Misleading RTE documentary on 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley'
cork |
history and heritage |
other press 
Friday June 23, 2006 02:25
by Ellen Wilkinson - An Phoblacht 15 June 2006
Revisionist historian allowed to go unchallenged
TV review: Documentariy on the making of The Wind that Shakes the Barley
Good in parts
'Rebel County' Hidden History. RTE 1 Tuesday, 13 June. Pat Collins, Producer/Director, Harvest Films
This documentary on the War of Independence in Cork, using Ken Loach's prize winning The Wind that Shakes the Barely as a backdrop was, like the curate's egg, good in parts. Interviews with Ken Loach, Scriptwriter Paul Laverty, academic historians and relatives of those who fought, illustrated the fight against the RIC, Tans, Auxiliaries and regular British forces.
The story of the "ordinary people" who in Ken Loach's words "were able to shake the might of the Empire" was well expressed. So too was the effect on the community of the torture and executions of IRA prisoners. Post-torture photographs of Tom Hales and Pat Harte, hit with hammers and their fingernails pulled out, and with Harte forced to hold up a Union Jack, was reminiscent of more recent US torture in Abu Ghraib,
Attacks on the community by British forces who burned down the family homes of republicans and sympathisers was outlined and the burning of Cork was dealt with. A clear picture emerged of forces whose "reprisals" against the community were at first tolerated by the British and then "sanctioned", when it became clear they could no longer be hidden from public view. But there were indications that the full story was missing, and in some ways misrepresented.
Revisionists
We were told that Sinn Féin won 73 seats in the 1918 election with "48% of the vote". This is an old British propaganda line and effectively a lie when promoted as a measure of Sinn Féin support. Sinn Féin won 25 uncontested seats where the party had overwhelming support. No votes were cast there and the support was not officially measured. This was a very serious weakness and factual misrepresentation as was the comment by Stirling historian, Michael Hopkinson, that the vote was not pro-Sinn Féin, just anti Irish Parliamentary Party.
The other attempt to sell a line was in the attempt to suggest that the IRA targeted Protestants. Discredited revisionist historian Peter Hart was wheeled out. Hart, who reported interviewing an anonymous veteran of the Kilmichael ambush six days after the last veteran died, spoke about his "study". Hart sold a line about innocent Protestants "who had no information" being targeted.
New research- John Borgonovo's on IRA Head of Intelligence in Cork, Flor O'Donoghue, demonstrates the accuracy of IRA intelligence and informer targeting. As Road to Crossbarry author, Duirmuid Begly was allowed to put it briefly: the IRA was indifferent to the religion of the informers who were responsible for the torture and execution of republicans. Historian Brian Murphy, not consulted here, has shown that Hart misrepresented evidence. As with his 'research' on Kilmichael, Hart's attempt to construct a sectarian basis for IRA actions is discredited. While some local loyalists tried to create a sectarian mini-Belfast in Cork, the IRA found them out. British intelligence admitted this - the evidence that Peter Hart misrepresented. In fact many Protestants were sympathetic to the struggle and some, like Dunmanway's Sam Maguire, were in the IRA. Unlike unionists and the British, republicans prevented and suppressed sectarianism.
Anti-sectarian
If I dwell on this point in the review it is because it is going to become a refrain of revisionist historians and their hangers on in weeks to come, as they attempt to pick holes in the Ken Loach film. However, there is ample evidence for the truth, which is that even in the midst of the war, Protestant spokespersons ridiculed the notion that southern unionists, never mind Protestants, were in danger from republicans. This anti-sectarian truth will out.
Unfortunately, this documentary has offered an opening to sectarian misrepresentation that others will attempt to walk through. Whether this misrepresentation was witting or unwitting is a matter for speculation.