Marianne Elliott, revisionism and historiography

McArmalite

Data_Quest wrote: »

Sorry I am going away for a few days (Cheltenham you will be glad to hear) so I will try to answer some of your very interesting comments after the weekend.

Please don't get me wrong I don't have all the answers and I am learning lots by entering into this debate. For example not being a qualified historian I don't know who is discredited or not and I am very surprised to hear that people like Elliot, John A. Murphy and Conor Cruise O'Brien are all discredited? Who decides this?

I am guessing that you don't think the Reform organisation is a good idea I have no affiliation to it but looking at its aims it seems reasonable for me ie I assume they are a peaceful organisation and are definitely entitled to try and change Ireland and improve the relationship between peoples on these islands:

Reform’s aims include:
i) Re-thinking the national symbols like the anthem to reflect Ireland’s changing face and new diversity;
ii) Rethinking Ireland’s relationship with the United Kingdom. This should reflect the deepening social, cultural, and political bond between the two nations;
iii) Promoting membership of international bodies such as the Commonwealth;
iv) Supporting initiatives like the Council of the Isles as a genuine way of healing ancient divisions;
v) Review of the Constitution with particular reference to the preamble and its narrow view of Irishness;
vi) Fostering pluralism, democracy, and tolerance among all people of the island;
vii) Questioning the compulsory role of Irish in our schools and making Irish and English equal official languages.

" I have no affiliation to it (Reform) but looking at its aims it seems reasonable for me " Somehow I knew you would look favorably on it :rolleyes:

Data_Quest wrote: »

The third person is fairly famous in the Irish historical context: UCC's Emeritus Professor of Irish History and former senator, John A. Murphy, was named Cork Person of the Year for 2005.

According to wiki " He was regarded as being politically close to The Workers Party ". Well that would be typical of the cronyism that runs this country. How anyone could put him before Seán Óg Ó hAilpín, Eddie Hobbs, Ronan O'Gara, etc is beyond me. Apparently the judges were Bishop John Buckley (Hon. Chairman), Maurice Moloney County Manager and Joe Gavin City Manager. County Mayor Cllr. Michael Creed and Lord Mayor Cllr. Deirdre Clune. But as I said, that's typical of the cronyism that runs and destroys this country.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Murphy

McArmalite

Data_Quest wrote: »

I did say "judging from the titles" of the books there would seem to be bias but only from the point of view that the author is concentrating on the violence of one side of the troubles and in the same sense if someone wrote a book entitled "Provisional IRA Violence" it would be "biased" towards the other side. However I do take your point I have not read any book by Father Murray so I do not know.

If someone like say, Kevin Meyers or Ruth Dudley Edwards, wrote a book entitled "Provisional IRA Violence" you'd be praising it as a very balanced and fair book. But because it's about british state violence and the SAS is written by someone outside of the brit propaganda pack, you automatically show your bias of saying it's prejudiced - even without reading a line of it.

A bit like the already mentioned Ruth Dudley Edwards who condemned Ken Loach's excellent The Wind that Shook the Barley without even having seen it. Which goes to show the extremist unionist bigotry and bitterness that these kind of creatures have become in their absorption of unionist views and values. Lie down with dogs and expect to catch flies......

Data_Quest

McArmalite wrote: »

If someone like say, Kevin Meyers or Ruth Dudley Edwards, wrote a book entitled "Provisional IRA Violence" you'd be praising it as a very balanced and fair book. But because it's about british state violence and the SAS is written by someone outside of the brit propaganda pack, you automatically show your bias of saying it's prejudiced - even without reading a line of it.

A bit like the already mentioned Ruth Dudley Edwards who condemned Ken Loach's excellent The Wind that Shook the Barley without even having seen it. Which goes to show the extremist unionist bigotry and bitterness that these kind of creatures have become in their absorption of unionist views and values. Lie down with dogs and expect to catch flies......

No I would not: by applying the same logic as before if Kevin Myers wrote a book entitled "Republican Violence" then I would have to say that would display the same sort of bias towards one side. I don't think you are reading my replies.

Nodin

Data_Quest wrote: »

I did say "judging from the titles" of the books there would seem to be bias but only from the point of view that the author is concentrating on the violence of one side of the troubles and in the same sense if someone wrote a book entitled "Provisional IRA Violence" it would be "biased" towards the other side.
.

Theres no logic in that whatsoever. There was state violence, there were SAS operations in Ireland. As titles go they are merely descriptive. You're making the leap of 'Author=Catholic Priest=pro-Republican'. He may well be, but theres nothing in the title to indicate that.

Data_Quest wrote: »

However I do take your point I have not read any book by Father Murray so I do not know.

Entirely true, thank you.

Data_Quest wrote: »

by applying the same logic as before if Kevin Myers wrote a book entitled "Republican Violence".

But there was Republican violence. The argument is whether or not it was justified. As Myers has 'form' we'd be merely betting on the favourite in saying that hes going to state it wasn't, in his usual overly smug hypocrticial way. The title isn't indicative one way or the other.

Data_Quest

Nodin wrote: »

Theres no logic in that whatsoever. There was state violence, there were SAS operations in Ireland. As titles go they are merely descriptive. You're making the leap of 'Author=Catholic Priest=pro-Republican'. He may well be, but theres nothing in the title to indicate that.



Entirely true, thank you.



But there was Republican violence. The argument is whether or not it was justified. As Myers has 'form' we'd be merely betting on the favourite in saying that hes going to state it wasn't, in his usual overly smug hypocrticial way. The title isn't indicative one way or the other.

The debate on this thread is about revisionism and the potential bias in a review by Father Raymond Murray of Eliot's book "The Catholics of Ulster". I have read some of Father Murray's book called "State Violence" and have looked at his background: he has been an admirable campaigner for justice for the duration of the troubles. In his book he catalogues the terrible injustices carried out by the British during the period 1969-1997. This book by its very nature is one-sided as it reports the atrocities committed by one side. I am not saying he is wrong I am just saying he is biased on one side (and from his experience rightly so) and he goes on to explain why he adopts this approach (which makes very interesting reading):

"Pursuance of the grievances of those who suffered duress in interrogation centres, a never-ending story in the recent long war in Northern Ireland, led Denis Faul and myself into campaigning against other violations of human rights in Northern Ireland in subsequent years: corruption of law; lack of independence in the matter of inquiry into complaints; the abuse of emergency laws; harassment and intimidation of civilians by security forces; injuries and deaths caused by rubber and plastic bullets; collusion between British security forces, British intelligence and loyalist paramilitaries; unjust killings and murders by state security forces; excessive punishments in the prisons; cruel strip searching in prisons. In the 1970s only a few people actively helped to try and stop these violations of human rights: the Civil Rights Movement, the Association for Legal Justice, the National Council for Civil Liberties, Amnesty International and some concerned priests, doctors, surgeons and lawyers.

There are two kinds of histories, one fact and one semi-fiction. This is the conclusion of my experience in working for human rights. The history put out by the ruling class borders on fiction. Their official communiqués are published first and grab the headlines. They hold attention while a crisis lasts. It is an attempt to legitimise illegal actions by which they maintain their power over the powerless and the poor. It is tyranny's deceit.

The second history is the short and simple annals of the poor, the worm's eye view. It is often secret. It is the story of the injustice done to them in order to preserve the power and privilege of a few. When power is threatened, the 'lion' and the 'eagle' and the 'bear' will grab the nearest and crush them as an example to the rest. It matters not that they are innocent or guilty. What matters is that they are close at hand and are representative.



Can true history be written? Is it essentially the story of the ruling class? Is it the speeches of President Ronald Reagan and the memoirs of Mrs Margaret Thatcher? Is it not also the story of the unemployed in Birmingham and the deprived blacks in Atlantic City? Must the 'nobodies' remain statistics of birth, death and marriage? There are many 'hidden Irelands' but who has hidden them? The sufferings, the tensions, the spiritual striving for holiness of countless poor families, the injustices done to the underprivileged and the miraculous survival of their traditions in spite of the ever-present monster of power, these are true history. We should give the poor the dignity of their names.

Traditionally too much writing of the history of Ireland was based on state papers and the public judgements of governments and judges. Historical expression was reduced to a truculent embarrassment which silenced the cries for justice of the poor. When the state was wrong it hid the facts and stopped the truth being told. The writer of the introductory history to Liber Munerum Publicorum Hiberniae 1152-1827 says, We may observe here once for all that Ireland of itself has no history, properly speaking'.

The conflicts of the 1798 period are no different from those of today I have witnessed the state in Northern Ireland kill, torture, bribe, and imprison people unjustly Denis Faul and I tried to stop these violations of human rights by official complaints, by breaking the silence in the media, by publishing books, pamphlets and broadsheets, by noising the problems abroad. This book State Violence in Northern Ireland, 1969-1997, draws together pieces illustrative of the violations of human rights by the state in Northern Ireland. They were written fresh during those years. Most of them have already been published in books, pamphlets and magazines. People who have lived through this period in Northern Ireland will immediately recall the perspective they convey I am sure they will help others understand the frustration of the 'nobodies' who did not get justice and whose voices were almost suppressed.

The rôle of the academic is changing, I hope. Today the historian must live with history as it is being made. We have seen historians expose the hypocrisy of the public statements and the private orders of the last world war and the wars in Korea and Vietnam. I think historians should close the gap and become investigators of current public affairs. They should expose and challenge the prejudice that the ruling class presents through the media and through their spokespersons. Similarly what good are theologians if they can only speak for the past? And why did the philosophers in the universities sing dumb in post-war Northern Ireland while the whirlwind gathered? We had five years of internment and a decade of torture. Only a few notable academics spoke out. Do academics only comment on the dead?



The historian of today should expose the workings of modern government and reveal the enormous amount of truth that is concealed. This book gives examples of the violations of human rights in Northern Ireland, 1969-1997. Fortunately the interest of national security, patronage and power did not suppress all the truth."