EOGHAN HARRIS – columnist redoubles sectarian campaign

by Plato Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:58

There is a half decent response to Harris's waffle today, even though the Editor admits to havimng censored , sorry edited, that too. The protective ring remains firmly in place.

by Is Mise Lemass Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:54

That discussion at Politics.ie is about Harris giving the Liam Lynch Commemoration speech at the FIANNA FAIL commemoration. The real Lynch commemoration is the National Graves Association commemoration in July.

Have Fianna Fail not suffered enough humiliation (no, obviously not). But to shoot themselves in the foot is a sign of complete loss of bearings.

Asking Harris, an apologist for unionist sectarianism, US imperialism and British imperialism to speak on the leader of republican forces during the Civil War, who was killed jus before the end, shows how far FF have strayed from its roots. What's the betting they give up the ghost and ask Enda Kenny (leader of the forces who shot Lynch) next year?

I bet Harris's speech will be a real hoot. Will he mention Peter Hart who communed with the dead in his revisionist history of the War of Independence, or Hart follower Gerard Murphy, whose recent book was an exercise in sheer fantasy?

Anyone going?

by Ben Brennan Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:39

This from Politics.ie (though mathematically challenged) is apt:

Just had a read that piece [on Patricia Redlich]. 50% of Eoghan's weekly collection-of-words seem to be lavish obituaries, but 100% of Eoghan's weekly collection-of-words seem to be paranoid diatribes against the Provos.*

Skipping a fair bit of the main body of text, this piece near the end really stood out:

As she said to me on her deathbed last week: "The Provos can say sorry and I can hear them say sorry -- but they still did it."
Either Eoghan has finally let the noxious cloud of bitterness turn his fanciful political musings into outright lies that can only be rebuked by a now-dead person, or else this poor woman is Eoghan's real soulmate.

Imagine wasting one's deathbed speech on the Provisionals in this day and age? Life is so Beautiful would still get my vote, I'm afraid, Eoghan.

*76.4% being against the Trots

by Jemmy Hope Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:06

More deranged witterings from the great twit, this time on the late Patricia Redlich, yet another ex Workers Party refugee plying their trade for Ireland's top capitalist, 'Tony (sorry 'Sir Anthony') O'Reilly. Harris wrote (Sept 4th) that Redlich:

"opposed all attempts by supporters of the Provisional IRA to make the Irish trade union movement an instrument of their armed struggle.

From 1970 to 1998, the Provisional IRA set out to infiltrate individual trade unions, the Dublin Trades Council and the ICTU. Frequently the issue would be decided by those who stayed longest at the meeting. Patricia Redlich never went home early leaving a Provo rump to rule the roost.

Like many other pluralists, she joined the Workers Party because it was the most active opponent of the Provos. Anyone who doubts that WP attracted some of the most able political activists at that time has only to look at some of the leaders of the current Labour Party in Government."

by Plato Mon Aug 22, 2011 15:11

"Try sending your letter to the Irish Examiner explaining the context. They might publish it."

I agree here, the Examiner is fair. While the celebrity contributors are right wing to a man and woman, the Editor at least prints contrary views from readers. Worth a try, the antics of the Sindo in this regard are reprehensible and clearly the actions of bitter wee minds.

by pat c Sun Aug 21, 2011 19:18

Try sending your letter to the Irish Examiner explaining the context. They might publish it.

by Conor Lynch Sun Aug 21, 2011 17:59

Eoghan Harris and the Sunday Independent allow only cheerleaders to respond to Eoghan Harris's sectarian vapourings. I sent the letter below a few days after Ulster Unionist Party supporter Jeff Dudgeon wrote in support of Harris on July 31. No surprise that mine was not published, while Dudgeon's was.

Letters to the Editor, Sunday Independent, August 3, 2011

I am puzzled by Jeff Dudgeon's suggestion (letters, 31 July) that a person's name is 'blacken[ed]' if it is alleged that they acted alongside British forces during the War of Independence. Where is the shame in a cause Jeff Dudgeon supports?

The question in Dudgeon's letter in support of Eoghan Harris can be answered. The possible basis for the shooting dead by persons unknown of 10 Protestant civilians between April 27-29 1922 (after the Treaty split, before the onset of civil war) does not depend on a captured British document seen by the historian Meda Ryan in the 1980s, naming those shot as ‘helpful citizens’. It was part of a cache of documentation, part of which was published over several editions of the weekly ‘Southern Star’ newspaper in 1971. The document in question was not released, as it was thought that it might upset community relations. Ryan cited it only after Peter Hart upset them by alleging republican sectarianism during the war, in his 'The IRA and its Enemies' (1998). I agree with Jeff Dudgeon that the document should be released. A document that is not verifiable, as with Peter Hart’s questionable anonymous interviews, is apt to be discounted (though, unlike with the late Peter Hart, we have no reason to doubt Ryan's bona fides in this matter).

However, a reason for the shootings can be established alternatively by reference to another British intelligence document that Peter Hart's book cited, but misrepresented. In 'The Record of the Rebellion', a senior British intelligence officer, complained of a dearth of information from Protestants during the war. This is the section Peter Hart cited on the April 1922 killings in the Bandon Valley, in justification of his view that they were sectarian. Hart omitted the section following in which the British author stated that the ‘exception’ was in the Bandon Valley where many gave information. In a direct reference to the April killings, the intelligence officer concluded that many were killed or suffered grave material loss. Therefore, if there was any ‘blackening’, the British did it.

Had Peter Hart acted ethically by including this qualification, that eviscerated his argument, I doubt that acres of newspaper space would have been devoted to this topic. Unfortunately, Eoghan Harris and Jeff Dudgeon are reluctant to confront serious flaws in Peter Hart’s research. Their failure, in the face of irrefutable evidence of those flaws, is itself sectarian.

Conor Lynch

I see Harris has left history behind today, writing instead about the Baltimore lifeboat. He writes of the crew that they talk 'the language of courage and comradeship. The language we all need to learn'.

The courage required to publish criticism is something Harris needs to learn.

by Ben Black Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:34

The Sunday Independent had no option but to publish a letter (below) in response to Ruth Dudley Edwards (April 10, 2011). In her article RDE delivered her usual reactionary fusillade against the 1916 Rising and the Irish struggle for Independence. She came up with this novel explanation of Sinn Fein success in the 1918 general election and the War of Independence:

"A sentimental reaction to the 17 executions -- and quite a bit of intimidation and fraud -- helped Sinn Fein win the 1918 election…. In the ensuing devastating war, Catholic police bore the brunt of the casualties.”

She should take this up with Eoghan Harris, who thinks it was an attempt to kill Protestants. She should write him a letter.

The reason a responding letter was published is because (unlike Press Council rules savvy, Harris) RDE named the person she was making fun of, Patrick Pearse's first cousin, Patrick Shovelton. RDE possibly thought the 91 one year old would not see her effort. He did (see reply below). Had Ruth taken the Eoghan Harris line of failing to mention who she was complaining about, her employers would not have had to publish the reply. But then the object of the exercise, name-dropping title tattle, would have been defeated.

Eoghan Harris has (for the moment) laid off his obscure campaign to re-fight the War of independence in a sectarian manner - by accusing anti-sectarian republican forces of behaving like unionists in reverse (though the neo-unionist EH doesn't put it like that).

Last week, he bemoaned the loss of presidential candidate David Norris, who he had hoped would drain off support for a left week candidate (Michael D Higgins) and let one of his (and Sir Anthony O’Reilly’s) pro-capitalist candidates through.

This week, EH bemoans attacks by Fintan O’Toole and Myles Dungan on his hard working racist colleague, Kevin Myers, who (unlike Harris, the weekend warrior) produces right wing drivel four days a week. The subject was the English riots and Myers' moronic observation that fatherless Afro Caribbeans were primarily responsible.

A confused Harris concludes his defence of Myers with a ‘theory’ his own:

“Let me finish with a few observations of my own on the causes of the riots. Clearly any analysis must combine Freud and Marx. The absence of family authority in the form of a father is surely as important as the absence of a national authority that would help immigrants to find jobs and foster the American approach to integration.”

The ‘American approach’: we don’t need to go back to Little Rock, Arkansas in the 1950s (never mind slavery). How about the anti-racist critique of US society by Martin Luther King and/or Malcolm X in the 1960s? Rodney King and the 1992 LA riots anyone? How about, more recently, George Bush ‘winning’ (he didn’t) the Florida state election (and the presidency) in 2000 by systematically excluding Afro-Americans from the voting rolls? EH should read Greg Pallast’s The Best Democracy Money can Buy. EH might, if he lived in the US, give advice to the Klu Klux Klan, whose formation as an anti Black, anti Jewish, anti Catholic organisation was inspired by the activities of the Orange Order. Harris finishes by citing Marx as an authority on the recent riots, but clearly Marx was commenting on the type of people ('white trash') who join the KKK (and the OO?):

"The social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue."

Normal service will return soon enough - nameless attacks on those who undermine EH’s favourite (and factless) historian, the late Peter Hart. No names, no pack drill.

Here is Patrick Shovelton telling RDE to shove it:

Sticking to views on hero Pearse

Sunday Independent August 7, 2011

Sir -- There has just come to my attention Ruth Dudley Edward's article on April 10, 2011, making fun of my English public school background and yet supporting the actions of my first cousin (once removed) Patrick Pearse for his part in the Easter Rising. And in her final paragraph Ms Dudley Edwards snidely implies that at the age of 91 I am too old to change my views.

First, I resent Ms Dudley Edwards taking advantage of a brief private conversation to make capital of, and reiterate her well-known views on the Rising.

Second, I have no wish or intention of withdrawing my views about my cousin. He was a remarkable man by any standard -- writer, poet, playwright and orator. As for the Rising itself, it was doomed from the start. But it was a gallant show of what strength could be mustered against overwhelming odds.

So, Ms Dudley Edwards is right, I do not change my mind. But not because I am 91 and "too old"! And next time I meet her I shall be careful not to say anything which will enable her to construct an article when she couldn't think of a new idea.

Patrick Shovelton

by gym member Wed Aug 03, 2011 05:19

During his career as a communicator Harris has shown great dexterity in making U-turns, leapfrogs, head stands and backflips. And so has editorial policy in the Sindo and the Irish Independent. Students of journalism should be directed into historical analysis of these important profitmaking institutions.

by James Mitchell Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:20

It is more than likely that the great censor read Pat Walsh's letter (above) before deciding that the great unwashed could not read it, since Harris came out with the following nonsensical observation on July 24th:

"The Balkan war showed us how little it takes to frighten people from a village in which they have lived for centuries. Whether Irish Protestants left because of a bullet in the post, a billeting on their family, or an insult in a pub makes no difference. They were told in many ways they were not wanted and they left."

Innuendo, Sinuendo - its all the same to the great propagandist.

In the 'Balkan war' (which one by the way, oh never mind) people were massacred.

That did not happen in Ireland and there was no targeting of Protestants, not least because Protestants were in republican ranks. They did not target themselves.If you want pogroms go north where Catholics suffered from unionist bigots who spread propaganda that it was ok because that was what was happening to Protestants in the South. Protestants in the south rejected that out of hand.

Eoghan Harris is just a latter-day bigot.

by Jack Lane Mon Aug 01, 2011 21:32

On Sunday last (1 August) one of Harris's supporters, Jeff Dudgeon, was given letters page space to support his hero's sectarian view of the War of Independence.

Meanwhile critics continue to be censored. The following letter I received from Dr Pat Walsh was also denied space.

"Sir, In his column of last Sunday (‘Following IRA's bloody track from the Bandon Valley to south Armagh’, 26 June, 2011) Eoghan Harris makes the statement that “the exodus of 107,000 Irish Protestants in the period 1911 to 1926” was “the largest movement of population in Europe before the Second World War.”

One only has to look a couple of years past 1911 to see that this statement is incorrect. During the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, 410,000 Muslims and thousands of Jews were driven out of the Balkans by the Christian forces of Serbia, Montenegro, Greece and Bulgaria. More than a million Muslims were also killed in this vast ethnic cleansing and genocide. The alliance that accomplished this was partly facilitated by an Anglo-Irishman, James Bourchier, old Etonian and correspondent of the Times of London.

If Mr. Harris can be so ignorant of these events, or if he ignored them to simply press home his points, it throws into doubt the other, even less factual elements, of his article.

Dr. Pat Walsh, Co. Antrim"

No one is allowed to show up this ignoramus. How come Harris gets this special treatment? In the Irish Independent Kevin Myers is not so shielded from critics who are allowed to question Myers’ reactionary attacks on (for example) Jim Larkin.

If Eoghan can’t take the heat of criticism, he should get out of the kitchen.

by Jack Thu Jul 28, 2011 07:55

Well done Jim.

If there are other examples of your efforts being denied in the censored Sindo, post them here. Harris and his pals get away with it by the exclusion of views exposing his reactionary nonsense.

by Jim O'Sullivan Wed Jul 27, 2011 09:57

Found this interesting as I have made a few efforts to confront the dangerous nonsense he spouts. Recently he was singing the praises of U.S. Grant, a "protestant" hero of his, and tried to point out that Grant was a slave owner for many years. As with your own experience the correspondence was censored. That said, surely Harris's paranoid must be getting embarrasing in the backrooms of even the Sindo at this stage. Below is censored letter.

The Sunday Independent

Sir,

I read Eoghan Harris’s chastisement of the media for not emphasising enough the fact that Barrack Obama has a Protestant heritage with amazement. That such a silly piece would ever see the light of day in a paper that sets out to firstly inform and secondly provide entertainment to while away the rest day was unbelievable. Does no one proof this stuff? The tone of the piece clearly indicates that much effort was expended seeking out the slightest glitch in order to pour cold water on what was an essentially breeze occasion for most people.

Aside from this, to repeatedly suggest that the fight for independence was noting other that a “war” between Catholics and Protestants is not only an insult to the intelligence but it is also disingenuous to say the least. Mr. Harris should put the same effort into seeking out reliable historical accounts of the past as he does at petty mischief making. Aside from getting a proper prospective on local events he will also discover that the Protestantism of one of his heroes, U.S. Grant, did not prevent him and his wife “owning” slaves for many years. 

by Dick Hill Wed Jul 27, 2011 00:09

I see RTE's late great Gerald Barry did that expose of Harris in 1987. Too 'professional' and 'factual' for the great imaginator.

(If you click on the Sunday Tribune report above it will expand and you can read it.)

by Dick Helms Wed Jul 27, 2011 00:03

Harris is engaged in the production of disinformation. It is the politics of the big historical lie.