The Martyrs of 1981

In 1981  Ten invincible Irish men used the weapon of HUNGER STRIKE and changed  the History of England and Ireland and became Martyrs in an old cause.

According to Alizeh Kohari of BBC News, Hunger strikes have been staged for political reasons throughout history.

One of the first recorded is in ancient Indian scriptures, which talk of the brother of the exiled King Rama using the threat of a fast to coax him into returning. He placed himself on a bundle of sacred grass at his feet and refused to budge.

On this occasion the "hunger strike" failed. But the concept persisted - indeed, in pre-Christian Ireland, it was part of the legal system. If a man felt wronged by you and starved himself to death on your doorstep, you had to bear the burden of his debts.

Unlike other protests, a hunger strike has no direct effect on the intended target. The protester suffers, not the person protested against. The protester relies on the moral force of their actions, or the publicity value, to achieve something.

The idea of hunger as political protest has experienced a renaissance in the recent past, says Prof Sharman Apt Russell, author of Hunger: An Unnatural History.

It was revived by the suffragettes in the UK at the beginning of the 20th Century. In July 1909, when a doctor asked jailed suffragette Marion Wallace-Dunlop what she would eat for dinner, she replied in defiance: "My determination." It has become an established cultural form of seeking justice in the 20th Century," says Prof Russell. She warns that a hunger strike needs the oxygen of publicity but interest will wane if the cause at stake does not withstand public scrutiny. Hunger strikes have been used by both violent and non-violent movements, and some have been more successful than others at bringing about change. Michael Biggs, a sociologist at the University

 of Oxford, says some of the most successful cases were Irish republicans fighting the British state. Thomas Ashe, killed during forcible feeding in Dublin in 1917, Terence MacSwiney, starved to death in London in 1920,

 and Bobby Sands, starved to death. in Long Kesh in 1981

"These did not immediately bring concessions from the state. But they had a huge impact on the Irish public, both by shifting people towards Irish republicanism and by inflaming the emotions of those already committed to the cause.

"They also undermined support for the British state's policy among a portion of the British public."

In an international publicity coup, Sands was elected as an MP while on hunger strike and his funeral in Belfast was attended by at least 70,000 people.

Biggs says the hunger strikes by suffragettes in Britain "similarly gained media attention and enhanced the commitment of supporters" but the vote came later and arguably owed more to women's service in World War I.

Gandhi was a supreme practitioner of non-violent protest, he says, and the use of his methods by millions of Indians was very effective in undermining British rule in India.

He says the current protest by Indian campaigner Anna Hazare, who went on hunger strike in April to demand stringent anti-corruption laws, is different because it is occurring outside prison.

"While many people outside prison have gone on fasts for a time, it is almost unknown for someone to actually starve to death outside prison.

"In prison, there's really no other means of protest. And in prison the government is clearly responsible for your life/death and so can be blamed if you die."

Former IRA hunger striker Tommy McKearney says prisoners are limited in what they can do.

"So many things in a prisoner's life are dictated by their captors. We had three years of protests and did everything we could think of to bring a resolution but we needed make or break action."

The 58-year-old, who was serving time for the murder of part-time UDR soldier Stanley Adams, was part of the first wave of hunger strikers in 1980. They wanted the then Conservative government to give them back political prisoner status.

He says there was no master plan, with a "hunger strike as the grandstand final flourish".

"We didn't set out with the objective of dying but we were prepared to die.

"People who do it have a deep commitment, it's not a game to be played with. Only the cause will get you through."

In the case of the 1981 Hunger Strike, the prison conditions could have operated as a safety valve. A sophisticated British government could have defused the situation quite easily and avoided a confrontation between itself as unyielding colonial power and a group of defenseless political prisoners, which is how it largely came to be seen internationally. The first hunger strike having ended, they would not have been acting under duress if they had allowed for some new arrangements on the specifics of prison conditions. But as the prisoners pressed for a second hunger strike they knew that this time not only would some of them have to die but also that they were engaging in a fight with the British government. It went beyond the issue of prison conditions; they were pitching themselves, with the only weapons at their command, against the imperial power. As they faced the prospect of death they felt that the spectacle of their deaths in prison was going to be politically productive for the republican cause to which they were committed.

Hunger strike is unlike any other form of struggle. An IRA volunteer does not go out to get killed, if he gets killed it is because he makes a mistake or some other circumstances arises. But a hunger striker embarks on a process, which from day one is designed to end in his death. However, when people contemplate their own deaths there can be no guarantee that they will go through with it to the end. It takes a very particular kind of person to go all the way, to resist the voices in his own head, the concern of friends and family, not to mention the pressures of the authorities. It is extremely difficult to know, until one is staring death right in the face, whether one is that particular kind of person.

For Sands and for those who would come later, the strike would not really be about the five demands, political status, or the legitimacy of the movement and the armed struggle; it was to pit the will of the just against the power of empire. For the republican to win the British would have only to take his life, would have only to refuse to act and thus show their shame. And he was sure that Britain would act to character, hold firm, and so lose a moral struggle. 

This was to the strikers a great moral struggle between Irish justice and British oppression that would be so recognized only when life was given and taken. The criminals would be revealed not by a declaration by Thatcher, not by the courts or judges, but by a trial of spirit within the H-block cells by men alone with their faith. Hughes and the others might not recognize the inevitable, but from the first Sands did.

The strikers were seen by many as Catholic martyrs as well as nationalist ones. The nation's history of denial and suffering because they were Catholic and Irish was recalled and refashioned. Irish nationals and Catholics perceived the strike as a traditional response to power displayed and deployed.

WHY PLAYWRIGHT ?

 WHY PLAYWRIGHT INSTEAD OF PLAYWRITE?

Many people think of playwrights as writers. As people who sit alone in a room cranking out plays to be performed onstage. It's easy to see why. But the reality is that playwrights usually need to be more hands-on than an essayist or novelist.

Other have pointed out that the word "playwright" calls to mind a trade like being a "shipwright"--someone who builds ships. Similarly, playwrights don't necessarily write a play so much as wright one--build it. It's not a purely intellectual process, but one that benefits from physical sensations and emotions.

In other words: from acting.

There's a reason why so many of our most celebrated playwrights were also actors. Because learning how to inhabit a character, and being responsible for bringing a written scene to life, teaches you a whole lot about how to write better scenes in the first place.

So with that in mind, here are some of the most important acting tips that are relevant to playwrights:

1) Know your "moment before."

Anytime a character enters a scene, they've just come from somewhere, and that previous moment determines how they feel (and act) at the beginning of the scene.

Has your character just run a marathon? Just had their first kiss? Just  lost their job?

Those previous moments will color the scene greatly, and it pays to know what each character's "moment before" is for every scene you write.

2) Know your character's goal.

Drama consists of conflict. And in order for there to be conflict, your characters have to want something. And they have to be actively trying to get that thing in the scene.

Without a goal, an actor doesn't know how to play a scene. They won't know what their subtext is (the meaning behind their words).

The most explosive scenes usually have two or more characters who both want opposing things--a wife wants to accept a job, her husband wants her to decline it; a child wants to go to the park, the babysitter wants to stay home; and so on.

3) Know your character's motivation.

Motivation is related to goal, but it's not the same thing.

The goal is WHAT your character wants.

Motivation is WHY they want it.

The easiest way to find your character's goal is to ask yourself:

"What will happen if they fail to achieve their goal?"

The answer to that question will give you your character's stakes.

If you notice that the stakes are too low, that could contribute to a less-than-dramatic scene. Try increasing the stakes to give your characters more motivation. Stronger motivation means they'll be willing to take more risks to achieve that goal, which will make for a more interesting scene.