Different Historical Interpretations of Bloody Sunday

On January 30, 1972, civil rights activists participated in protest demonstrations against detention by London Delhi. British airborne troops placed on the street shot 13 marches and injured others. Many people have different opinions as to what happened and why they happened. The main contradiction is the view of the airborne troops and their supporters, and the views of the protestors and friends and family members of the murderers.

The bloody Sunday bloody Sunday 's historical interpretation has many different views on what actually happened on January 30, 1972. The focus of discussion is who initially shot, the British Army or the Republic of Ireland. Thirteen innocent people were killed as a result of the shooting incident. Sir Widried conducted an investigation and he criticized the shooting of the military, but the report accepted military shooting. - Positivism - The paradigm after positivism is the most appropriate example of the North Frontier Study of the Northern Land by Thomas Berger (1988). This paradigm shows that social science research promotes Western culture and adapts other areas to Western ideas. Travers (2010) argues that "Material science and social science are products of Western culture at a specific historical moment."

In Bloody Sunday there is a very different interpretation of a series of events known as "Bloody Sunday". The two main ones were British airborne troops and Catholics and their families who were stationed in Northern Ireland which had been marching on the same day. Each party firmly adheres to their explanation, but the new evidence brought about some changes in opinion. The marching Catholics still insist that they were first dismissed. They believe that none of these shooting incidents were exposed to explosives, but Widgery's investigation "decided that many people shot were handling weapons."