|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
Human Rights in IrelandA Blog About Human Rights
Lockdown Skeptics
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
Audio Report: 'Political Culture In Cork - An Answer To Revisionist Historians and Journalists' cork |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Monday April 25, 2005 23:27 by Jack Lane - Aubane Historical Society Millstreet Cork Ireland
 Audio of talk by Dr Brian P Murphy osb in the Imperial Hotel South Mall Cork on Fri April 15 2005. Nine audio files - approx two hours in total. This very successful meeting (over 200 present) also saw the launch of Dr Murphy's new book, 'The Catholic Bulletin and Republican Ireland'. The talk is in four parts and the question & answer session in two parts. An additional audio file contains Dr Murphy’s remarks on his newly published book ‘The Catholic Bulletin and Republican Ireland’. In addition the opening remarks of Padraig O Cunachain, who Chaired the meeting, and Jack Lane of the Aubane Historical Society, are also included. The talk will be to interest to students of Irish history, those interested in the critique of revisionist historiography, in the 'spinning' of the historical record, and in parallels with contemporary politics. All Files are in the MP3 Format.
Introduction: Padraig O Cunachain
Talk Part One Brian Murphy on 'The Catholic Bulletin and Republican Ireland'
Outline of Talk: The talk addressed positively the struggle of the Irish people, with particular reference to Cork, to fashion their own national identity in opposition to the dominant political culture of the British Empire, a dominant culture that was based, in the view of Edward Said, on the assumption of racial superiority. Dr Murphy examined the creation of Dail Eireann in January 1919 and the failure of Ireland's appeal for independence to be heard at the Paris Peace Conference. John J. Horgan, a Cork member of the Irish Party, quoted Erskine Childers’ on England's attitude: 'to the great majority of Irishmen, Great Britain now signifies "Prussianism" incarnate, and with good reason ... Great Britain is making war, literally, on the principle of freedom.' An outline was given of some of the constructive works of Dail Eireann - the Dail Loan, the National Land Bank, the Dail Courts and the renewal of industry. A film made in August 1919 of Michael Collins launching the Dail Loan is very significant and was shown as part of the talk. Crown Forces opposed all of these initiatives. Again, to quote Childers (a leading figure in the Land Bank) in May 1920: 'an attempt is being made to break up a whole national organisation, a living, vital, magnificent thing, normally and democratically evolved from the intense desire of a fettered and repressed people for self reliance and self development. This attempt, if we are to give words their right meaning, is the great crime, the fundamental crime.' Consideration was given to the actions of the IRA in the war. The talk took place on the 85th anniversary year of the deaths of Lord Mayors, Thomas MacCurtain and Terence MacSwiney. April 15th was two days prior to the anniversary of the in-quest jury finding that MacCurtain 'was wilfully murdered under circumstances of the most callous brutality, and that the murder was organised and carried out by the RIC, officially directed by the British Government.' The findings of this study suggest that recent historical studies labelling the IRA as sectarian killers are defective at source and the propagating of such studies in the popular media by such journalists as Kevin Myers and Eoghan Harris is similar to the writings of British propaganda during the war of Independence. Myers, in particular, has become a serial verbal abuser of republicans of this period. Their writings distort the historical narrative. This talk is an attempt to put the record straight for Cork but also for Ireland as a whole. Dr Murphy is currently researching British Propaganda during the 1919-22 period. He gave a highly acclaimed talk on the subject in Dublin recently in which he questioned the research findings of Canadian academic Peter Hart and Oxford historian Roy Foster. Dr Murphy's talk on British propaganda was covered in The Sunday Times, La (Irish language daily) and the BBC. Dr Murphy returned to criticisms of Hart in his talk. He addressed in particular inadequacies in Hart’s understanding of the motivation of republicans, his downplaying of the anti-democratic role of the British government and its forces and Hart’s misuse of source material.
|
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (14 of 14)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14.
"The findings of this study suggest that recent historical studies labelling the IRA as sectarian killers are defective at source"
Nationalists and Republicans do not like the fact that historians question the accepted ideas and myths they have in their politics. Historians are meant to question. That is their aim and that is their methods. People that attack "revisionists" are ludites and ignorant of history.
I think that the IRA volunteers in the war of independence were motivated thinking they weredoing the right thing. That does not take from the fact that some had catholic conservative views, some were sectarian anti-protestents, some did not have any regard for public opinion, etc. Historians look into this and use sources from the time to question the past. If you don't like that your personal views are not informed by fact, rather your views are informed by blind nationalism.
Real historians address the points made by their colleagues and make their sources publically available so that their worthiness can be evaluated.
In the case above it has been claimed clearly that the IRA volunteers were engaged in specifically sectarian acts. This charge seems clearly refuted by the available evidence.
Read the article, listen to the talks and don't go making general, platitudinizing assertions like the one above "Historian".
What a condescending, weasel type comment .
The men and women who took part in that period of conflict did so with the authority of an elected government and the democratically ratified Declaration of Independence . Despite being derided today as conservative Catholics many were excommunicated and carried on regardless .
The revisionist historians and their cheerleaders ( Myers, Harris, Dudley Edwards etc) are openly in love with Britain . They see it as their duty to sterilise Irelands national consciousness . Their fraudulent agenda is to sully , destroy and remove every aspect of the native tradition of resistance and rejection of British rule and replace it with their own pro-British views.
That these people and their ilk either control or heavily influence the mass media in Ireland means they have been very successful to date in attempting to twist society into agreement with their own warped, Irish hating viewpoint . Their belief is that Orangism = culture , opposition to British rule = sectarianism and by incessant repetition of this mentally fucked-up mantra they hope to warp everyone elses minds as well .
Despite Peter Hart not being able to back up his outrageous claims they carry on regardless trying to infect others with their self hating slave mentality . They are pathetic creatures who simply inspire revulsion in anyone with a bit of self respect .
When new info comes along, anyone unable to revise an opinion is an idiot.
No new info has just "come along", except for this mysterious, anonymous undead IRA surivor which Hart refuses to name . Harts being deliberately disingenuous and promoting an anti-Irish agenda with no reference to historical sources . His interpretations seem to be more based upon personal prejudice than any real methodology . Important works, fact and historical records are ignored in favourr of claims like " young people locked old people in the house on election day to stop them voting against republicans"
Like so much of his revisionist drivel it is agenda driven nonsense which doesnt remotely stand up to any scrutiny .
Have you actually read Hart's book?
BTW, once again I have to remind you - the IRA did not have a mandate for its campaign of violence, SF had not campaigned during the 1918 election on a programme of violence, that psychopath Breen made it clear later on that the Soloheadbeg attack was deliberately designed to upstage the politicians meeting the same day.
I stopped reading it and tossed it into the corner with an upturned nose and then thoroughly washed my hands in hot soapy water . Theres only so much insulting anti - Irish shite I can digest before I realise its only going from bad to worse .
The mans dismissal of ideological republicanism as merely "youth culture", akin to punk rockers and teddy boys told me all I needed to know about the books agenda from the start .
As ever we have another pro - British revisionist historian telling us we are only dumb , apolitical Irish savages who quite honestly needed a firm hand from our superiors and betters . To be told a campaign for independence was sectarian and without any ideological foundation shows Harts innate distaste for the ordinary people of this country . Despite abundant historical proof of the radicalisation and politicisation of huge swathes of the country , Hart resorts to the basest comparisons with wren boys and straw boys simply out to wreck the place because there was nothing better to do of an evening .
As regards mandates for violence ,that phase of the conflict most definitely did not begin in Soloheadbeag but 6 months earlier when Lord French , an unelected military viceroy at the head of a massive military force installed himself in Dublin armed with the Defence of the Realm Act . Irish peoples rights were taken away and 100s were hauled off to jail with no evidence . Military curfews and restrictions on movement were calculated to destroy the native economy and force massive emigration . The British declared war on us , the IRA merely responded in kind .
The 1918 elections were clearly fought on a platform of legitimising the stand taken in the GPO in 1916 . Therefore the right to use armed force was most definitely given overwhelming and tacit approval .
By the way , just because Breen shot a few cops and soldiers doesnt make him a psychopath . Some of the sanest , most honest and decent people this country has produced had no qualms about doing it either . Im proud to say relatives of my own from that period accounted for a few foreign terrorists .
Just like Peter Hart it seems you have to attribute native savagery rather than political idealism to an Irishman/woman who fights for their freedom .
DD, that 'psychopath' Breen (oh, I'm so riled up now) constantly misrepresented the motives of his senior officers in order to promote himself. The Soloheadbeg ambush was carried out in order to capture gelignite. Read the accounts of some of the other participants and you might get a better idea of what happened.
I have read this so called historical book. The fact is that there is no such thing as a historical book devoid of personal emotion and opinions of the Author. We should thank our lucky stars that most of the new generation are starting to turn their backs on these revisionist writers. They are the minority and are a self serving bunch. Being from West Cork I tend to see one of these pathetic individuals on a regular basis and in our area he is considered a joke not naming names or anything.
If you look at the political landscape of today every party is wrapping themselves in the Flag that was hoisted over the GPO in 1916. Who would have thought it but even Mr McDowell has stated that the actions of the men of 1916 were correct.Garrett Fitzgerald proudly stated this last week as well, at an unveiling of a plaque for one of the heros of 1916.
The revisionists are on the run and their last hiding place is the Irish Independant Newspaper Group and the way its owner has managed Waterford Crystal it can't be long before that falters also.
Finally Irish people of all Nationalist strands are standing up and defending their history.
Its been a long time coming, but great to see it happening. By 2016 the anniversary of that great and historical act, it will be celebrated by the vast majority of this country no matter what party you belong to.
Maybe the revisionists could move to the U.K and have a look at the past of the British Empire in all its Glory and Oppression.
Long live the Republic.
"Maybe the revisionists could move to the U.K and have a look at the past of the British Empire in all its Glory and Oppression."
History is revised whenever a new view of history comes along, whether you agree with it or not. Sometimes its hard to disagree with a revised history, like when archives are opened and throw new light on a subject. Of course revised history like existing history can be used for political and other purposes.
With the UK being a far less conservative society than Ireland, they revised their traditional views of their history a long time ago.
Historian:
"With the UK being a far less conservative society than Ireland, they revised their traditional views of their history a long time ago."
That sentence does not compute. Perhaps 'Historian' would like to revise it.
Countries generally do not write history. Historians, amateur, and professional, do. If ‘Historian’ is saying that there are ‘Court historians’ or that that states court certain views of history, he may be on to something. But such views tend to be rationalizations of the interests of the states that promote them.
There is little evidence of the traditional British view of its role in Ireland being revised. The British tend to be pretty conservative on matters like this.
All written history is a process of revision of what may have been written before. In an Irish context, the term ‘revisionism’ in a historical context refers to an ideological tendency to whitewash the effects of British colonialism (or even to deny that colonialism as such existed in the relationship between Britain and Ireland). It is an ideological mindset.
However, leaving that aside, if 'the 'UK' as such revised its history, at what point did it agree that imperial exploitation and racism was a product of British policy abroad and that it was a ‘bad thing’? The British Empire was concluded as a formal entity in much the same way as it began, through violence or the threat of violence (although, at the end from the opposite direction, from the victims of colonial policy). The British concocted the view that they left their colonies voluntarily and that the subsequent task of British foreign policy was to “manage British decline”. That is the ideology talking, not the actual history. Countries act according to the relations of power they impose on others or that others impose on them. Historical rationalizations usually follow.
In Ireland, apologists for British policy portray British sectarianism as reasonable and Irish non-sectarianism as tribal or ‘ethnic’. Finding evidence for such a view usually results in histories such as Peter Hart’s. Since it is unhelpful to argue on the basis that ‘My ideas about history are better than yours’, both sides of a historical dispute usually agree to debate on the basis of the facts, of evidence, and to construct a view of history and of what happened in history on the basis of verifiable data.
I am happy to discuss Peter Hart’s view on the basis of the facts. I believe that his interpretation is weak and that he omitted evidence he had access to that contradicted his case. Furthermore, some of the ‘evidence’ he promotes is a product of then British attempts to revise a contemporary view of the conflict. Revisionist historians have reworked propaganda artifact as historical fact. Murphy, Ryan and others have made a convincing case that this is so. They have helped us to revise our view of revisionist historians and their methods. It is they who have unearthed new evidence, in reaction to Peter Hart's eccentric acceptance of British propaganda and his anonymous interviews.
Peter Hart has not answered them yet. When he does, we can re-evaluate, or perhaps even revise, the position.
Letters in response to Peter Hart's interview on Tom Barry, Kilmichael and the conduct of the War of Independence in Cork from Meda Ryan, Niall Meehan and Manus O'Riordan can be found at:
www.historyireland.com/magazine/features/13.3FeatB.html
The Editorial (May June) announces that Peter Hart wil reply in the next edition of History Ireland (at last!).
the latest instalment of this debate, a response to Brian Hanley's defence of Peter Hart, is on:
www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=70063
Maith an fear, a Phádraig.