It’s an old joke, but it used to be said that when planes touched down at Belfast International, the pilot would announce to foreign passengers: “You have arrived in Northern Ireland. Please turn your watches back 100 years.”
Such is our reputation for living in the past.

We have an ability to laugh at ourselves, and we smile benignly at our negative image. But this should really annoy us, no, considering we have such a bright go-ahead psyche which sees our vibrant people achieve so much in sport, commerce and industry, science and technology, and so on.

Of course, we’ve moved on and embraced a modern world. Haven’t we?
Er, well we have to admit that that sometimes we deserve the negativity.
As this decade of centenaries shows, we do rather tend to get bogged down in history. And because we have such a divided sense of history, this puts into context the divisions which still exist in the north in particular.
The attitude towards the commemoration of the 1916 Easter Rising is symptomatic of this.

In recent days I’ve heard certain Unionists describe it as “a failed rebellion” and a “Catholic uprising”, and Unionist leaders won’t countenance anything that smacks of a celebration of the centenary of the major turning point in the history of this island. Indeed, it’s regarded as an unjustified violent event, no different to the more recent violence at the end of the same century.
In the south, however, it’s a different story. The event is regarded as a glorious beginning of the gaining of freedom. There is, only in some sections of the southern media, some deeper analysis of the methods used to gain independence from the foreign British oppressor. But by and large, the southern view is that of an honourable fight for liberation.
Attitudes at the time of 1916 and indeed now a hundred years later aren’t a million miles apart.

But the context of events in the years following the Rising need to be recalled to put our current divisions into context.
Within a few short years, we had partition. The 26 counties gained its independence, while the six counties retained its link with Britain.
Partition, far from being a solution, created two regions which were to prove sectarian.

In the north, the new Northern Ireland was correctly labelled as having a “Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people”. And any Unionist who looks back and still denies discrimination against Catholics and a gerrymandered system isn’t kidding anybody but themselves. Large swathes of Catholic areas suddenly found themselves alienated from like-minded citizens on the rest of the island.

But on the southern side of the Border, let’s not forget that Ireland became truly a Catholic country. In the early days, local priests wielded great influence, matched only on occasions in some areas by the heroes of IRA leaders who had fought for independence. In this new atmosphere, the Protestant minority decreased even further; many of them headed north, including a number who came to Fermanagh to live and work, and even set up business.

This set the context for much of the rest of the century, which ended with over 25 years of bloody conflict.
We tend to think that the current power-sharing at Stormont is an arrangement which brought our more recent Troubles to an end. Which it did; but we should remember the context of the previous three-quarters of a century too.

Bear in mind that our two cultures are like oil and water, and as such have never really mixed well. In fact, the differences of 1916 deepened when the two tribes controlled their own territories and new generations moved on to embed their particular culture.
It would be a clumsy generalisation to say that in the south, the GAA and the Catholic church dictated society, while in the north, the Orange Order and the Protestant churches did likewise. But, there’s enough truth in there to recognise something.

And, of course, we’ve come a long way in modern secularism.
If we are to truly engage the two communities, it would be folly, do you not think, just to mix the two up and expect them to merge into an oily-watering gunge?

Better, surely, to accept each other’s differences and co-exist.
It would help in that process if we considered where we are in terms of studying our history with a more open mind.
Political differences north of the Border will be further exposed in the next couple of months; we have already entered election mode. An example of this was the assertion by First Minister, Arlene Foster, that a swing of couple of per cent could see Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness become First Minister.
This caused a certain amount of controversy.

I can’t think why. It’s election campaigning, it’s what politicians do.
In the Brexit campaign, Westminster campaigners on both sides are lining up with dire warnings of what could happen if we stay in or go out. In the United States, even fellow-Republicans are stirring up fears about the doomsday scenario of Donald Trump becoming President. And in recent months, parties south of the Border (aided by a helpful southern media only too willing to pick up the theme) were content to drag Sinn Fein’s reputation through the mud.
So, what’s surprising about a little hint of a scare in the north. McGuinness is always useful to Unionists who want to warn their voters about the big dog outside the door.

I wonder how many Unionist voters will consider the repercussions of him becoming First Minister and say “so what?”
I wonder how many of them will challenge their leaders on bread-and-butter issues, such as jobs. 
Or challenge them on attitudes to social change, homophobia, racism, abortion. 
Or ask what they’re doing about integrating our communities more in terms of social housing or shared education.
Both sides should be allowed freedom to express their culture and, indeed, to fight for their politics.

In a couple of weeks, the clocks go forward. Wouldn’t it be great if both sides could be strong enough in their own positions to respect the positions of others, and spring forward to a time when we can truly have a shared society.