Bill Feehan and his grandson Connor enjoy a fireboat ride while The World Trade Center stands in the background, July 1998.
When the dust settled on September 11, one of the 343 firefighters listed as missing, later pronounced dead, was Chief Bill Feehan. A firefighter to his core, Feehan was loved by the men and women in the FDNY.
Bill Feehan loved eggs over easy. Every day for the last 20 years at least he stopped at the Northern Cross Diner in Queens and read the Daily News as he had his usual breakfast of two eggs, toast, hash browns and bacon. He also loved Shepherd’s Pie, was a sucker for a good crumb cake and on occasion enjoyed a sip of scotch with the boys in the office unwinding after a hard day. He loved to hear from his sons and daughters throughout the day as they checked in with him on dinner plans. They mothered him since the death of his beloved wife Betty in 1996 and made sure he ate right, did his laundry and stayed on him about paying his bills on time, which is a whole other story. They regaled him with the latest exploits of the grandchildren and sent them along for those precious rides on the fireboat with Grandpa.
You could hear him greeting son Bill with the enthusiastic “Guillermo” every time he called. He loved the fact that son John was in the busy Squad Company 252 in Brooklyn and son-in-law Brian was in Ladder 120, because it gave him direct sources for what was going on in the field. His eyes would light up every time Chief Medical Officer Dr. Kerry Kelly walked in his room, and he waited with a grin as she attempted to argue on behalf of one of her long-term problem cases. It was usually a firefighter with injuries so chronic he should have been retired years ago but couldn’t face leaving the job he loved so much. Dr. Kelly had squirreled him away doing paperwork somewhere and had been found out and now had to make the case to keep him on so he could qualify for his 20-year pension. Bill Feehan would play the tough guy, make her squirm, tell her “No, he has to go,” then undo it the minute she left the office, securing a future for the fire fighter and his family.
As you drove through the City with Bill, the vastness of his experience revealed itself. :This is where we had a big job, three floors of fire,” he’d say as he pointed to a loft in Soho. Hell’s Hundred Acres, he called it. “This is the dead man’s room,” he’d say as he pointed out the front bedroom in a three-story frame in Brooklyn. “No way out.”
“This is where John Grant [his former aide] nearly got me fired. He lost the keys to the car and the Chief told me to take up [leave the scene]. Fifteen minutes later we’re still there looking at our shoes while he has someone bringing in another set of keys, and the Chief for the third time tells me, “Feehan, if you don’t get your sorry ass back in that car you’ll be sitting housewatch in the Bronx.” Bill would laugh as he remembered, “We get in the car and Grant says, `…all-in-all, I thought he was a little extreme.’”
He had a tale or two about his long-time second job, working security for the Helmsleys in their hotels around New York. He’d often be in the lobby when Mrs. Helmsley would breeze through and say in a commanding tone, “Feeny, take care of that.” Bill would do it, whatever it was. She never knew his name. He had the highest regard for her but could go on for hours about the characters that frequented the hotel bars during his overnight shift.
When new Commissioners arrived at the Fire Department Bill had to navigate his way through the sometimes turbulent waters of new experience. He put his ego aside and offered to make the transitions smooth. The Commissioners quickly came to realize they were dead in the water without him on their side.
He had dealt for Tommy Von Essen for years as a union delegate and then as union president and after assuming the Commissioner’s job for a few months, stepped aside gracefully when Mayor Giuliani appointed the brash Von Essen to the top spot. The Mayor’s one dictate, urged by outgoing Commissioner (later Police Commissioner) Howard Safir, was to keep Bill Feehan.
Feehan and Von Essen became fast friends, tackling problems that had never been addressed; fundamental issues of leadership, accountability and the critical push to increase firefighter safety. Keeping firefighters safe and well-trained was a passion for both of them and their resolve was firm.
A bit more firm than when it came to dealing with the men one on one.
Facing the flames – Bill Feehan assesses the scene at a water and gas main break in Manhattan in January, 1998. On the left is Chief Ray Downey who also lost his life at the World Trade Center on September 11.
They played good guy, bad guy when it came to discipline. Bill was famous for calling people in from the field for disciplinary action and having them cool their heels in the reception area for an hour or more while he and his executive officer, Henry McDonald, pumped each other up. They assured each other they were right, the guy didn’t deserve another chance, the difficult choice to let the offender go was the right thing to do and that they had to remain strong in their resolve. More often than not, the guy would come in and explain he had a sick wife at home, was working three jobs and promised he’d never, ever do it again. Bill would capitulate and there wouldn’t be a dry eye in the house. Henry McDonald always said that Bill knew more about what was in the minds of firefighters than they did. “There wasn’t a thought, a dream or a regret that he hadn’t had himself,” Chief McDonald said. “Even when they drove him crazy, he loved them to the core.”
As the Giuliani years drew to an end and retirement loomed on the horizon, the talk and nervous laughter turned to possible new careers. Bill practiced his concierge techniques in hopes of serving as a greeter at Home Depot. One of the great mysteries was how to get a MetroCard to take a bus or a subway after 20 years of having a Department car with lights and sirens.
On September 11, Bill is recorded on film doing what he did best. Being calm under fire, bringing order out of chaos, not without a little charm and humor. He is seen taking the elbow of a very frightened young lady in the lobby of tower number one and calmly pulling her close and walking her through just like it’s dinnertime in one of Mrs. Helmsley’s hotels. He smiles, takes her to safety and resumes command of the most horrific situation he’s ever been confronted with. He left the tower of One World Trade Center scouting a new command post for the Fire Department. He cleared everyone out of the Winter Garden at the World Financial Center, gave an evacuation order for those towers and proceeded to West Street where he joined Commissioner Tom Von Essen, Chief Pete Ganci and Chief Ray Downey to manage the horror unfolding before them. He winked at one of his Deputy Commissioners who didn’t want to believe what she saw and questioned him about how the incidents unfolded. Was it a mid-air collision? Could it have been an accident? He said with his usual Bill Feehan subtlety, “Are you a knucklehead? It’s terrorism.”
Then came the sickening roar, the realization that something was coming down, the dash for the garage and shelter. He worked his way through the darkness and out to the light. He sent everyone he saw north and he moved south to help those who were injured. He was with Chief Ganci and they did what they had promised to do on the day they were sworn in so many years ago; put themselves in harm’s way to help people in trouble. When the second tower came down, it came their way.
Bill Feehan at work.
When the dust settled, and they knew he was gone, Bill’s Executive Chief Henry McDonald, his friend Ray Goldbach, John McLaughlin, and so many others clawed at the steel and concrete until they got him. Michael Regan, the young Deputy Commissioner who had learned at his feet and who would finish out his last few months with the Department in Bill’s job, helped to put him in the ambulance to bring him up to Bellevue. Later that night they brought his son Bill down to the site to show him where his Dad died.
On Saturday, September 16, in a light rain and cold wind, a crowd gathered at St. Mel’s in Queens to share their grief and shock and pay tribute to the Chief. To capture the essence of this man, father, grandfather, historian, mentor, leader, hero in the truest sense of the word, but above all a loving human being, was impossible in a eulogy. Maybe Bill himself said it best in words he wrote to remember another firefighter:
“The truest form of love is to lay down your life for another but the purest form of love is to cherish each other every day. Never leave a moment’s doubt that you love with your whole heart and soul. It’s a great legacy”
Bill Feehan left no doubt that he loved and was loved by all who knew him. ♦
Photographs (left to right) by Greg Nash / Getty; Al Drago / Bloomberg / Getty
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Adding his voice to the movement to legalize cannabis at the federal level, Dr. Anthony Fauci testified that marijuana could be helpful to people who have to listen to Senator Ted Cruz speak.
“Medically speaking, there is no way to completely alleviate the pain of hearing Ted Cruz’s voice,” Fauci told the Senate. “But, anecdotally, I can tell you that marijuana helps.”
A Letter from Ireland The Patriots Who Walk With Us a Chara,
Easter is a reflective period for Irish Republicans to remember our patriots and to recommit to the cause of Irish Unity.
I have been invited to speak at this year’s San Francisco Easter Commemoration. Martin Kenny TD will travel to Toronto and Mairead Farrell TD will speak at events in New York, Long Island, and Philadelphia. I hope to meet up with Mairead in Philly. Events are also planned in Chicago and other cities.
These events are only made possible by the dedication of local activists.
The Philadelphia event was to be anchored by Robert (Bob) Dougherty. I’d met Bob once in person before Covid. We remained in regular contact over the past two years as he organized successful Easter and Hunger Strike Commemorations.
Last week we were back and forth about this year’s commemoration. He was excited to host Mairead and keen to sort out arrangements. I was looking forward to catching up with him in person to thank him for all his work.
I will never get the chance. Bob died suddenly and unexpectedly last weekend. I only knew a small fraction of his life, that of an Irish Republican activist. I was impressed.
Physically a big man, he was unassuming in his activism. He believed in what he was doing and he got it done. The reward for Bob was knowing that he had honored the memory of generations of Irish Patriots.
He was not solely focused on the past. He worked tirelessly for the Irish Political Prisoners Children’s Holidays project. Bringing kids to the US as conflict raged in Ireland. These children are now adults with kids of their own. The transatlantic friendships they created continue a generation later.
The sudden loss of Bob and his pride in the Easter Commemoration got me thinking.
At Easter, Irish Republicans honor those who gave their lives for Irish Freedom.
Maybe we should also celebrate those who live their lives for the same cause. Those who give of their time and skills day in and day out. Those who get on and get the work done.
Victory will not be secured solely by the sacrifice of the few but by the actions of the many.
I offer my condolences to Bob’s wife Leslie, two children Christine and Mary Kate, and his granddaughters Maeve and Saoirse.
I am sorry that I did not get to thank Bob in person, but I will remember him at the Easter Commemoration in Philly. This Easter I will think of and be thankful for the patriots who walk with us.
Have a great weekend,
CiaránCiarán Quinn is the Sinn Féin Representative to North America Sinn Féin Poised for Historic ElectionOn May 5th there will be an election in the North of Ireland, and it could be a historic event.Since the partition of Ireland, a unionist has always held the top post. But change is coming. In the latest poll, Sinn Féin has a 6 point lead over its largest Unionist rival, the DUP.If these polls hold, the Vice President of Sinn Féin, Michelle O’Neill would become First Minister.With your continued support, we can make history.Donate to Friends of Sinn Féin to help win this election.“The end is nigh for Northern Ireland as we know it, and unionists can blame themselves,” writes Susan McKay. “Northern Ireland is coming to an end, and unionists, having nowadays only themselves to blame, are plummeting through history, desperately seeking the security of the homeland they are convinced their forefathers built for them.”
So writes author, journalist, and filmmaker, Susan McKay in a recent opinion piece in The Guardian.
She adds, “A rude awakening is coming and panic has set in. And so it is that Jeffrey Donaldson MP, the DUP leader, and, reluctantly, one of its candidates as an MLA, finds himself sitting miserably on lorry-pulled trailers at poorly attended anti-protocol rallies in the main streets of small towns in unionist heartlands. He has his Orange sash with him, lest anyone doubt his loyalty – and plenty do, for paranoia is the prevailing condition at these events. The Orange order is once again trying to unite the unionist family. What is being opposed is not just the protocol – it is the Good Friday agreement..
A Letter Reference from James Connolly Turns Up in The US Richard Dalton was a member of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union. Blacklisted following the 1913 strike and lockout, he was forced into emigration. Planning to move to Scotland in search of work he asked his union comrade James Connolly for a letter of introduction.Connolly obliged and wrote the reference on July 23rd, 1915. When Dalton arrived in Glasgow, the letter opened the door into Dockers Union where he was given a pound and a Union Badge.He had found work with the help of his friend James Connolly.A year later Connolly, tied to a chair was executed by a British Army firing squad as a leader of 1916 Rising.Richard Dalton treasured the letter and always kept it safe. A reference like no other. The story would have been lost to posterity but for our good friend Todd Allen who saved the letter and brought it to the US.
April 01, 2022 11:40STRESS: Fr John Craven said the funeral Mass for Bridie McDonnell in the car park of Holy Cross Church in Ardoyne on Friday
A NORTH Belfast priest who was forced to conduct a funeral Mass in the car park of Holy Cross church in Ardoyne following a security alert has described the drama that unfolded following Friday’s events.
Holy Cross Parish Priest Father John Craven was getting ready for the funeral Mass of the late Bridie McDonnell (76) when he was informed of a security alert on Friday morning.
As the funeral procession made its way to the church, it was diverted due to a security alert at the nearby Houben Centre, where Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney was in attendance at a peace-building event.https://www.youtube.com/embed/aV4Fp-A3ovE
As a result, the funeral procession could not enter Holy Cross Church through the main gates and so another entrance was used.
However, on arrival at the church, the family were told they would not be allowed to go inside and instead, prayers over the remains would be offered in the car park.
Speaking to the North Belfast News, Fr Craven said: “I was getting ready for the funeral when two policemen came through the sacristy door and told me there was a serious alert.
“I explained I had a funeral to do. The policeman informed me it would not be able to take place in the church due to a 400-yard exclusion zone.
“I had a discussion with the family and the undertaker and decided to do a service in the car park. It was the best I could do.
“I didn’t want to postpone it either.
“I apologised to the family on behalf of the church for the situation.
“We managed to have a short ten-minute service in the car park before police moved us further away.
“We then went on to the graveyard and did prayers there.
“We hope to have a month’s mind Mass for them towards the end of April. I also said Mass on Saturday for the family.
“She was a good lady and a good person who had reared nine children, two of whom had died young. It was a big loss for the family.
“It was stress all round for all of us.
“Something like this has never happened before.
“I want to commend the Twaddell Residents’ Association who brought people in to the cabin for tea, coffee and use of toilet facilities. We didn’t get back into the church until 7.15pm that evening.”
A red lion from the British royal coat of arms holding a globe.Liberal imperialism, Caroline Elkins argues, gained resilience from its ability to absorb and neutralize objections. Illustration by Ben JonesAt the height of the British Empire, just after the First World War, an island smaller than Kansas controlled roughly a quarter of the world’s population and landmass. To the architects of this colossus, the largest empire in history, each conquest was a moral achievement. Imperial tutelage, often imparted through the barrel of an Enfield, was delivering benighted peoples from the errors of their ways—child marriage, widow immolation, headhunting. Among the edifiers was a Devonshire-born rector’s son named Henry Hugh Tudor. Hughie, as he was known to Winston Churchill and his other chums, pops up so reliably in colonial outposts with outsized body counts that his story can seem a “Where’s Waldo?” of empire.He’s Churchill’s garrison-mate in Bangalore in 1895—a time of “messes and barbarism,” the future Prime Minister complained in a note to his mum. As the century turns, Tudor is battling Boers on the veldt; then it’s back to India, and on to occupied Egypt. Following a decorated stint as a smoke-screen artist in the trenches of the First World War, he’s in command of a gendarmerie, nicknamed Tudor’s Toughs, that opens fire in a Dublin stadium in 1920—an assault during a search for I.R.A. assassins which leaves dozens of civilians dead or wounded. Prime Minister David Lloyd George delights in rumors that Tudor’s Toughs were killing two Sinn Féinners for every murdered loyalist. Later, even the military’s chief of staff marvelled at how nonchalantly the men spoke of those killings, tallying them up as though they were runs in a cricket match; Tudor and his “scallywags” were out of control. It didn’t matter: Churchill, soon to be Secretary of State for the Colonies, had Tudor’s back.Imperial subjects, of course, sometimes found their own solutions to such problems. A hard-line British field marshal, atop the I.R.A. hit list, was gunned down in Belgravia in 1922. Tudor, worried he would be next, made himself scarce. By the following year, he and his Irish paramilitaries were propagating their tactics for suppressing natives in the British-controlled Mandate of Palestine, Churchill having decided that the violence-prone Tudor was just the fellow to train the colonial police. A letter from Tudor to Churchill that I recently came across crystallizes all the insouciance, cynicism, greed, callousness, and errant judgment of empire. He opens by telling Churchill that he’s just commanded his troops to slaughter Adwan Bedouins who had been marching on Amman to protest high taxes levied on them by their notoriously extravagant emir. This tribe was “invariably friendly to Great Britain,” Tudor writes, a touch ruefully. But, he adds, “politics are not my affair.”Tudor had cheery news to impart, too. Not only could the Mandate be a “wonderful tourist country,” but prospectors had discovered vast sums’ worth of potash in the Dead Sea valley. Should Britain appropriate the resources and increase the policing budget, its difficulties in the region would “smooth out,” he told Churchill, assuring him that Palestinians would be easier to pacify than the Irish: “They are a different people, and it’s unlikely that the Arab if handled firmly will ever do much more than agitate and talk.”In the twentieth century’s hierarchy of state-sponsored violence, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, and Hirohito’s Japan typically take top spots. The actions of a few European empires have invited harsh scrutiny, too—Belgium’s conduct in Congo, France’s in Algeria, and Portugal’s in Angola and Mozambique. Britain is rarely seen as among the worst offenders, given a reputation for decency that the Harvard historian Caroline Elkins has spent more than two decades trying to undermine. “Legacy of Violence” (Knopf), her astringent new history of the British Empire, brings detailed context to individual stories like Tudor’s. Visiting archives in a dozen countries over four continents, examining hundreds of oral histories, and drawing on the work of social historians and political theorists, Elkins traces the Empire’s arc across centuries and theatres of crisis. As the sole imperial power that remained a liberal democracy throughout the twentieth century, Britain claimed to be distinct from Europe’s colonial powers in its commitment to bringing rule of law, enlightened principles, and social progress to its colonies. Elkins contends that Britain’s use of systematic violence was no better than that of its rivals. The British were simply more skilled at hiding it.More than half a century after the British Empire entered its endgame, historians are nowhere near a full assessment of the carnage shrouded by its preacherly cant, and, later, by administrators’ bonfires of documents as they prepared for the last boat out. The richest sense we have of the damage inflicted on colonies tends to come in regional silos. Elkins doggedly links them, moving from South Africa to India, Ireland to Palestine, and on to Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, and Aden, revealing a pattern visible only in the long view. As military and police personnel crisscrossed the Empire, spreading techniques of repression far and wide, the higher-ups rarely checked such violence. Instead, over and again, they gave it the full force of law—sustaining more brutality still.It’s startling to recall that, not so long ago, leading historians accepted the images of empire’s end that were projected in propagandistic newsreels—governors-general in plumed helmets and starched whites inviting grateful natives to the podium. “Next to no fighting,” concluded the Cambridge historian John Gallagher, one of the Old Guard whom Elkins has in her sights. She counters that the practice of blowing Indian sepoys from cannons after the 1857 uprising, the Maxim-gun slaughter of Mahdists in the eighteen-nineties, the use of concentration camps in the Boer wars, the massacre of peaceful protesters in Amritsar, reprisal killings and the sacking of civilian property in Ireland: all this state-inflicted savagery was just the British Empire warming up. In her account, the British paramilitary cadre, many of them trained by Tudor’s Toughs, became the basis of an increasingly violent ruling culture that sought to reassert control in the aftermath of the Second World War, when the Empire needed colonial resources to rebuild a depleted economy and to bulk up a waning geopolitical status.We misunderstand the end of empire, Elkins says, because the old liberal imperial historiography focussed more on high policy—the stratagems of what Gallagher and his cohort termed the “official mind”—than on the acts of get-it-done enforcers in the field. The striking thing, she suggests, is not how much the denizens of Whitehall didn’t grasp about the retail-level mayhem but, rather, how much they did. Elkins draws on the work of Uday Singh Mehta, Karuna Mantena, and other theorists who argue that British liberalism, for all its talk of universal freedoms, served the goals of empire by rationalizing its domination of other peoples. (Colonial pupils, in their political short pants, required firm instruction before they could be awarded their liberties.) Indeed, the main reason that the British Empire was able to sustain itself for more than two centuries, she maintains, was that the British model of state violence came wrapped in this “velvet glove” of liberal reform.Add to its longevity an unrivalled global footprint, and the British Empire’s baneful legacy may well have been deeper and more diffuse than that of any other modern state. Was British liberal imperialism, given the extent of the damage it inflicted over generations, a more malevolent influence on world history than even Nazi Fascism? It’s a question that Elkins’s new book implicitly poses. And her first book, the Pulitzer Prize-winning “Imperial Reckoning” (2005), is a lesson in not discounting her pointed inferences too swiftly.When the British Trinidadian intellectual C. L. R. James reflected, in old age, on his standard-setting account of the Haitian Revolution against the French, he chided himself for an overreliance on white witnesses. Had he worked a little harder, he believed, he might have unearthed more Haitian perspectives. A vast amount of what is understood today about the experience of colonial subjects still comes through white, Western eyes, often those of ruling administrators, missionaries, and travellers. “Imperial Reckoning” did its part to rectify that great imbalance in the historiography of the British Empire.It probed one of the grimmest periods in British colonial history: the suppression of a nineteen-fifties uprising of a clandestine Kenyan nationalist movement, the Mau Mau, whose name subsequently became a byword for native barbarity. Elkins, working in British and Kenyan archives as a young scholar, noticed gaps in the record-keeping from this period which suggested that the British had culled the files. Some incriminating documents had survived, though, and she started gathering evidence that the British had detained far more than the eighty thousand Kenyans they had previously acknowledged, and that among the tactics the Empire used against the Mau Mau was outright torture. (“With possibly a few exceptions,” read one report she uncovered, the detainees “are of the type which understands and reacts to violence.”) Thus began what she termed an “odyssey” of research, including field work in rural Kenya—potholed roads, battered Subaru—which ultimately brought to light the harrowing accounts of some three hundred survivors of the campaign against the Mau Mau.In “Imperial Reckoning,” Elkins moved deftly between oral and archival histories to describe a British strategy of detention, beatings, starvation, torture, forced hard labor, rape, and castration, designed to break the resistance of a people, the Kikuyu, who, having been dispossessed by the British and then, during the Second World War, enlisted to fight for them, had plenty of reason to resist. In 1957, a British colonial governor informed his superiors in London that “violent shock” was the only way to break down hard-core adherents, justifying a brutal campaign called Operation Progress. More than a million men, women, and children were forced into barbed-wire village compounds and concentration camps for reëducation in circumstances that the colony’s attorney general at the time called “distressingly reminiscent of conditions in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.”When Elkins’s book won the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction, some scholars raised an eyebrow; they suggested that she had libelled the British by printing undersubstantiated claims. Other critics questioned her tally of the Mau Mau dead and missing: up to three hundred thousand, she said, with scant evidence. But aspects of her argument were vindicated in 2011, six years after publication, when her research helped make history.That year, London barristers representing the Kenya Human Rights Commission and seeking damages for elderly Kenyan survivors of torture introduced Elkins as an expert witness, along with the British historians David Anderson and Huw Bennett. During the discovery process, the British government was pressed to explain a memo detailing the airlift of documents from Nairobi. After decades of denial, the government acknowledged spiriting masses of files out of Kenya—and, it emerged, out of thirty-six other former colonies. The files had been stashed in a high-security storage facility, in Hanslope Park, that the Foreign Office shared with British intelligence agencies. Documents were now unearthed which confirmed key aspects of both Elkins’s account and that of the Mau Mau survivors. In a landmark reparations case, fifty-two hundred Kenyans who were brutalized during the insurrection were each awarded around thirty-eight hundred pounds, and the U.K. government publicly acknowledged using torture in controlling its empire.“Legacy of Violence,” like Elkins’s earlier book, shuttles between horrific details and historical and thematic contexts. And it, too, relies occasionally on questionable statistics—for instance, an outdated finding that nearly two-thirds of the British public take pride in the British Empire. (By 2020, as Elkins’s own source indicates, that proportion had declined to less than a third.) Yet some of what she recounts is devastating, including the story of how British dark arts were distilled in interwar Palestine, propelling the grisliness of liberal imperialism to another level.By the late nineteen-thirties, a revolt was under way in Palestine, ignited by radical populist movements that had sprung up in the towns and cities. Dispossessed rural Arabs flocked to these urban areas as Zionist colonies rapidly expanded to accommodate Jewish refugees from Europe. To quash the uprising, the policing apparatus that Hughie Tudor had helped build grew to twenty-five thousand men, including two Army divisions. (Tudor himself, fearful of continued I.R.A. death threats, had decided on a quieter life as a fish trader in Newfoundland.) Elkins, building on recent work by Laleh Khalili, Georgina Sinclair, and other historians, shows how imperial tactics converged in that fighting force.From Ireland had come paramilitary techniques and the use of armored cars; from Mesopotamia, expertise in aerial bombing and the strafing of villages; from South Africa, the use of Dobermans for tracking and attacking suspects; from India, interrogation methods and the systematic use of solitary confinement; and, from the Raj’s North-West Frontier, the use of human shields to clear land mines. As one soldier recalled about the deployment of Arab prisoners, “If there was any land mines it was them that hit them. Rather a dirty trick, but we enjoyed it.” Other practices seem to have been homegrown by the British in Palestine: night raids on suspect communities, oil-soaked sand stuffed down native throats, open-air cages for holding villagers, mass demolitions of houses. While perfecting such tactics on the Palestinians, Elkins suggests, officers were gaining skills that were put to use when they were later dispatched to Aden (in the south of present-day Yemen), to the Gold Coast, to Northern Rhodesia, to Kenya, and to Cyprus. Palestine was, in short, the Empire’s leading atelier of coercive repression.To legitimate the control machine in Palestine, the British raked their empire again, this time for ways of securing legal impunity. Emergency codes were imported from Ireland, to permit collective reprisals, detention, and the destruction of property, and from India, to authorize censorship and deportation. Although military officials sought martial law in the Mandate, the Attorney and Solicitor Generals in London denied the request. They worried about the precedent of the Crown ceding power to the military, and, besides, Palestinian courts might well object that no state of war existed. A more elegant solution was to augment the power of the civilian executive. A 1937 order conferred on him the right to make whatever regulations “appear to him in his unfettered discretion to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defense of Palestine, the maintenance of public order and the suppression of mutiny, rebellion and riot, and for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.” British troops and police were thus free to operate “virtually without restraint or fear of prosecution,” Elkins writes. Just as with the repertoire of torture and suppression, these guides to imperial impunity would become models for future campaigns.Defenders of empire like the historian Niall Ferguson insist that the rule of law proved Britain’s most important gift to its colonies when, in time, they achieved independence. In Elkins’s view, the emergency provisions that abrogated the rule of law were the vital legacy. Insecure local leaders, some handpicked in Whitehall, struggled to govern polities in which colonial policy had sharpened social divisions. To stifle political opposition, they readily turned to colonial emergency codes and legal sleights. Helping them enact the templates were “Security Liaison Officers”: M.I.5 agents, embedded in the former colonies, who would steward the incoming nationalist cadres into the methods of intelligence gathering, interrogation, and domestic security. Ghanaian leaders, shortly after their country became independent, in 1957, cribbed from British preventive-detention laws the right to detain citizens for five years without trial. In the nineteen-sixties, Malaysian officials, building on British models, enacted laws permitting suspects to be detained indefinitely. In the seventies, Indian leaders used colonial emergency powers embedded into their constitution to censor the press, jail political opposition, clear urban slums and even sterilize their residents.But it was in post-Mandate Palestine that the legacy of imperial violence was most enduring. The British had secured their hold on the territory by issuing promissory notes to multiple claimants: Arab élites were offered the prospect of an independent kingdom or nation; Zionists, the prospect of a national home; European allies, the prospect of a carve-up. With the land thrice promised and its peoples played against one another by shifting British policies, the cycles of violence and repression ahead had been underwritten. Not long after a 1947 United Nations vote divided the Mandate into Jewish and Arab states, Israeli security forces began emulating British methods, from killing civilians to flattening whole villages. In 1952, a British-controlled concern that excavated potash and other Dead Sea minerals—the immense value of which Hughie Tudor had extolled to Churchill—passed quietly into the control of the Israeli government. In 1969, when Israel’s Prime Minister Golda Meir asserted that “there was no such thing as Palestinians,” she was, in a way, asserting an erasure of recognition and rights which the British Empire had set in motion half a century before.Yet “Legacy of Violence” goes further than detailing the depravities of empire; it has a larger thesis to advance, concerning liberal imperialism’s extraordinary resilience. The test of that thesis must be its ability to explain not only how the Empire endured but also how it ended. And it’s here that Elkins’s account runs into trouble.Igrew up in the post-colonial states of Kenya, Senegal, and India, and one constant was hearing stirring stories about “fathers of the nation” on the state-run radio. Later, encountering scholarship that reflected Gallagher’s argument that decolonization was “not usually a victory won by freedom-fighters,” I came to view nationalist mythmaking with a cooler eye. A cooler eye, but never quite a cold one: Was what Gallagher had called the great, wave-tossed ship of empire really so imperturbable, I wondered, that it went down “without agony” at its own command? Did the doings of those local heroes amount to nothing?So I sat up when Elkins, in her opening pages, says that the story of liberal imperialism is “also a story of demands from below.” One lively chapter centers on C. L. R. James, George Padmore, and other Black anti-colonial radicals of the nineteen-thirties and forties, who called out the hypocrisies of empire in lacerating prose. She also follows Cypriot activists of the nineteen-fifties as they partnered with Greek lawyers and the London-based Movement for Colonial Freedom to bring a British campaign of murder and torture to international attention. But Elkins rules that, ultimately, these and other nonviolent challenges by colonial subjects and their allies around the world “did little to alter coercion’s grip on the empire.”For her, all such efforts were bound to be impotent because she is convinced of liberal imperialism’s ability to absorb and neutralize criticism—something that more brittle ideologies like Nazi Lebensraum could not do. Britain’s colonial subjects protested, questions were raised in Parliament, inquiries were commissioned, reports were printed and shelved, and, in the end, repressive capacities emerged with tempered strength. Liberal imperialism, in Elkins’s telling, was thus a self-repairing, ever-expanding web. When her theory corners her into an account of the final unravelling of empire couched largely in terms of high-policy calculations about when to forgo power and instead pursue influence, it’s as if the ghosts of imperial history that she set out to vanquish had returned to inhabit her book.The story of the British Empire in the twentieth century is also a story of forced retraction. Unfortunately, the forensic skill that Elkins applies to empire’s incarnadine claws is less in evidence when it comes to the nationalist tactics that, decade by decade, helped loosen their grip. As Lee Kuan Yew, who worked to throw off the British in Singapore, famously noted, one way for the weaker to defy the more powerful was to become a poisonous shrimp: “they sting.” In 1930, Gandhi launched the Salt Satyagraha with a twenty-five-day march protesting a tax imposed by the British salt monopoly—a brilliant bit of counterpropaganda theatre that goes unmentioned in this book. In the wake of that nonviolent mass mobilization, with the international press watching, the British were limited in the violence they could deploy in India.As Elkins has it, Gandhian approaches were ineffectual because the only language empire really understood was violence. She details at length how Zionists like Menachem Begin and his Irgun, having been schooled by Tudor’s legatees in the deployment of terror, used attacks and assassinations to expel the British. Colonized peoples in Africa and elsewhere wrote off nonviolence less quickly. Regardless of how incremental or indirect the progress could seem in the moment, empire’s financial or reputational costs could still be ratcheted up beyond what was supportable.In the late nineteen-fifties, in the southeastern African protectorate of Nyasaland (now Malawi), the Nyasaland African Congress employed tactics of noncoöperation to protest a federation established by British rulers with white-settler-dominated Southern and Northern Rhodesia. The British declared emergency rule and killed some fifty Africans—atrocities that the survivors labored to bring to the attention of the world. The British were pressured into investigating whether the emergency rule was necessary, resulting in a report by Justice Patrick Devlin. Elkins’s loyalty to her quasi-Foucauldian theory of liberal imperialism, as an all-encompassing net of power, leads her to minimize the report’s impact. But this one didn’t gather dust on a shelf. Weeks after the Devlin report arraigned the colonial government for running a “police state,” representatives of Ghana cited that stark conclusion in the U.N., as momentum gathered for a landmark resolution: a formal call for an end to colonial rule. In the next five years, the British withdrew from eleven colonies, Nyasaland among them
“The end is nigh for Northern Ireland as we know it, and unionists can blame themselves,” writes Susan McKay. 
STRESS: Fr John Craven said the funeral Mass for Bridie McDonnell in the car park of Holy Cross Church in Ardoyne on Friday