left Bathsheba widowed and free to remarry…quickly.

After a brief mourning period for Uriah, Bathsheba was brought to the palace and married to David. To the public, it may have seemed like an act of gentle stewardship, a king caring for the widow of a soldier who had served him well. In reality, it was damage control. But the prophet Nathan saw through David’s ploy and delivered a devastating rebuke. In a parable that mirrored David’s sins, Nathan likened him to a rich man who stole and slaughtered a poor man’s only lamb. When David condemned the hypothetical man, Nathan struck with the truth: “You are the man!”

Nathan’s prophecy foretold violence and tragedy within David’s household; a punishment that began with the death of Bathsheba’s child. The baby did not live longer than seven days, leaving Bathsheba to grieve yet another loss. In a matter of months, she had been torn from her first marriage, thrust into a dangerous relationship with a much older man, and lost her firstborn child.

Again, somehow, she managed to pick up the pieces and continue living. She went on to have four more sons with David: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan (not to be confused with the prophet), and Solomon. Her enduring friendship with the prophet Nathan, who had foreseen that David’s sins would lead to death in her own family, suggests a remarkable strength and resilience in the face of such overwhelming trauma.

Enter Solomon

Solomon’s birth marked a turning point in Bathsheba’s story, both as a mother and as a woman wielding political influence in a world shaped by and for men. By the time of Solomon’s birth, David was nearly 50 years old burdened with a tumultuous household. Bathsheba, likely still a teenager, now had to navigate the childhood of a vulnerable son; a son whose future would shape the destiny of Israel.

When Solomon was born, the prophet Nathan, who had once rebuked David for his sins, delivered a message of grace: God loved this child. While in the womb, the Almighty called this baby a Jedidiah, meaning “beloved of the Lord,” signaling to all his divine favor. This blessing set Solomon apart, but it was Bathsheba’s calculated influence that secured his path to the throne.

Though Solomon was not David’s eldest son, Bathsheba’s determination ensured he was not overlooked in the scramble for succession. David’s indulgence with his other children, particularly his older sons, had already proven to produce nothing but chaos. Amnon, David’s firstborn, committed an unspeakable crime against his half-sister Tamar, and David’s refusal to act led to Absalom’s vengeful murder of Amnon. Absalom, in turn, declared himself king and forced David into a humiliating retreat. After all, if David couldn’t protect his own daughter or take retribution on her abuser, how could he effectively run a country? Through all this, Bathsheba and Solomon witnessed firsthand the destructive consequences of unchecked ambition and parental inaction.

Bathsheba understood the precarious position Solomon was in. Absalom, with his striking beauty and magnetic charisma, had stolen the hearts of the people and likely dismissed Solomon as a mere child. It wasn’t this older brother but Bathsheba who saw what others overlooked: David’s growing affection for Solomon and the divine promise attached to him.

As David aged, his remaining sons jockeyed for power. Adonijah (the next in line after Absalom’s murder of Amnon and then his own death after usurping the crown) declared himself king with the backing of key allies. During this final power grab, Bathsheba, in a masterful display of political acumen, approached the ailing David alongside the prophet Nathan. She reminded the king of his earlier vow that Solomon would succeed him all while exposing Adonijah’s premature claim to the throne. Her timing and tact were impeccable, compelling David to publicly anoint Solomon as his heir, effectively quashing Adonijah’s rebellion before it could take hold.

Bathsheba’s role didn’t end with securing Solomon’s kingship. She remained a trusted advisor and a powerful presence in the royal court (after all, she was now queen mother). Even after David’s death, she skillfully navigated palace intrigues, including Adonijah’s attempt to marry Abishag, one of David’s concubines; a move that Solomon interpreted as a threat to his reign. It was Bathsheba who brought this request to Solomon, a gesture that demonstrated her continued influence. She likely knew the outcome would not extend Adonijah’s lifespan.

Solomon grew to be a man of contrasts, renowned for his wisdom and wealth, but flawed by his insatiable appetite. His request for wisdom at Gibeon earned him divine favor, and his legendary judgment solidified his reputation as Israel’s wisest ruler. Yet, as he aged, Solomon’s heart turned toward the foreign gods of his many wives and concubines, leading to spiritual decline and the eventual fracturing of the kingdom after his death. Bathsheba probably did not live to see this change of character.

As the mother of the wisest king of Israel, she left an indelible mark on history. One can only wonder what Bathsheba thought of Solomon’s many marriages and his eventual straying from Yahweh. Did she warn him against repeating David’s mistakes, or was she powerless to prevent her son from repeating history?

Though the Bible leaves much of Bathsheba’s inner life to speculation, her actions speak volumes. She rose above scandal and tragedy to become a mother of kings and a wise strategist in a complicated court. Solomon’s reign, with all its splendor and flaws, was a testament to the strength and influence of the woman who ensured he could live long enough to flourish.

Queen Elizabeth II’s Silver Jubilee in 1977, marking the 25th anniversary of her reign, came after one of the bloodiest years of the Troubles, the sectarian conflict that ravaged Northern Ireland for three decades from 1969 to 1998. For the first time in eleven years, the Queen decided to visit Belfast, then one of the most dangerous cities not only in the United Kingdom but in the whole of Europe. Unionists and Loyalists, loyal to the Crown and determined to maintain Northern Ireland’s status within the United Kingdom, felt reassured. On the other hand, Nationalist and Republican groups saw her visit as a further insult and a symbol of British imperialism.

Belfast, 1977

Queen Elizabeth II’s visit to Northern Ireland as part of her Silver Jubilee Tour came at a particularly tense time. Indeed, the early months of 1977 were a turning point in the history of the Troubles. 1976 had been the second bloodiest year in the history of the Troubles with 308 victims, the vast majority, 220, were civilians.

As McKittrick & McVea note in Making Sense of the Troubles, Loyalist violence (violence perpetrated by Loyalist paramilitary groups determined that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom) fell sharply, going “from 127 killings in 1976 to just 28 in 1977. In the five years prior to 1977 the loyalist toll was 590; in the five years from 1977 on it was only 84.” One of the reasons for this was the appointment of Roy Mason (1925-2014) as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in September 1976.

Determined to defeat the Irish Republican Army (IRA), whose members Mason believed were nothing less than terrorists, as well as Loyalist paramilitary groups, he immediately made it clear that the British would never withdraw from Northern Ireland. As a result, many reassured Loyalists began to move away from violence.

Mason’s security and political policies for Northern Ireland were based on the three-part strategy introduced by his predecessor, Merlyn Reese (1920-2006): normalization, Ulsterization (also known as “the primacy of police”) and criminalization. The only way to achieve a normalization of the situation in Northern Ireland, that is, to reduce the level of violence and the death toll, was to cause an Ulsterization of the conflict by recruiting the men of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) locally and reducing the number of British soldiers killed and wounded.

The third part of the strategy, criminalization, involved the abolition of special category status for Republican prisoners, who would then be considered “ordinary,” rather than political, prisoners.

In May 1977, the loyalist United Unionist Action Council (UUAC) launched a major strike to pressure the British government into a tougher security policy and restore majority rule, that is, devolved government in Northern Ireland under a system of simple majority rule. As gangs of Ulster Defence Association (UDA) men appeared on the streets of Belfast threatening shopkeepers, blocking roads, and hijacking vehicles, the strike quickly became known as “Paisley’s strike,” after Ian Paisley (1926-2014), then leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). In 1977, after eight years of conflict, Northern Ireland was still one of the most dangerous and militarized areas in Europe. So were Belfast and Derry/Londonderry, which Queen Elizabeth visited in August.

The Silver Jubilee

In 1977, Queen Elizabeth II celebrated the 25th anniversary of her accession to the throne. She was a 25-year-old mother of two when her father, George VI (1895-1952), died at Sandringham House on February 6, 1952 at the age of 56. In 1977, thousands of people gathered throughout the UK and Commonwealth to celebrate her reign, as well as her birthday on April 21.

The trip to Northern Ireland was part of a major three-part tour of the Commonwealth, which took Queen Elizabeth and her husband, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (1921-2021), to Scotland in May and then to Wales and Northern Ireland. As the official website of the British Royal Family notes, “No other Sovereign had visited so much of Britain in the course of just three months; the six jubilee tours in the UK and Northern Ireland covered 36 counties.” They also traveled to Western Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, New Zealand, Australia, Tasmania, Papua New Guinea, the British West Indies (BWI), and finally Canada.

On the morning of August 10, HMY Britannia, the royal yacht in service from 1954 to 1997, dropped anchor in Belfast Lough to a 21-gun salute. It was the Queen’s first visit to Northern Ireland in eleven years. In 1966, just before the Troubles broke out, she had traveled to Belfast to open a new bridge. As the royal limousine made its way down Great Victoria Street, a 17-year-old nationalist boy from west Belfast threw a concrete block at the car, denting the bonnet.

In 1977, while Prince Philip met the workers of a local shipyard, the Harland and Wolff, Queen Elizabeth made only two appearances during her 38-hour visit to Northern Ireland. One at Hillsborough Castle, the other at the New University in Coleraine. On August 10, Queen Elizabeth II then traveled by helicopter from Belfast Lough to Hillsborough Castle, where she was greeted by a crowd of schoolchildren waving Union Jacks.

It was reportedly the first time in her 25-year reign that she resorted to traveling by helicopter to avoid possible ambushes. Security was stepped up at Hillsborough Castle, a late-18th century Georgian country house in the north-west of County Down, which has served as the official residence of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland since 1972 and as the British monarch’s when visiting Northern Ireland. British soldiers could be seen patrolling the grounds outside Hillsborough Castle while Queen Elizabeth inspected a guard of honor made up of members of the UDR, the infantry regiment of the British Army formed in 1970 and active until 1992, when it was amalgamated with the Royal Irish Rangers to form the Royal Irish Regiment.

33 years later, in December 2005, Queen Elizabeth met Irish President Mary McAleese, the first President of the Republic of Ireland to be born in Northern Ireland, in the Hillsborough’s Red Room.

The Speech in Coleraine

On the night of August 10, the Royal Yacht sailed from Belfast Lough and anchored off the north coast at Portrush. From there, Queen Elizabeth traveled once again by helicopter to the New University of Ulster, some 60 miles north of Belfast.

On what was to be the “last day of her Jubilee visit around the United Kingdom,” she told her audience that it had been eleven years since she had last been there, but “during much of that time we have watched events with deep concern and sadness. No one could remain unmoved by the violence and the grief that follows it. But we have also watched with admiration the fortitude and resilience with which the challenge has been met. The sufferings here have evoked sympathy and concern throughout the world and nowhere more than in the rest of the United Kingdom. To see such conflict taking place within our country emphasizes the clear and continuing responsibility for us all to bring back peace and stability to this community.”

By reassuring the Northern Irish Protestant community of Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, “within our country,” and by describing the people of Northern Ireland as “one community,” Queen Elizabeth was achieving a double objective. On the one hand, she was winking at the loyalist and unionist community who had made it clear that there would be unrest if the Queen’s visit to Northern Ireland was canceled at the last minute. On the other, she was echoing what many thinkers and writers, including Belfast-born Robert McLiam Wilson, would later argue. Namely, that the people of Northern Ireland are neither wholly Irish nor wholly British, that they are members of a unique community that is ultimately Northern Irish.

Violence is always “senseless and wrong” Queen Elizabeth continued, adding that “if this community is to survive and prosper” people with different beliefs and aspirations “must live and work together in friendship and forgiveness. There is no place here for old fears and attitudes born of history, no place for blame for what is passed.”

And despite the threats of the IRA and the bloodshed on the streets of Belfast just a few days before her visit, Queen Elizabeth said that when she had the opportunity to meet “men and women from all walks of life, including many who have been directly affected by violence,” she saw “hopeful signs of reconciliation and understanding. Policemen and soldiers have told me of the real cooperation they are receiving. I have sensed a common bond and a shared hope for the future.”

She concluded her speech by saying that “the aim of all, government and people, must be to turn into reality our hopes for a peaceful and stable future and a better life for all. I believe the opportunity is there to be grasped. I look forward to the day when we may return to enjoy with the people of Northern Ireland some of the better and happier times so long awaited and so richly deserved.”

Northern Ireland was the last stop on the Queen’s Silver Jubilee tour of Britain and the Commonwealth. As the Troubles continued, the Queen did not visit Northern Ireland at all during the 1980s. It was not until June 1991 that the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh finally traveled to the army’s Thiepval Barracks in Lisburn, before holding a garden party at Hillsborough where they met the families of some of the victims.

The royal couple returned to Northern Ireland three more times before the turn of the century, in 1993, 1995, and 1997. In June 2012, long after the official end of the Troubles with the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998 and 35 years after the Silver Jubilee celebrations, the Queen returned to Belfast, and on the final day of her visit, she shook hands with former IRA commander Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) at the Lyric Theatre.

Queen Elizabeth, a Symbol

Queen Elizabeth II was reportedly “terribly, terribly tense” about her 38-hour visit to Northern Ireland. And rightly so. For heavily armed Republican groups like the Provisional IRA, she was a symbol of occupation and imperialism.

Republicans and members of Sinn Féin welcomed her by taking to the streets of Belfast. Some were photographed holding a banner with the slogan: “Queen of Death, ’69-77 – 1,800 dead.” Anti-monarchist graffiti, reading “Stuff the Jubilee,” appeared on walls and fences in Catholic neighborhoods. Some of the most tense areas of Belfast were eerily empty, except for soldiers patrolling or crouching in doorways. Buses had been diverted. On the other hand, for Unionists and Protestants, Queen Elizabeth’s decision to include Northern Ireland and Belfast in her Commonwealth tour was a reaffirmation of the Crown’s support and presence in Northern Ireland. They welcomed her by draping their homes and streets in Union Jacks.

A contingent of some 32,000 regular and reserve troops and police officers were deployed on the streets of Belfast. Troops with dogs trained to sniff out explosives swept the grounds of the New University of Ulster in Coleraine, where Queen Elizabeth finally made her short speech. The timing of the Queen’s visit was also highly symbolic. The two-day trip coincided with two important anniversaries in the recent history of Northern Ireland, turning points in the evolution of the Northern Ireland conflict. The first was the 6th anniversary of Operation Demetrius in 1971, commonly known as internment without trial when hundreds of Catholics suspected of involvement with the IRA were arrested en masse, taken to the newly built Long Kesh prison near Lisburn, subjected to “in depth interrogation,” and held for days without trial.

Queen Elizabeth’s visit to Northern Ireland also coincided with the 8th anniversary of the Battle of the Bogside and the (un)official start of the Troubles. On August 12, 1969, Protestant loyalist members of the Apprentice Boys marched through Derry/Londonderry and came dangerously close to the Bogside, a Catholic stronghold. Local Catholics saw the annual parade of the Apprentice Boys as an insult. They began to taunt the marchers. The Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), the police force of Northern Ireland, tried to push the rioters back and moved into the Bogside firing CS gas, the first time it had been used in the United Kingdom. Loyalists followed suit, smashing the windows of Catholic homes. Two days of rioting followed, spreading south into Belfast. At 5 pm on August 14, the British Army arrived on the streets of Derry, marking the official start of the Troubles.

A Bloody Jubilee

The IRA “made its presence felt” during Queen Elizabeth’s trip to Belfast, according to a New York Times article published at the time, although it did not carry out any attacks against the Queen or her staff. IRA men and women, wearing black leather jackets and black berets, attended the funeral of 16-year-old Paul “Jason” McWilliams, a member of the Fianna, the junior wing of the IRA, at Milltown Cemetery in Belfast.

McWilliams, who had recently been arrested for rioting, had been temporarily released from St Patrick’s Training School to attend his grandmother’s funeral. His family was from Ballymurphy, an area dominated in the 1970s by “army bases and fortifications,” as McWilliams’ brother recalled in 2012, an area full of “constant armed foot patrols and raids on people’s homes.” McWilliams was shot dead near his home in Springhill Avenue on August 9.

Sinn Féin reported at the time that two eyewitnesses said that McWilliams was shot in the back as he tried to get through a gap in a fence and that British soldiers had not warned him, contrary to their claims after the killing. Within hours of McWilliams’ death, an IRA sniper killed a soldier from the same unit responsible for his death, the Third Light Infantry Battalion, in retaliation. Once the Queen’s visit to Northern Ireland was finally over, Prince Philip is reported to have patted the Queen’s hand and said: “There now, it’s over. Unless they sink the Britannia we’re safe.” The official website of the British Royal Family estimates that during the 1977 Silver Jubilee Commonwealth tour “the Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh travelled 56,000 miles, mostly on Her Majesty’s Yacht Britannia.”

In 1977, Queen Elizabeth chose Belfast and Northern Ireland as the final stop on her Silver Jubilee tour to celebrate the 25th anniversary of her reign. It was a risky decision. 1976 had been one of the bloodiest years of the Troubles, and her two-day trip fell on two important anniversaries in the recent history of Northern Ireland. If the Catholic community and Republican groups, such as the IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) saw her presence as a further insult, the Protestant community felt reassured by the monarchy’s determination not to abandon them. Queen Elizabeth’s visit highlighted the sectarian nature of the conflict that was to ravage the province for another 20 years.

Dolours and Marian Price were involved in Irish republicanism during the decades-long conflict that became known as the Troubles. After the two sisters joined the IRA in the early 1970s, they were soon charged for their involvement in the 1973 IRA bombings in London. Whilst imprisoned, they went on a hunger strike that lasted over 200 days. The Price sisters were also part of the “Unknowns,” a secret unit responsible for many disappearances during the Troubles, including that of Jean McConville.

The Price Sisters: Irish Republicanism Runs in Their Blood

Andytown, or Andersonstown, is a suburb in the western part of Northern Ireland’s capital city, Belfast. Nestled beneath two hills that perch high above the city, Andersonstown is a predominantly Catholic, nationalist area of the city. Though it is now a family-friendly, peaceful part of Belfast, it once teemed with paramilitary activity during the Troubles. It was in this suburb that Dolours and Marian Price were reared by a family entrenched in Irish republican ideology.

Dolours Price, born in 1950, and Marian Price, born in 1954, were exposed to Irish republicanism from an early age. Their father was a staunch Irish republican and former member of the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Likewise, their mother (and grandmother) were part of the all-female faction of the IRA, the Cumann na mBan. Bridie Dolan, aunt to the Price sisters, lived with the family, and she, too, was a faithful Irish republican. In her twenties, she lost her eyesight and her hands when she accidentally dropped the explosives she was handling for the IRA.

The girls grew up hearing stories about their parents taking part in bombings and other paramilitary activities, fostering their desire to follow in their family members’ footsteps. The sisters decided from an early age that they wouldn’t stand on the sidelines of the republican cause but would instead take direct action for a united Ireland.

Civil Rights Activists

After attending school in west Belfast, including a teacher-training course, the Price sisters decided they would make more of a difference in their community if they took part in political activism. In 1969, they participated in the Belfast to Londonderry/Derry civil rights march, where they were attacked by loyalists during the Burntollet Bridge incident.

The Burntollet Bridge illustrated the political and civil unrest that had begun months prior in Northern Ireland. Marchers protested gerrymandering, or the manipulation of electoral districts. They called for freedom of speech and fair representation in jobs and housing in Londonderry/Derry, as Catholics were often discriminated against compared to Protestants.

However, during the march, activists were attacked by Ulster loyalists. Many Catholics felt that the police force in Northern Ireland, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), did not protect the marchers from loyalist attackers, furthering the already ignited tensions between nationalist and unionist communities.

The Price family was familiar with the RUC, as the force had raided the Price home before due to perceived IRA connections. The Burntollet Bridge incident was a turning point for the two women, inspiring them to take up arms alongside the IRA.

“Crazy Prices”

Two years later, in 1971, Dolours Price became the first woman to gain full membership in the IRA. Her membership came on the heels of the reintroduction of internment, a policy by which people, mostly republicans, were imprisoned without a trial. This policy influenced many young people to become “volunteers” for the IRA, prepared to lose their lives or commit acts of terrorism for Irish independence. Marian followed soon after.

The Price sisters walked the streets of Belfast armed, sometimes hiding rifles under their coats for potential confrontations with the British Army. They moved explosives for the IRA, using their charming, self-assured personalities to get through British Army checkpoints. Locally, they were known as the “Crazy Prices.” The sisters were also involved in high-profile paramilitary activity.

In March of 1973, bombs were set off in London. A bomb exploded in a car outside the Old Bailey, the Central Criminal Court in London, and one outside of Westminster. The city had been warned before the bombs exploded, though over 200 people were still injured, and one person died of a heart attack. The IRA was behind the bombing, and Dolours herself took responsibility for the campaign. She believed that bombing London would make more of a statement rather than bombing Belfast, so she, along with Marian and other IRA volunteers, planned the attack.

The group managed to steal four cars in Belfast and refit them with English license plates, shipping them on a ferry across the sea. Bombs were planted in all four cars, and they were all set to explode before 3 pm. However, an informer within the IRA had tipped off the British police, and the authorities were prepared to thwart the attack. In total, two bombs exploded before the police could detonate them.

The IRA volunteers were found at London’s Heathrow Airport, ready to board a flight to Dublin. In total, eight volunteers, including the Price sisters, were convicted and received double life sentences.

A Hunger for Ireland

Once imprisoned, the Price sisters decided to go on a hunger strike. Throughout Irish history, Irish prisoners had used fasting and starvation as a form of protest and as an example of their willingness to die for Ireland. In the early 20th century, Irish and British suffragettes alike used hunger strikes to protest the lack of women’s rights during the suffragette movement.

In 1981, in the midst of the Troubles, Bobby Sands and nine others died on hunger strike as they worked to put pressure on Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her government. Years before, though, Dolours and Marian had begun their own hunger strike, demanding to be transferred to a prison in Northern Ireland and to be recognized as political prisoners.

Due to public outcry over the sisters being fed against their will in prison, the British government discontinued their force-feedings, though the two continued with their hunger strike for more than 200 days. They were eventually transferred to Armagh prison in Northern Ireland. Dolours spent six years in Armagh and was eventually released because of her physical deterioration. Likewise, Marian was released in 1980 due to her health decline.

The “Unknowns”

Dolours belonged to the “Unknowns,” a secret unit in the IRA, and it is believed Marian was also part of the elusive group. The unit was responsible for a number of disappearances during the Troubles, including that of Jean McConville. McConville was a mother of ten who went missing in Belfast in 1972.

After being seen helping a British soldier and with rumors spreading that she was an informer, McConville was abducted by the IRA. It is believed Dolours was one of the volunteers who aided in her disappearance, driving her across the Irish border where she was held captive and later murdered. However, it is also rumored that Marian was the one to kill McConville after Dolours had confided to a number of people that Marian was the murderer. McConville’s body was found in 2003 on Shelling Hill Beach in County Louth in the Republic of Ireland.

That same year, Dolours was part of the kidnapping and disappearance of Seamus Wright after it was discovered he was a double agent for the British Army. Price drove him and Kevin McKee, a teenager who was also discovered to be an informer, across the border. Both were executed and secretly buried. In 1999, the IRA admitted that it had murdered nine out of the 16 “Disappeared,” people who had been abducted, murdered, and interred in remote locations by republicans during the Troubles. The remains of three of the victims have never been found.

The Price Sister’s Lives After the Good Friday Agreement

After she was released, Dolours moved to Dublin, where she worked as a journalist and married the actor Stephen Rea. When the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998, both sisters criticized it, believing the deal did not justify the suffering the people of Belfast went through during the Troubles. In the early 2000s, she contributed to the Belfast Project.

Based out of Boston College in Massachusetts, the project was an oral history archive intended to document people’s experiences during the Troubles. The director of the project was Ed Moloney, an Irish reporter who had extensive experience interviewing paramilitaries. Dolours was one of more than 40 paramilitaries who were interviewed. She detailed her experiences within the IRA, particularly her participation in disappearances. She revealed that she had driven Joe Lynskey, an IRA volunteer who was caught having an affair with the wife of another IRA member, across the border to his death.

Dolours was also known for speaking out against Gerry Adams. Adams is an Irish politician, civil rights activist, and former president of Sinn Fein, a democratic socialist party present in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. He was also instrumental during the peace process. Dolours disclosed Adams as her commanding officer in the IRA, though he adamantly denies this claim. Until her death in 2013, Dolours supported a united Ireland.

In 2009, Marian Price was arrested in connection with the attack on the Massereene Barracks in Northern Ireland. The attack left two British soldiers dead. She was charged with supporting an act of terrorism by providing an object for the purpose of a terrorist attack. She was later charged with supporting an illegal organization after presenting at a rally in Londonderry/Derry, which commemorated the Easter Rising. In 2011, she was imprisoned but was released in 2013 after protests.

In late 2024, Marian spoke out against her alleged involvement in the disappearance of Jean McConville. In the TV adaptation of Say Nothing, journalist Patrick Radden Keefe’s book detailing the Troubles, Marian is depicted murdering Jean McConville. She has threatened to sue Disney+ over the depiction, saying that she had nothing to do with the disappearance or murder. However, Keefe supports the claim that Marian murdered McConville.

The Price sisters were complicated and controversial figures, representing not only the cost of the Troubles in Ireland as a whole but also of families caught in the crossfires of the conflict.

Passion, both for the law and civil rights, defined the life of Thurgood Marshall. He drew on his life experiences to identify problems within the US justice system and subsequently challenged these problems on Constitutional grounds. He became the first African-American man to serve on the US Supreme Court, but even before that, he was tearing down racial divides within the law, taking on and winning landmark cases as a young lawyer. From lower middle-class beginnings to a permanent place in history, Thurgood Marshall was a strong voice for change and equality.

“Thoroughly” Interested in the Law

From an early age, Thurgood, born Thoroughgood Marshall on July 2, 1908, in Baltimore, Maryland, had a keen interest in the justice system. Tired of being teased by schoolmates, Marshall legally changed his name to Thurgood at the age of six. He grew up in a lower-middle-class home with his brother and parents, Norma and William. Norma was a teacher, and William, the grandson of a slave originally from the Congo, worked as a railroad porter and later as a steward at an exclusive whites-only club. When he wasn’t working, William enjoyed attending local court proceedings and often brought his sons along with him. Lively discussions would follow, with the lawyers’ arguments rehashed by the trio, often at the dinner table. Marshall would later remark that his father never told him to be an attorney, but “turned me into one.”

Marshall’s intrigue with US law only grew as he got older. Once, in high school, he was given a punishment for misbehavior that would pique his interest: he was ordered to read the Constitution. He even memorized certain parts, considering the fact that many of his contemporaries, including him and his family, were not, at the time, able to enjoy the rights outlined in the document. Like many locations of the era, Baltimore was still operating under Jim Crow laws. Marshall himself attended an all-Black school. Public restrooms were segregated, and discrimination permeated his community.

Classroom to Courtroom

Marshall decided he could be a voice for change, and that the law was the avenue to successfully make those changes. After graduating from high school, he followed his brother to Lincoln University, which at the time was considered the Black counterpart to Princeton University. At first, Marshall embraced the social aspects of college and relied on his intelligence to make up for missed classes. However, after a brief suspension involving a hazing incident with his fraternity, Marshall decided it was time to get down to business. He focused on academics and got involved in civil rights causes in the surrounding community. He met Vivian Burey, and in 1929, they married. After completing his undergraduate degree in 1930, Marshall decided law school was the logical next step.

Marshall’s first choice of law school was the University of Maryland, and he applied upon his college graduation. However, he was denied admission due to his race. Instead, he attended Howard University Law School, where he graduated first in his class in 1933. His family strongly supported this pursuit, with Norma Marshall even selling her wedding ring to help pay for her son’s legal studies. While at Howard, Marshall’s interest in civil rights law and the Constitution grew even further. He was inspired by a mentor, Charles Houston, who introduced him to the NAACP. Houston was in charge of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund and served as the organization’s first general counsel. While Houston did this work, Marshall often worked alongside him.

Fighting Landmark Cases

Thurgood Marshall briefly attempted to start his own law practice, but found that business was slow and clients often couldn’t pay. He found more success working alongside Houston and the NAACP. One of his first cases was Murray v. Pearson, which he worked on with Houston. In the case, Marshall defended a man whose shoes he’d been in just a few years before; Donald Murray had been denied entrance to the University of Maryland Law School on the basis of race.

In 1936, Marshall, Houston, and Murray won their case, marking one of the first successful challenges to segregation and the “separate but equal” doctrine in the United States. In 1938, Houston resigned, and Marshall took over his position as the NAACP’s general counsel. Later, he became the special counsel of the NAACP’s Fund, Inc., a legal activism organization. He continued to argue civil rights cases, including his first before the Supreme Court in 1940. Chambers v. Florida was based on the murder conviction of four Black men who had been forced to confess to the crime by police in violation of their constitutional rights. This defense was a success for Marshall.

As a lawyer, perhaps the most notable of Marshall’s cases was Brown v Board of Education in 1954. This case directly challenged the “separate but equal” doctrine, and ultimately, struck it down. The justices ruled once again in Marshall’s favor, deciding that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” thus desegregating American schools under the law. The win established Marshall as one of the most successful lawyers in America, and his prominence increased. In 1955, his wife died from aggressive lung cancer, and Marshall found himself a widower after 25 years of marriage. He remarried to Cecilia Suyat, and the pair had two sons.

Becoming a Judge

In 1961, Marshall’s legal reputation led to an appointment by President John F Kennedy to the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals. For four years, Marshall served as a judge on the circuit, issuing over a hundred decisions. None of his circuit court decisions was ever overturned by the Supreme Court. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson appointed Marshall to be the nation’s first African-American Solicitor General. In his new position, the third highest in the Justice Department, Marshall was assigned to argue on behalf of the federal government in Supreme Court cases. During his two-year tenure, Marshall argued 19 cases and won 14 of them.

Sitting Supreme

1967 would propel Marshall into another “first” when Johnson appointed him the first Black member of the Supreme Court. In an era where Civil Rights legislation on the federal level was only newly enacted in America in recent years, Marshall’s appointment was a landmark in itself. Johnson later remarked that Marshall’s appointment was “the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man, and the right place.”

In his new role as Associate Justice, Marshall continued to uphold his strong dedication to the importance of individual and civil rights for the American people. He was known as a liberal justice, arguing against the death penalty repeatedly over his term. In fact, he wrote over 150 dissenting opinions relating to death penalty appeals during his time as a justice.

Though dedicated to the law, Marshall was known for his laid-back attitude, even in the courthouse, where he greeted the Chief Justice with “What’s shakin’, Chief baby?” in the hallways. As time went on, the Supreme Court grew more conservative with the appointment of eight judges by Republican presidents, which often frustrated Marshall and weakened his influence. Nonetheless, he remained dedicated to his beliefs and interpretations of the law, writing strong dissents when necessary.

An Incredible Legacy

After 24 years on the Supreme Court bench, Thurgood Marshall retired in 1991. His successor was Justice Clarence Thomas. Just two years into retirement, Marshall passed away from heart failure. He was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

Despite the loss of his physical presence, Marshall’s impact on the American people remains. To quote an obituary piece about him, “Every day we live with the legacy of Justice Thurgood Marshall.” Today, the Thurgood Marshall Institute at the Legal Defense Fund (formerly “Fund, Inc.”) uses social science research and public education to further Marshall’s intentions of supporting a multiracial democracy.

A voice for change, Thurgood Marshall fought for continued improved access to constitutional rights for all Americans. Though his name might not be as recognizable as that of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Malcolm X, Marshall toiled alongside them in the fight for equality in America. Using the law as his tool for progress, Marshall spent his life dedicated to the cause of opening doors for people of all races, and the results of his efforts linger today.

Historians and scholars frequently debate which imperial house in Ancient China held the most influence in the history of East Asia, and the debate often leads to a discussion regarding the Tang Dynasty and the Han Dynasty. Understandably, the Tang Dynasty which ruled the region from 618 AD to 907 AD is widely regarded as the golden age of Chinese civilization. However, the Han Dynasty also had many unique accomplishments.

Why the Han Dynasty Is in the Discussion

The Han Dynasty existed from 206 BC to 220 AD, lasting for over four centuries. According to historical records, it established the foundational culture of the nation to the point that the majority ethnic group in China today is still referred to as the Han. Another major reason for its historical significance was its vastness. The Han Empire rivaled Rome in terms of sheer size and population.

According to a census undertaken in 2 AD, the empire had a recorded population of about 60 million people. Furthermore, the Han Dynasty is credited with formally establishing the Silk Road which connected Africa, Europe, and Asia for centuries, through trade.

The Rise of the Tang Empire

The Tang Empire emerged after the short-livedSui Dynasty and preceded the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period. The Tang empire controlled a vast territory that extended deep into Central Asia, covering approximately 4.13 million square miles. Today, it is credited for maintaining one of the most formidable militaries in the ancient world and having one of the richest cultures of its era.

The Li family founded the Tang dynasty in 618 AD after the collapse of the Sui regime. Li Yuan was the first emperor and he reigned as Emperor Gaozu until 626 AD. His son, Li Shimin, ascended to the throne in 627 AD after killing his two brothers in an event known as the Xuanwu Gate Incident. Li Shimin assumed the title of Emperor Taizong and ruled until 649 AD. It is worth noting that Emperor Taizong is considered by many historians to be one of the greatest monarchs in history. This is because of his military campaigns against the Eastern Tujue and his refinement of the legal code created in 624 AD by his father. The code served as the basis for future legal systems in China and in places such as Japan and Vietnam.

The Tang Dynasty Peak

The Tang dynasty reached its apex during the reign of Emperor Xuanzong who ruled from 712 AD to 756 AD. The period is often referred to as the High Tang. A famous census in the year 754 AD revealed that the empire had about 10 million households and a total population of approximately 53 million people. Historians believe that the actual population was likely higher as many people avoided registration in order to evade taxes. The economy flourished during the early 8th century because of the stability brought about by the Silk Road and the introduction of new agricultural techniques.

Another unique aspect of the Tang era was the rise of the only legitimate female leader in the history of China – Wu Zetian. Wu Zetian was a concubine of Emperor Taizong and later the wife of his son, Emperor Gaozong. She effectively ruled the empire for decades before she officially took the title of emperor in 690 AD. The empress established her own dynasty which she named the Zhou Dynasty and she ruled until she was forced to abdicate in 705 AD. Notably, she maintained the empire’s influence in the Korean peninsula and patronized Buddhism to legitimize her rule. Her reign interrupted the Tang lineage for fifteen years.

The Spread of Chinese Culture

The might of the Tang military allowed the dynasty’s culture to spread far beyond the borders of the empire as it maintained a system of protectorates in the western regions to secure its trade routes. The Battle of Talas in 751 AD marked the limit of the western expansion when Tang forces fought against the Abbasid Caliphate.

In a change of fortunes, the defeat at Talas halted the westward advance. The era is also famous for its poetry and art. Poets such as Li Bai and Du Fu rose in the Tang era and produced thousands of poems that are still studied by students today. The Complete Tang Poems, which is a collection that was compiled later, contains over 48,000 poems written by more than 2200 Tang authors.

In December 1960, the General Assembly of the United Nations declared: “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” In the aftermath of World War II, as the world adjusted to a new global order, the process we call decolonization (the transfer of powers from the colonial power to a local, indigenous government) sent shockwaves around the world. In some cases, independence from colonizing powers was negotiated peacefully or achieved through boycotts, peaceful demonstrations, and large-scale strikes. In other countries, decolonization was a bloody affair.

What Do We Mean by Decolonization?

Decolonization is the process of undoing colonialism, the transition of colonized countries from colonial rule and economic exploitation by a (typically) European power to the self-determination and independence of a local, Indigenous government. Decolonization in the 20th century has been both a global process, involving thousands of peoples around the world, and a very local and specific phenomenon, unfolding differently in different regions.

Overall, it led to the dissolution (sometimes peaceful, sometimes violent) of intercontinental empires over a short period of time, followed by the creation of nation-states, with local masses and leaders asserting their right to self-determination and shaking off colonial rule. Indeed, “decolonization” goes hand in hand with “self-determination,” especially in the context of the 20th century.

In their book Decolonization, a Short History, Jansen & Osterhammel define decolonization as “an apparatus for the serial production of sovereignty, as a kind of sovereignty machine that produces political unities,” unities that are “a series of states, each with a defined national territory, its own constitution, legal order, government, police, flag, and national anthem.”

In its explosive force, 20th-century decolonization produced a series of states that were soon “recognized by the already existing community of states as having equal rights and subject to no higher authority.” 20th-century decolonization is a process that can be framed within certain dates, essentially three decades, roughly from 1945, after the end of World War II, to 1975, when, as Jansen & Osterhammel write, “the oldest of the European overseas empires, the Portuguese, was the last to dissolve.” However, it is also a longer process with nebulous chronological margins.

While we can more or less pinpoint when the decolonization of a country begins, it is much harder to define when it ends. Just as the colonization of a country takes place at the hands of people, so does decolonization. And just as the colonization of a country affects its subjects politically, economically, and culturally, the process of decolonization must also take into account the internalized and psychological nature of colonial power. Ultimately, it must take into account the difficulty of people who have experienced the imposition of a different, sometimes alien, culture, to shake off the negative self-understandings imposed on them by the colonial power.

A World of Empires

On the eve of World War I, the globe was divided into imperial blocs: different regions, sometimes very distant from each other, were controlled by different European empires. The largest and most powerful was, of course, the British Empire. The French Empire controlled the Caribbean, Polynesia, Madagascar, and some areas of Southeast Asia, known as French Indochina, as well as North and West Africa, including Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco (1912-1956), Guinea, Niger, Senegal, Mali, and Mauritania, to name but a few.

Different European powers controlled parts of Africa. Libya, for example, had been an Italian colony since 1911. Portugal still ruled over Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe, and Mozambique, all of which became independent in the mid-1970s. Belgium ruled the Congo with a ruthless and barbaric iron fist.

The Dutch colonial empire, although not as vast as the British or French, included the Dutch East Indies, now Indonesia, the jewel of the Dutch crown, much as India was the jewel of the British crown, as well as the Dutch West Indies, and Suriname (officially known as Dutch Guiana).

Although Germany’s empire was short-lived, by the early 1910s Germany had colonies throughout Africa: present-day Namibia, Tanzania (which would become a British colony in 1919), Rwanda (from 1897 to 1916), Burundi, Cameroon (a German protectorate from 1884 to 1918, known as German Kamerun), Togo (from 1884 to 1919) and parts of Ghana (the latter two known as Togoland), as well as Samoa and various islands in the Pacific.

As Jansen & Osterhammel point out, “With the exception of the German colonial empire, all these empires survived the First World War and even saved themselves, however battered, for a time beyond the Second World War. By 1975, they had disappeared.”

Violent Decolonization

Decolonization, write Jansen & Osterhammel, is “a technical and rather undramatic term for one of the most dramatic processes in modern history: the disappearance of empire as a political form, and the end of racial hierarchy as a widely accepted political ideology and structuring principle of world order.”

In many cases, when the colonial powers refused to relinquish power peacefully, the transition from a world of empires and colonies to one of sovereign nation-states was violent and resulted in humanitarian crises, wars, and thousands of deaths and displacements among both the colonized and the colonizers.

This was the case of Algeria, for example, where for eight years between 1954 and 1962 the National Liberation Front (FLN) launched a series of pseudo-guerrilla attacks against the French army and French civilians, in the countryside and in the cities. France responded with mass arrests, torture, and forced relocations to concentration camps.

The number of Algerians who died in the Algerian War of Independence is still disputed, but estimates range from 45,000 to 1.5 million. Nearly a million pieds-noirs, men and women of French origin born and raised in Algeria, were displaced and fled to France. The conflict also deeply scarred post-independence Algerian society, as those who fought the French persecuted thousands of harkis, Muslim Algerian auxiliaries who fought alongside France.

The French repression in Madagascar, a French colony since 1896, between March 1947 and February 1949 was also particularly brutal. The uprising began on March 29, on the east coast, when thousands of Malagasy, supported by the local population, attacked, looted, and burned police stations, administrative centers, and military garrisons. The rebellion quickly spread across the island, from the southeast to the northwest. The French government responded with a brutality similar to that later used in Algeria.

Suspected rebels were deported to labor camps and thousands were killed in mass executions. Tens of thousands of French troops were sent to Madagascar. As they began to burn fields and slaughter cattle in retaliation, thousands of civilians faced starvation. By 1949, most of the rebel leaders were dead or behind bars, but the uprising ultimately paved the way for the island’s independence.

The late 1940s were also particularly bloody in Indonesia, which had been under Dutch rule for decades and was still known as the Dutch East Indies. On August 17, 1945, shortly after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Japan’s surrender, Indonesian leaders Su Karno (1901-1970), commonly known as Sukarno, and Mohammad Hatta (1902-1980) proclaimed Indonesia’s independence. Su Karno was elected as the first president of the newly formed Republic of Indonesia, while Hatta, “the Proclamator” became his vice president.

Unsurprisingly, the Dutch refused to recognize Indonesia’s independence and sent troops to re-establish their authority. Two years of bloodshed, famine, and violent massacres followed, the most notorious occurring at Rawagede in December 1947 and in South Sulawesi, where Dutch officer Raymond Westerling (1919-1987) led a particularly bloody counter-insurgency offensive between December 1946 and February 1947, killing tens of thousands of civilians.

In the countries where decolonization has been particularly violent, the colonizing power has often destroyed, “lost,” or made inaccessible state archives before leaving. This is what happened in Kenya, a British colony since 1920, where, in the 1950s the Kikuyu warriors of the Mau Mau movement waged a guerrilla campaign against the British, demanding the restitution of their ancestral lands and an end to forced labor. After years of brutal repression by the British colonial forces, Kenya finally gained independence on December 12, 1963. It became a republic in 1964, with Jomo Kenyatta, one of Africa’s most important (and controversial) anti-colonial activists, as its first president.

Peaceful Decolonization

The term “decolonization” conjures up images of violent power shifts, burning flags, massacres, armed groups storming the palaces of power, cities on fire, and foreign armies leaving. But this is not always the case. In some countries, the process of decolonization has been anything but violent.

In countries such as Malaysia, Zambia, and Ghana, to name but a few, the transfer of power was peaceful, with the former colonizing force handing over political power to a newly formed local Indigenous government through treaties and a series of legal and economic agreements detailing the transfer of power and post-independence stability.

This was the case of Malaysia, for example, which gained independence peacefully and through negotiations between the British authorities and local leaders of the United Malays National Organization (UMNO). On the night of August 30, 1957, as the royal anthem God Save the Queen resonated in the Royal Selangor Club in Kuala Lumpur, the flag at Merdeka Square was lowered. In its place, the new flag of Malaysia, the Stripes of Glory as it is often called, was raised.

The next day, Prime Minister-designate Tunku Abdul Rahman (1903-1990) read the Malaysian Declaration of Independence, written in both Malay and English, to thousands of Malays gathered at the Merdeka Stadium; Merdeka translates as “freedom.” That day the world echoed in the stadium as thousands sang it after Tunku Abdul Rahman finished reading the Declaration of Independence.

Over time, particularly in former British colonies, such shifts of power took the form of what Jansen & Osterhammel call a “well-rehearsed routine,” a routine steeped in symbolism. Around the world, as the British flag was lowered and replaced by the local flag and colonial officials prepared to leave the country for good, the day of the handover became Independence Day, the day to be celebrated every year thereafter as the beginning of a new era. A moment frozen in time, shrouded in symbolism, that over time has become an annual celebration, cyclically revived through celebrations, marches, and costume re-enactments.

Seven years after Malaysia’s independence, on October 24, 1964, Zambia also gained independence from the United Kingdom and Kenneth Kaunda (1924-2021) became its first president. More than a century had passed since the Scottish explorer and missionary David Livingstone (1813-1873) first saw Mosi-oa-Tunya, the magnificent waterfalls on the Zambezi River, which he promptly renamed Victoria Falls in honor of Queen Victoria (1819-1901). His written accounts of the falls sparked a wave of European tourism that, along with Cecil Rhodes’s (1853-1902) British South Africa Company (BSA Company), would forever change the history of the region.

On September 30, 1966, the British protectorate of Bechuanaland in Southern Africa became the independent Republic of Botswana. The transfer of power was peaceful, thanks to the combined efforts of the colonial government, Seretse Khama (1921-1980), who went on to become Botswana’s first President, and his party, the Bechuanaland Democratic Party (BDP).

While India’s independence from Great Britain in 1947 was achieved peacefully, with Indian leaders pressuring the British to withdraw through a series of peaceful protests, boycotts, and mass strikes, what followed, the Partition of South Asia into India and the state of Pakistan, which also included modern Bangladesh, represented a humanitarian tragedy of enormous proportions. As thousands of refugees were murdered in large-scale massacres, particularly in border regions such as Punjab, millions of Hindus and Sikhs fled from what had become Pakistan into India while millions of Muslims fled what had become India to seek shelter in Pakistan.

In 1957, Ghana became the first African colony to achieve independence by entirely peaceful means. In the decades that followed, many other African colonies eventually gained independence from France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands. In some of them, the colonial powers and local independence movements and leaders managed to negotiate a transfer of power through diplomacy, negotiation, and gradual constitutional reform, without bloodshed and military confrontation. This is what historians call peaceful decolonization.

Other countries, such as Indonesia and Madagascar, were not so lucky. Here, the colonial powers refused to relinquish power or recognize the declaration of independence proclaimed by indigenous leaders and used military force to suppress what they considered an insurgency. Thousands of people died. Many were combatants and soldiers, but a great number of them were civilians, innocent men, women, and children who had the misfortune of living in a colonized country where diplomacy had failed.

Few historical figures attract as much attention as Napoleon Bonaparte. Over the last roughly two centuries, scholars have come to learn a great deal about virtually every aspect of Napoleon’s remarkable life and career.

Yet, much of Napoleon’s life is also wrapped in myth and legend. We’ll explore one enduring debate about Napoleon’s life: his height. Contrary to popular belief, Napoleon was not exceptionally short. Recent scholarly estimates place his height between 5’5″ and 5’7″, which was considered average for men of his time.

Why Does the Truth About Napoleon’s Height Matter?

It might seem silly to focus so much on a historical figure’s physical appearance. However, Napoleon’s height played a significant role in shaping his legend and legacy among both his supporters and detractors.

As we will see below, much of what we know regarding Napoleon’s alleged dramatically short stature stems from British propaganda. Britain was revolutionary and Napoleonic France’s most frequent enemy in the more than two decades of near-constant warfare between 1792 and 1815.

In the highly literate and politically active world of early 19th-century Britain, it made sense to publish pamphlets and political cartoons depicting a tiny and annoying rival that the mighty British military would crush. Depicting a diminutive opponent was one way to project confidence in a British victory over France.

However, the British were not alone in producing caricatures of their rival, Napoleon. French Royalists and other opponents also created anti-Napoleonic images.

Moreover, Napoleon Bonaparte and his supporters made use of his stature to create a popular image to celebrate among the French troops and the wider public.

Thus, while it might seem insignificant to talk about Napoleon’s physical appearance, it is relevant to our understanding of many aspects of his life and the Napoleonic era in general.

How Tall Was Napoleon?

Scholars have long debated the question of Napoleon’s height, just as they have virtually every other aspect of his life and career. According to historian Martyn Lyons, Napoleon “was a short man, even by the standards of the day” (1994, 1).

However, current scholarship on Napoleon moderates the view held by Lyons and many others on Napoleon’s height. For example, historian David Bell says Napoleon stood at 5’4” or 5’5” or roughly an inch or two shorter than the average adult male height of the time (2019, 19). Other estimates place Napoleon’s height at 5’6” or 5’7”.

In other words, Napoleon was not a particularly tall man, but he was also far from the familiar diminutive caricatures in the contemporary British press.

The initial cause of the discrepancy comes from the fact that Napoleon measured just 5’2” in the pre-metric French measurement system. Yet, as David Bell notes, this measurement was different than British measurements at the time (2019, 19). Lyons’ assessment is technically correct, but perhaps could be read as a slight exaggeration.

Contemporary Accounts of Napoleon’s Appearance

Anyone with an interest in finding out what people who knew or at least met Napoleon thought of him has no shortage of surviving letters, memoirs, and other written accounts to study.

It does not appear that many of his troops were initially impressed by Napoleon’s appearance when he took command of the Army of Italy in 1796. For example, one sergeant described him as “small, skinny, very pale, with big black eyes and sunken cheeks” (Bell, 2019, 29). One of his future marshals, André Masséna, described Napoleon in that same Italian campaign as being “small” and having a “puny face” (Roberts, 2014, 75).

Napoleon’s success on the battlefield rapidly won over the officers and soldiers of the Army of Italy. While nobody would have considered Napoleon a particularly tall and imposing figure, many certainly recognized the qualities that made him a powerful force in early 19th-century Europe.

Chief among those qualities was Napoleon’s boundless energy. Indeed, Napoleon frequently wrote or dictated thousands of letters per year on even the most minute details of government or military affairs. Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, the political chameleon and longtime French foreign minister who would eventually become a bitter opponent of Napoleon, once said, “What a pity he wasn’t lazy” (Bell, 2019, 29).

The Napoleonic Legend

Napoleon played an active role in shaping his public image as an invincible military commander and superior political leader. For example, Napoleon himself helped propagate the image of a successful and popular commander among his troops during the Italian campaigns of 1796-1797 as the “Little Corporal.”

Much of this promotional image portrayed Napoleon as a self-made lawgiver and military genius who harnessed revolutionary energies and rewarded merit. In this narrative, many elements of his physical appearance became emblematic: the gray greatcoat and generally simple dress read as frugality, the controlled stance as disciplined will, his familiar profile as a logo of order and success after the chaos and instability of the French Revolution.

There was certainly truth to this depiction of Napoleon. He did, as historian Andrew Roberts points out, spend little money on clothing and certainly raised many ordinary soldiers to high ranks in the military and French society (2014, 469-470). Many of his initiatives as Emperor of the French (1804-1814, 1815) fused conservative elements of the pre-French Revolution Ancien Régime with the republican spirit of the French Revolution.

However, much of this positive image is also exaggerated. Napoleon was not exactly a man of the people. Indeed, the “Little Corporal” was not averse to gambling with the lives of thousands of his soldiers. Indeed, Napoleon’s attitude towards war and treatment of his soldiers became a source of criticism among his detractors.

Yet, even with the fictions and more frequent exaggerations, Napoleon led a remarkable life.

The Black Legend of Napoleon

Just as Napoleon and his supporters were actively propagating legends and stories to celebrate the man, his opponents did the same to offer criticism and condemnation.

The so-called “Black Legend” depicted Napoleon as a usurper and ruthless warmonger. Opponents in Britain and on the Continent framed him as a Corsican upstart who threw Europe into chaos thanks to his nepotism, systematic looting of conquered provinces, and seemingly endless will to wage war.

The brutality he showed when confronted with uprisings, particularly in Italy and Egypt, also became focal points of the Black Legend. Perhaps the most enduring example of this brutality was immortalized by Spanish artist Francisco Goya in his works Dos de Mayo and Tres de Mayo, detailing the violent suppression of the uprising against French rule in Madrid in May 1808 (Bell, 2019, 82).

Just like the more positive legend, there is much truth to what Napoleon’s critics have said over the centuries. On the other hand, to read the black legend critically is not to absolve Napoleon; it is to separate indictment from the caricatures, such as those produced by James Gillray. For example, historian Matthew Zarzeczny notes that one of the leading experts on Napoleon, the late Dr. David Chandler, described Napoleon as a “great, bad man” (2013, 214). This mixed view of Napoleon persists to this day.

Historians thus remain divided in their assessments of Napoleon, just as psychologists continue to debate whether the famous Napoleon complex condition truly exists.

Napoleon’s Legacy

A thorough account of Napoleon’s legacy requires at least one book-length project. However, we can sketch out the broad details of Napoleon’s impact and influence on France, Europe, and the world.

Historian David Bell explains that in the 19th century, Napoleon became a popular hero of European Romanticism, in large part because of many famous episodes in his career, including his victories in Italy in 1796-1797 (2019, 113). His exploits and legal reforms inspired many revolutionaries across Europe and the Americas in the 19th century, including Simón Bolívar.

Napoleon’s supporters throughout the 19th century attempted to gain political power in France by associating with his legendary triumphs. Napoleon’s supporters, known as Bonapartists, carried on his memory and legacy well after he died in exile on the remote South Atlantic island of Saint Helena in 1821.

Bonapartists used many Napoleonic symbols and likenesses of Napoleon on various products, including chocolate tins and snuffboxes, to keep his memory alive and promote their political vision for France.

According to historian Richard J. Evans, Bonapartism stood for national pride, universal manhood suffrage, efficient and centralized bureaucracy, and military glory. It was also closely associated with Republicanism (2016, 12). Bonapartism as a political force in France only collapsed as a result of Napoleon’s nephew, Napoleon III’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71.

References:

• Bell, D.A. (2019). Napoleon: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Evans, R.J. (2016). The Pursuit of Power: Europe 1815-1914. Penguin.
• Lyons, M. (1994). Napoleon Bonaparte and the Legacy of the French Revolution. Macmillan Education.
• Roberts, A. (2014). Napoleon the Great. Penguin.
• Zarzeczny, M.D. (2013). Meteors that Enlighten the Earth: Napoleon and the Cult of Great Men. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.