Time to start writing

I'm off work today with illness, and I am not fit to do much else, so I decided it's time to start writing, or re-writing, the section of the Brief History dealing with the Jubilee Riots.

I have researched this as best I could, which, paradoxically, makes this a rather difficult chapter to write.  My research has centred on reading the newspapers of the time, of which there are several.  However, each newspaper came with its own point of view, or 'narrative' as we like to say today.  The Mail was a staunch protestant and Orange paper.  They wanted their readers to know that, while the behaviour of the Protestants at the riot was detestable and to be condemned in no uncertain terms, it was the Catholics who started the affair.  The Irish Canadian wanted its readers to know that the whole affair was to be blamed on the Protestants, from first to last. and on them alone.  The Globe takes a surprisingly moderate position, and gives the lion's share of the blame on the Protestants.  Curiously, there are several Letters to the Editor written by Archbishop Lynch posted in The Globe at that time.  Lynch was a reader of the paper.  He does not seem to respond to anything in the other papers.

I found only one scholarly article examining the events of that week, and it basically went over the same material as I did: newspaper reports.  The article uses The Mail as its primary source, with other views thrown in to try and flesh out the details and views.  This makes some sense: The Mail gives the fullest account of the events and spends the most time and column inches on the subject.  They are the ones who, for instance, detail the entire meeting of the Orange Lodge and Young Britons that occurred in the week between the riots.  Their underlying message is that the Lodge is not to be blamed for what happened.  Likewise they give a more full report on the council meeting that happened early in the week which also discussed the question of the first riot, and whether or not the second procession could be stopped.

But The Mail is, as I said, highly prejudiced.  They report events during the riots that no other paper reports, and, again, these events are told to exonerate the Lodge and the Protestants.   Is it possible they made these facts up? Or did the other papers suppress these facts because they did not support their narrative?  And how does one tell the difference, now, long after the events have passed and all witnesses are dead?

In part, I would like to just reprint all the articles from the papers and encourage people to read them and decide for themselves, but it seems highly unlikely anyone would read that.  Of course, my sales for the first part of the brief history was exactly one, so it is highly unlikely anyone would read it one way or the other.  Perhaps I will publish the lot of them as an appendix.

So what to do?  The article I mentioned places the beginning of the riots with an ad for a procession published in the Irish Canadian.  But that is the position of The Mail.  The Globe makes no effort to articulate a beginning, perhaps because they simply did not care what started this affair. The Irish Canadian likewise makes no mention of the ad- that did not sit well with their narrative either.  The Leader  takes a cue from The Mail and mentioned the ad.  But the actions of the rioters don't quite fit that narrative.  On the other hand, a riot is almost by definition an irrational act.  One should not expect it to make sense.  From what I can tell, the ad probably had an effect, but it was more of a last straw than a cause in itself.

And so, time to begin, as soon as I figure out where.

Mūsa, mihī causās memorā, quō nūmine laesō,
quidve dolēns, rēgīna deum tot volvere cāsūs
īnsīgnem pietāte virum, tot adīre labōrēs  
impulerit. Tantaene animīs caelestibus īrae?

Tell me, O Muse, the cause,how she was offended,
how slighted in her divinity, The Queen of Heaven,
to drive a man so marked for piety and virtue
To endure so any trials, so many toils?
Can the most high gods harbour such wrath?