Sir, – Newton Emerson eloquently laid out the unionist view of the troubles in his recent article. It is to his credit that he realises it is a view, not the totality of views ("Arlene Foster's troubled past resonates across unionism, Online Opinion & Analysis, February 19th).
It does get a little confused at times as to what is comment and what is his interpretation of the unionist viewpoint. His reference to “Protestant market towns” is interesting and misleading. There are no exclusively Protestant towns, be they market or otherwise. There are towns that during the summer months look to be completely inhabited by unionists (though their religious affiliation is undefined), with a mass of flags and Orange paraphernalia, but within all these towns there are nationalists keeping their heads down and going about their business. Indeed, if there weren’t nationalists to see these tribal displays, it is unlikely they would happen in the first place.
Primacy of victimhood is a feature of every conflict. Unionists give the rural off-duty or part-time RUC/UDR man being attacked (although often their day job of farmer or postman is quoted and not their other activities) as their examples of being victimised. Nationalists (including indeed the residents of Dublin, Dundalk and Monaghan) can give the victims of the Glenanne Gang or other numerous examples of security force collusion, as their examples of victimisation.
The reality is that their truth on all sides. Not every article, unlike Newton Emerson’s, goes to the bother of recognising there are different viewpoints. In the southern media, the unionist viewpoint is taken as more or less the de facto one. It is a strange quirk in history that this is the case, and sociologists would probably explain it with some reference to postcolonial inferiority complexes or the like. But it is damaging to conflict resolution and reconciliation. – Yours, etc,
JOHN TEMPLE,
Dromiskin,
Co Louth.