Source D is form an Irish Roman Catholic who describes (B Devlin) her school days, which implies a degree of bias because her Vice Principle “mother Benignus” had her family suffer at the hands of the British. Her view on Protestants was that they were not Irish, and she even had separate views on teaching about Irish history.
This source is an adaptation form b Devlin “the price of my soul, 1969”, this date indicates that this source could be primary but yet again it could be bias. This source is limited in a way but still gives us sufficient evidence to show how troubles could have broken out, because Protestants and Catholics Were divided as communities and were taught in separate methods, they were also separated so when the two meet either side would contradict each other. Therefore resulting in violence.
Source E is a Protestant cartoon from the nineteenth century showing “ERIN” (Ireland) bound by ropes by a Catholic Priest. This is portraying conflict between the two religions. There is a message portrayed by the cartoon and it is that Catholicism has control of Ireland. But this could be portraying the truth, as Catholicism was the main religion in Ireland.
This source is limited but it helps to show how conflict between Catholics and Protestants came about. But this could also be a Propaganda Against the Catholics to try and gain support for Protestants.
Source F is a map showing the Gerrymander in Derry in 1966. It is obvious that the Protestants have deliberately placed themselves at an advantage in places where they get the most votes apart from the South Ward, where Catholics had the majority. But this source is very limited, as it cannot give more information than it already holds.
Source G is of Protestant images of Catholic attacks on Protestants in 1641. This could be propaganda to recruit more men into raising an army. If any thing I think the Catholics people who are being pushed around because the Protestants have the British behind them so this makes more tension added to what is building up to be the beginning of the troubles.
Source H is what some People would call primary evidence that has no bias what so ever. This is true to some extent the photograph shows a civil rights marcher clearly being struck by armed officers. However the photo is limited evidence we cannot see what is outside the perimeter of the photograph or what before or after this incident to cause the RUC officers to strike the marcher. There may be a cause for it and yet it could also be a raged attack by thee RUC officers. We also learn that the police might have attacked without provocation and there is a lot of violence in the blood of both Protestant and Catholics. This source, like others can be read two ways it can show two sides to an uncomprimised story.
However it is sources like these that did infact add insult to injury, in that it was probably sold to papers and both Catholics and Protestant would be outraged reading this. One side could feel disgusted that uniformed officers are acting in this way at a peaceful civil rights march. And the other side could say that the media is quick to snap a photograph of a RUC officer beating a marcher but where is the photograph showing the cause for their attack IE violent marchers or perhaps a weapon of some sort.
So really this source has not helped either side prove or gain in any way but just aggravated the situation.
Source I is a photograph
Source c is telling us of a man who was in a pub before the incident, where Para troopers told him “they were going to clear the Bog.” Which when added to what I have read in the “Bloody Sunday” gives an idea that they had an intention to go in and fire and they were expecting trouble.
Source B tells us that as time progressed so did science and so the forensic evidence was able to change for the better, as this source tells us that a lot of evidence was changed. The Para troopers used illegal weapons. I think that this source is linking with source C to say that the Para troopers were abusing Their Powers that day.
Source A: Paras in bloody Sunday evidence Storm.
Source A is from a newspaper report dated Friday 17th September 1999, bloody Sunday occurred 30th January 1972. There is approximately 27 years and nine months between this event and the report. Although the report is not trying to interperate the events of Bloody Sunday it does them. The report also discusses enquiries that are going on presently about bloody Sunday, again 27 years ago. This is just one example amongst many that clearly illustrates how an event so big in history is discussed even years after it occurs.
Although compared to a historical event such as the battle of Hastings, Bloody Sunday is quite recent, it is perhaps this fact that makes it hard to determine what happened that day. For example we have limited source work/ evidence or exact knowledge of the battle of Hastings but for Bloody Sunday we have plentiful, which is why I guess that it makes it harder to judge what really happened. Witnesses and evidence contradict each other through bias in their stories and the sides that they take. Photographic evidence can be read two ways as can scientific and again this will be perceived through the side that you take. It is the evidence that contradicts itself and other hard facts.
It is because the evidence can be read in two ways that it has produced so many interpretations and will continue to do so throughout time. Looking at Bloody Sunday is a bit like analyzing the color red. Depending on the perceiver’s personality or current state of mind red can be viewed in many different ways. It can show passion, aggression, rage, danger, royalty, love, authority or hate. Neither of the above are correct and neither are incorrect but we can all agree that if there is an underlying emotion that we associate with something visual i.e the color red, it will be enhanced once the two meet. It is in the same way that we may view the events of Bloody Sunday. There is underlying emotions within people concerning that day and these can be brought to light by different factors. Depending on what it is that the person involved has connected as a visual stimulant different things will arouse different emotions.