Derry Derry not Londonderry – two giant leaps needed for Irish-kind, but it’ll not be nationalists or unionists doing them?

DURING my time at secondary school in the Republic of Ireland, a theatre group called Team Theatre visited occasionally to perform plays.

One of them was a play called ‘Borderlands’, about the Irish border.

I have no great memory of the play itself, but I remember a couple of things that occurred.

There was a section where the Derry – Londonderry thing was gone over, with the performers resolving the conflict over the city’s name by deciding that it shouldn’t be called either Derry or Londonderry; but – wait for it – ‘Derry Derry’.

I kid you not.

I thought ‘what a wanky message’ even then.

One of the performers, then gave a little speel about challenging assumptions and asking questions. 

He said that sometimes questions don’t get asked, or might be difficult to ask, or people might be reticent to answer for some reason.

He showed his awareness of being in a Protestant school, by giving as his example of this –

‘How many people would vote unionist if they lived in Northern Ireland?’

This might be a question some people mightn’t be comfortable answering, he said.

Myself and a friend got talking to one of the actors afterwards and, given the subject of the play, started talking about Londonderry, using the name in a good natured, but without doubt ‘making a point’ sort of way.

This was in keeping with the ethos of the performance, playing the little door they had opened, allowing Londonderry a foothold in normal conversation.

He couldn’t do Londonderry at all; probably saw that we were gently winding him up, couldn’t say the name, didn’t converse, didn’t or couldn’t back up the play’s ethos.

His body language and reticence was totally at odds to the message of the play about thoughtfulness, crossing boundaries and challenging assumptions.

Or thus was how I read it. I lost all respect for him; a not so open, open mind.

Even the message of the play as a whole seemed shallow.

Why entertain the idea of  Londonderry with pseudo tolerant plausibility in the first place if it’s up for negation and iconoclasm?

Derry Derry my arse. 

Nationalism is filled with this; the ancient sectarian fight surging underneath, qualifying the language of toleration and reconciliation.

It’s the dishonesty as much as anything.

Centre ground nationalists, if they really want a reconciled Ireland, will need to get over themselves on this sort of thing.

A truly reconciled Irish identity  should embrace the metaphorical Londonderry, not default to reconquest iconoclasm once the symbolic gesture is made.

This is a huge step.

Why should they make it? 

Because the metaphorical Londonderry I am describing  is not something imposed by a British state.

It is something felt in the hearts of citizens, who have the right to hold and freely express a sense of their collective identity, including British, whether it deviates from the Irish nationalistic norm or not.

That is protected by the GFA, and international Human Rights law and in other ways, leaving identity dictators on thin ice.

Unionists have a huge step to take too.

The all to common ‘British or nothing’ attitudes do little to heal society or strengthen the centre ground either.

They must take to the idea of an island wide Irish consensus.

Dishonesty of the sort mentioned above does not facilitate this, but they are thran in their own right anyway.

The longer they leave it, the harder it will get.

Huge steps for each, each so often unable to do so.