Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, I'm not arguing that. You can tell quite clearly that I'm not arguing that by the fact that I didn't say it.

What I'm arguing against is the assertion - stated as a bald assumption of fact, just like the constant bald assertion as fact over the past few days that the PSNI's actions were politically motivated - that McGuinness's words were an empty threat.

You are arguing that the deputy first minister can threaten to withdraw his party's support for policing, and that there's no conceivable way that that could in any way have influenced the decision-making process of the police force, while simultaneously believing - without the evidence of an actual publicly-issued threat - that the only possible explanation for a police force questioning someone in connection with a murder investigation is a political motivation.

I just can't get my head around that scale of double-think. You're going to have a great deal of trouble finding a single post on this forum where anyone has claimed that no-one in the PSNI is passionately loyalist. You'll have a much easier task finding post after post after post after post claiming - without even bothering to adduce the faintest shred of evidence - that the whole thing was politically motivated.

I mean, jesus. I can understand how there could be claims of political motivation if Adams had been picked up off the street without there ever having been the slightest suggestion by anyone ever of any involvement in the McConville murder. What's beyond me is how so many people don't seem to be capable of even countenancing the barest possibility that maybe - just maybe - this is an example of a police force, y'know, policing.

I never said it was absolutely politically motived. Not once.

I said that I am open to the possibly that it may be - unlike those who dismissing the possibility outright.

alastair wrote: »

And some of them kept fighting past 1921. That's not really the point, is it?

No, the point is that a small but significant number of Irish people decided prior to 1916 that taking up arms was the only path to Irish independence, formed the Irish Volunteers and Citizen armies, and launched a comical uprising in which the great majority of said armies did not participate. After that failed attempt they regrouped, combined, and tried something different. Why is it so hard to understand the reason there was little or no activity from 1916 to 1918 was because the surviving Volunteers (most of them, as most did not fight in 1916) were locked up?

There were several Volunteer army actions in 1918, attacks on barracks, arms seized, a few RIC members shot. Do these events not count in the "official" war that apparently started in 1919?

Same generation, same individuals involved, same war.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You did not 'attack nonsense' - you attacked me personally and my ability to do my job.

Tell me - who decides when these things start and end? Historians do. Are they exact? No - because life isn't exact. It's just a device to give people nice easy to digest packages.

In 1916, despite the lack of popular support and a signed Home Rule agreement waiting to come into force, a groups of republicans staged an armed rebellion. They had no mandate.

The majority of the leaders were executed and shot, with the rank and file imprisoned leading to the growth in popular support within Ireland.
During their confinement, Republicans reorganised, generally got their guerilla act together and began to seriously fund raise with the intention of continuing the uprising when released from prison. The fact that a general election coincided was happy coincidence as it gave them a 'mandate'.

GE or no GE - they were going to continue the conflict began in 1916.

If 1916 had not happened then Home Rule as agreed in 1914 would have come into force in 1918 - it didn't because the dispute that erupted in 1916 was still violently at play.

Again - aside from some backpedalling - you're not making any case that the war of indpendence was anything but 1919-1921. Unless you're aligning yourself with some fringe of historians, the universally accepted dates are 1919-1921 - following on from the declaration of independence, ending with the treaty.

alastair wrote: »

Socialist Party
WP
PBP
SWP
Labour (if Social Democrats count?)
WUAG
Various independents

Labour :eek:?
Surely you jest

nagirrac wrote: »

No, the point is that a small but significant number of Irish people decided prior to 1916 that taking up arms was the only path to Irish independence, formed the Irish Volunteers and Citizen armies, and launched a comical uprising in which the great majority of said armies did not participate. After that failed attempt they regrouped, combined, and tried something different. Why is it so hard to understand the reason there was little or no activity from 1916 to 1918 was because the surviving Volunteers (most of them, as most did not fight in 1916) were locked up?

There were several Volunteer army actions in 1918, attacks on barracks, arms seized, a few RIC members shot. Do these events not count in the "official" war that apparently started in 1919?

Same generation, same individuals involved, same war.

And what of the same individuals that continued fighting past '21?

You don't get to pick and choose your criteria based on what individuals were involved. The war of independence is framed by the declaration of independence and the signing of the treaty. 1919-21.

nagirrac wrote: »

Labour :eek:?
Surely you jest

They're of the left. But feel free to discount them. I'd struggle to see SF as being any more left-wing than Labour though - in all honesty.

nagirrac wrote: »

Your argument here though is against left wing politics in general, not Sinn Fein specifically. For democracy to function you need alternatives. What are the left wing alternatives in the ROI?

There are and have been plenty of left wing parties and candidates in the state nagirrac. The problem is the electorate has never voted for them and don't seem to be inclined to change that anytime soon.

alastair wrote: »

And what of the same individuals that continued fighting past '21?

Different war, if for no other reason than one of the participants of the war of independence had left. The civil war had a hugely different set of participants and motivation, most of those participating on the pro treaty side were new recruits that had not participated in the war of independence. The great majority of the IRA that actually fought the war of independence were anti treaty.

alastair wrote: »

You don't get to pick and choose your criteria based on what individuals were involved. The war of independence is framed by the declaration of independence and the signing of the treaty. 1919-21.

No, I get to choose it based on any logical interpretation of the situation in Ireland from 1913 to 1921. Those that frame the war of independence from 1919 to 1921 imo have a vested interest in supporting those who abandoned the goal of a Republic, which is why the link to 1916 needed to be written out of history. Interestingly enough only the Irish do this, the English as per their recent willingness to participate in the upcoming 1916 commemorations, obviously regard it as the same war.

nagirrac wrote: »

What is it you disagree with specifically?

I am not avoiding your question nagirrac as to get into it would just derail this thread even more than it already is , as a country we are where we are and to start arguing how we got here is just pointless .

One thing I will say I do not believe that what was accepted in 1916- 25 is acceptable today and then constant comparision between then and now is meaningless.

I am only interested in SF as it pertains to the governance of this republic today.

alastair wrote: »

Again - aside from some backpedalling - you're not making any case that the war of indpendence was anything but 1919-1921. Unless you're aligning yourself with some fringe of historians, the universally accepted dates are 1919-1921 - following on from the declaration of independence, ending with the treaty.

And again you have failed to apologise for calling my ability to do my job into question.

Tell me - when exactly did WWI start?

Not the 'agreed date' - the actual time that conflict became inevitable?

Was it really June in Sarajevo?

Or was it Austria issued it's demands? If Serbia agreed - would war have been avoided?

Or was it really when Wilhelm sacked Bismarck? Bismarck had successfully avoided becoming embroiled in a global conflict many times during the Scramble for Africa. If Bismarck was still in control of Germany would there have been a war?

But if Germany hadn't unified in the 1870s would there have been a global conflict in the first place?

You want it to be black and white.
This started then and had nothing to do with any thing happened before.
That is not how history works because that is not how human society works.

WWI 'began' long before the Archduke was assassinated and there were moments after that when it could still have been avoided. But 28 June 1914 id a handy date with a memorable event to hang the 'began here' hat on - ask any historian when it really began and you will get an discussion - not a definitive answer with a specific date all tied up with ribbon.

The War of Independence did not spontaneously occur in 1919 - it began when republicans decided to violently reject the terms of the 1914 Home Rule agreement and seek a united ROI.

marienbad wrote: »

There are and have been plenty of left wing parties and candidates in the state nagirrac. The problem is the electorate has never voted for them and don't seem to be inclined to change that anytime soon.

True, mainly due to Ireland being a very conservative country I would assume. Times have changed though and just as people have questioned and abandoned the RCC, they are also likely to question and abandon historical political preferences and myths (like FF being left wing ffs). Someone will fill the left wing space, and that someone is most likely to be SF as they are the only one's organized enough to do it, and are not tainted like Labour.

The natural left right divide in Ireland would now appear to be SF/Labour and FG/FF, which is surely most likely to be the competing coalitions for future governments?

Manach

OT, I've rarely agreed with Bannasidhe on the specific lessons drawn from history, but her analysis of the more complex elements of the past and how the various skeins are interwoven that make up conceptual history are usually very professional.
On topic, I'm not on SF's side on ... anything, but from Irish history there is the precedent of the anti-Treaty faction eventually joining and then leading the Dail after a civil war, then SF past should be overshadowed by instead concentrating (and where necessary mordantly de-constructing) on their policies.

Flex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You did not 'attack nonsense' - you attacked me personally and my ability to do my job.

Tell me - who decides when these things start and end? Historians do. Are they exact? No - because life isn't exact. It's just a device to give people nice easy to digest packages.

In 1916, despite the lack of popular support and a signed Home Rule agreement waiting to come into force, a groups of republicans staged an armed rebellion. They had no mandate.

The majority of the leaders were executed and shot, with the rank and file imprisoned leading to the growth in popular support within Ireland.
During their confinement, Republicans reorganised, generally got their guerilla act together and began to seriously fund raise with the intention of continuing the uprising when released from prison. The fact that a general election coincided was happy coincidence as it gave them a 'mandate'.

GE or no GE - they were going to continue the conflict began in 1916.

If 1916 had not happened then Home Rule as agreed in 1914 would have come into force in 1918 - it didn't because the dispute that erupted in 1916 was still violently at play.

January 21st 1919 is seen as the beginning of the war of independence because its the date the 1st Dail declared independence and said every means at their command to remove British forces would be used.

The reason the 3rd Home Rule bill in 1914 didnt come into effect in 1918 (it was completely repealed and replaced with a 4th Home Rule bill) was because that while Lloyd George of the Liberal party was Prime Minister, the war time Conservative-Liberal coalition said it would continue on after the war, however after the UK 1918 election, the Liberals ended up as the minority partner in this coalition (outnumbered nearly 3-1 by the Conservatives). The Conservatives were very much pro-Unionist and only grudgingly wanted to give any autonomy to Ireland. Thats what held it up, not the dispute that happened in 1916. They could have passed Home Rule whenever they wanted (very nearly did in 1917 after the Irish Conference, and they subsequently did in 1920, at a time when the war of independence was in full swing).

nagirrac wrote: »

True, mainly due to Ireland being a very conservative country I would assume. Times have changed though and just as people have questioned and abandoned the RCC, they are also likely to question and abandon historical political preferences and myths (like FF being left wing ffs). Someone will fill the left wing space, and that someone is most likely to be SF as they are the only one's organized enough to do it, and are not tainted like Labour.

The natural left right divide in Ireland would now appear to be SF/Labour and FG/FF, which is surely most likely to be the competing coalitions for future governments?

I don't see it to be honest . I agree we are a conservative country and I think we will remain so for the foreseeable future . We are becoming socially liberal but will remain fairly economically conservative.

And it is pointless saying Labour is tainted , the fact is that it is about as left as you can get in Ireland and still get elected . It says more about the electorate than it does Labour.

And any chance of that changing is not helped by the constant feuding on the left. For example SF would regard it as a victory if they obliterated Labour at the next election but the left share of the vote remained static.

Dan_Solo

marienbad wrote: »

And it is pointless saying Labour is tainted , the fact is that it is about as left as you can get in Ireland and still get elected . It says more about the electorate than it does Labour.

You can sing that. Going all in with Fianna Fail didn't do their supposed leftist credentials one bit of harm did it...
Supposed being the operative word there.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You can sing that. Going all in with Fianna Fail didn't do their supposed leftist credentials one bit of harm did it...
Supposed being the operative word there.

We don't know is the answer, If you are a political party you aspire to govern .It is useless being in permanent opposition in a party democracy . As SF will find out sooner or later.

For good or ill no one can deny the effect the PD's had on Irish Politics and we don't know how much Labour has put the brakes on FG in this government.

The fact of the matter is 75% of the electorate is at least right of centre and we insist on punishing the left of centre parties after every cock up.-Go figure .

Flex wrote: »

January 21st 1919 is seen as the beginning of the war of independence because its the date the 1st Dail declared independence and said every means at their command to remove British forces would be used.

The reason the 3rd Home Rule bill in 1914 didnt come into effect in 1918 (it was completely repealed and replaced with a 4th Home Rule bill) was because that while Lloyd George of the Liberal party was Prime Minister, the war time Conservative-Liberal coalition said it would continue on after the war, however after the UK 1918 election, the Liberals ended up as the minority partner in this coalition (outnumbered nearly 3-1 by the Conservatives). The Conservatives were very much pro-Unionist and only grudgingly wanted to give any autonomy to Ireland. Thats what held it up, not the dispute that happened in 1916. They could have passed Home Rule whenever they wanted (very nearly did in 1917 after the Irish Conference, and they subsequently did in 1920, at a time when the war of independence was in full swing).

That is one version - it happens to be the 'official' version. However, there are other equally valid versions and equally valid arguments can be (and are being) made for each of them by historians who specialise in the time period.

The fact is - Pearse declared independence in 1916 while taking part in an armed insurrection against Crown authorities, that was when the treaty was violently rejected by armed republicans - and there would have been a lot more involved it McNeill hasn't issued a counter command. Is that event now voided?

Do we pretend that was just a side show that had no impact?

Did they declare in 1919 or did they reassert Pearse's original 1916 proclamation?

What is the iconic image of the Declaration of the Irish Republic?
It is Pearse in 1916.

As I said - 1919 is a handy peg to hang the hat on. That is all it is - a quite arbitrary date to be honest and most likely the one selected to support a particular agenda.

To illustrate my point - the 1913 Lockout led to the formation of the Irish Citizen Army and Connelly's subsequent conclusion that the only way to protect workers was in an independent republic. Connelly decided in 1913 and began planning - by 1916, Connelly was rebelling with or without the volunteers. Connelly died and the left was decimated but If Connelly had lived and Ireland had been dominated by the left in the intervening years people would be telling me The War of Independence began in 1913 as that it what the 'official' version would say to suit the dominant left agenda.

1919 suits the centre right as by the time an 'official' version was required to be taught to futute citizens, the left had been effectively removed as a political force, conservative Catholics dominated and by declaring it all began in 1919 they ensure the left would not feature in 'our' story. Political rivals removed from centre stage and cast into the wilderness at the stroke of a pen.

That is how historiography works unfortunately - actual history is far more complex and nuanced.

Apparently - according to Declan Lynch in yesterday's Indo - SF are actually a Far Right party ...
I assume they managed this by going so far left to the Maxist that they ended up right at the fascist.

Indeed many of those nationalist, or "far right" organisations as they tend to be known outside Ireland, would probably look to Sinn Fein as the best-qualified of them all, what with its very recent history of running an actual army, its continued devotion to a horrible ideology, and a track record of such impeccable wrong-headedness on so many major issues of the last century it even offered its wholehearted support to Nazi Germany.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/declan-lynch/sinn-fein-could-meet-itself-at-the-other-end-of-the-spectrum-30242094.html

This would be the same Declan Lynch who described those citizens who expect high standards from our public representatives as

Frothing-at-the-mouth pundits, pious people who blather platitudes about standards in public life, people who live in a very small world totally obsessed with the doings of the Fianna Fail family, self important people who appear on the panel and in the audience of Questions & Answers, people who have a warped sense of morality.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/dylan-knew-all-about-politics-26428855.html

so you can decide for yourselves how valid you feel his analysis is.

Xantia

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Like many people in this so-called 'republic' of ours I have a knee-jerk dislike of SF and in an effort to understand why I had a careful read of this thread and two oft repeated points struck me

1. They 'support terrorism'
They also got the PIRA to cease fire but no one seems to have mentioned that. Much has been made of the fact that in the day our 'founding fathers' were also considered 'terrorists' (Indeed the State itself is planning a great big celebration of when 'we' rose up against the legally constituted government of the day and rebelled in 1916.)

Apparently that is not relevant as it all happened 98 years ago because those were them days and these are these days and it's not like those events had any impact on the society we live an who cares anyway cos history is not relevant and something something it's not like we still have a political division of the island which still causes conflict. And it is especially Not relevant that the two main political parties in the State owe their very existence to the subsequent Civil War?

If I understand the argument correctly, between 1916-1922 when a group of Republican nationalists formed an illegal paramilitary organisation and rebelled against a legally mandated government which they perceived as an occupying force that was different as it led to us in the South (and North-West) getting our 'freedom' but it is an entirely different thing when a group of Republican Nationalists formed an illegal paramilitary organisation and rebelled against a legally mandated government which they perceived as an occupying force in the late 1960s....
I find the double think disturbing to say the least. It was ok for our grandparents to elect 'terrorists' as those were actually 'freedom fighters' and had put away the bullets in favour of ballots but it is completely different now that SF have done the same...

2. The are 'populist' - that one did make me laugh. FF wrote the book on populism. A party which has dominated the political landscape since it's inception whose very beginnings lay in Dev's sudden - dare I say populist (:P)- change of mind when it came to accepting the conditions of the Treaty so he could not only sit in the Dáil along side those who had a) caused the Civil War in the first place by refusing to accept that same Treaty and b) those on the pro-Treaty side who engaged in the very same tactics as the British 'occupiers' they were 'saving' us from but would actually lead the government...

As for our current government - how much more 'populist' could one get than to campaign by telling the electorate they would not follow FF's economic policies when in government but take a radically different path...remind me - what did they actually do???

We have, as an electorate, repeated the same FF or FG experiment over and over an over and we have had boom and bust boom and bust - (yes, I am old enough to remember queuing for petrol in the 1970s) and we all wail things must change we cannot continue like this with the boom and the bust and the softlandings and the turning the corner going forward what will we do??? Will we vote for the populist how may busts have they caused FF or the sure we will say anything to get elected and then do all the things we said were economically illiterate while campaigning but it turns out we haven't a bulls notion of what to do when in power FG/LP - yet people are saying that SF are economically illiterate when they have (yet) to cause either boom or bust...

It would be hard to out do FF when it comes to being economic illiterate and I am not convinced by FG either as apparently up until now they were simply following the FF agreed plan with the Troika and look at the current debacle over Irish Water - how many millions has that cost so far???

In 1922 the Irish people took a risk and elected a group of 'terrorists' as their government - people who had no track record at running a country or economic experience.
In 1932 the Irish people elected a 'new' populist party consisting of not only 'terrorists' but also the losing side in a divisive Civil War who had no track record of running a country and were so inexperienced in economics that one could call them illiterate

No doubt some one will say what happened 'back then' is not relevant to now. Well, as a historian I must disagree- what happened at the beginning of the formation of the State is still very much relevant as it impacted upon and created the very society we live in - those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it and all that.

I am sick of repeating it.

Unless I see a compelling argument that consists of something other than the two points I mentioned above I will be voting SF for the first time in my life.

And don't even bother mentioning the LP to me - I used to be a member of that shower but have come to accept that they will accept any conditions in order to be in power and unless they radically change I will never vote for them again.

One of THE best posts I have ever read on this site.
I am making an assumption here that most of the posters replying do not remember any of this because they are too young to do so, if that is the case then they could read your post.

To Paraphrase the quote for Insanity: Voting for the same party over and over again and expecting different results.

I, and all the people that I know who tell me/discuss with me who we are voting for are going to vote for Sinn Fein this time around.
There will be second preferences for the Independents but no second/third for FF/FG/Lab.
Not alone because of the way we have been treated as an electorate by the FF/FG/Lab but because I know the local SF councillor as a neighbour.
He lives down the road from me.
A nicer guy you could not meet.
He has no past with NI or IRA or anything like that, he is of the new SF.
I know that if he gets elected that he will take home the average industrial wage thereby leading by example.
He looks out for the local workers who need his support.

Yes I too have my reservations and if a better alternative were offered I would choose it but there is no viable alternative.

Dick phelan

There are far more left wing parties in Ireland then right wing, FF, FG, Labor now all seem very much central with only slight variation, their is no full right wing party in Ireland, maybe because it's association with Nazism and the like, but outside of the PD's i can't think of a right wing party in Ireland recently. What i would like in this country is a party that is economically right and socially left wing.

oscarBravo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I never said it was absolutely politically motived. Not once.

I didn't say you did - but it has been said over and over and over and over and over and over again. It has repeatedly been stated as fact by senior Sinn Féin figures north and south of the border.

I said that I am open to the possibly that it may be - unlike those who dismissing the possibility outright.

I'm open to the possibility that it might be politically motivated too. I would like to hear some evidence for such a motivation other than the repeated assertions of the party colleagues of the man in question that they believe it to be so - because, let's face it, it's not like they don't have a great deal to gain from spinning that line.

So, on balance, given that there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for his detention and questioning other than political motivation - the fact that the police had been given reason to believe that he may have had information that could help them in a murder investigation - and given the total and utter absence of even a pretence of anyone offering any evidence to the contrary, on balance I'm inclined to believe that this was a police operational matter.

Tell me this: is your opinion of Sinn Féin's integrity so high that you can't bring yourself to believe that they'd shout "political policing" no matter what the circumstances?

And I'm still at a loss as to how you can baldly assert that, when the deputy prime minister of a state can threaten the future functioning of that state's police force if they charge his party colleague, that's an empty threat that you can confidently state had no influence on the police's operational decisions.

I'll ask again: if Enda Kenny had given a press release rumbling darkly about how the office of the data protection commissioner might find itself facing some serious budget cuts next year if they made adverse findings against Shatter - would you be as quick to dismiss it as an empty threat?

john_parrott wrote: »

the media in ireland is rabidly anti the idea of " small goverment "

this conditions people into believing right wing is about as good of an idea as magdalene laundries

Right wing as 'small' government is a very American perception I think. In a European context right wing governments tended towards the very very big in an in your face disappear you kind of way. Very Magdalene Laundry in fact - lock you up for not conforming to the expectations and societal norms of a deeply conservative society.

nagirrac wrote: »

Different war, if for no other reason than one of the participants of the war of independence had left. The civil war had a hugely different set of participants and motivation, most of those participating on the pro treaty side were new recruits that had not participated in the war of independence. The great majority of the IRA that actually fought the war of independence were anti treaty.

As far as the anti-treaty crowd were concerned, they were still fighting the same war. And there were many on the treaty side who had been fighting in 1916. So it seems that you could pick any range of years based on the criteria of the individuals involved.

nagirrac wrote: »

No, I get to choose it based on any logical interpretation of the situation in Ireland from 1913 to 1921. Those that frame the war of independence from 1919 to 1921 imo have a vested interest in supporting those who abandoned the goal of a Republic, which is why the link to 1916 needed to be written out of history. Interestingly enough only the Irish do this, the English as per their recent willingness to participate in the upcoming 1916 commemorations, obviously regard it as the same war.

Vested interests eh? Well - those 'vested interests' have been pretty persuasive, because the universally understood period for the war of independence - as seen in any historical reference, is 1919-1921 - starting with the declaration of independence, ending with the treaty. No-one has tried to write 1916 out of history - that would be a paranoid reading of the reality, and the British are entirely welcome to celebrate the 1916 anniversary, it still doesn't shift the war of independence back three years.

alastair wrote: »

As far as the anti-treaty crowd were concerned, they were still fighting the same war. And there were many on the treaty side who had been fighting in 1916. So it seems that you could pick any range of years based on the criteria of the individuals involved.

Exactly. One could pick any one of a number of events as the 'start' of something but people like neat little packages and easy dates to learn off as the reality is too complex and may require more thought then people are prepared to engage in.

Vested interests eh? Well - those 'vested interests' have been pretty persuasive, because the universally understood period for the war of independence - as seen in any historical reference, is 1919-1921 - starting with the declaration of independence, ending with the treaty. No-one has tried to write 1916 out of history - that would be a paranoid reading of the reality, and the British are entirely welcome to celebrate the 1916 anniversary, it still doesn't shift the war of independence back three years.

The 'vested interests' being those who ruled The Free State and later republic - same people by the way - so were able to make their no-leftys- here-the-RCC-played-an-instrumental-role-in-Irish-independence version the official one and have it promulgated via the education system.

That is how historiography works and why within the discipline of history events are constantly being re-examined and re-assessed to try and ensure bias is removed- and why history lecturers will discuss in class (and publications) why a particular date/event was 'decided' upon, examine the other contenders and debate why they were not selected.
It is also why academic bun fights break out as different scholars have different interpretations.

I am sorry that the past is not as cut and dried as you would like it to be. But it just isn't.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Exactly. One could pick any one of a number of events as the 'start' of something but people like neat little packages and easy dates to learn off as the reality is too complex and may require more thought then people are prepared to engage in.

Or - as every historic tome has agreed - it's a war framed by the declaration of independence, and the signing of the treaty. Spare me the strategic vagueness and dissembling.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The 'vested interests' being those who ruled The Free State and later republic - same people by the way - so were able to make their no-leftys- here-the-RCC-played-an-instrumental-role-in-Irish-independence version the official one and have it promulgated via the education system.

Not remotely convincing - sorry - particularly by your need to toll out red herrings to support this theory.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That is how historiography works and why within the discipline of history events are constantly being re-examined and re-assessed to try and ensure bias is removed- and why history lecturers will discuss in class (and publications) why a particular date/event was 'decided' upon, examine the other contenders and debate why they were not selected.
It is also why academic bun fights break out as different scholars have different interpretations.

A bun fight you appear to have lost a long time ago.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am sorry that the past is not as cut and dried as you would like it to be. But it just isn't.

Actually it is - refer to any history book and check out the dates for the war of independence. There's a clear consensus that it's 1919-1921. Sorry to be so cut and dried, but there you go.

A colleague - who happens to be a historian who specialises in Irish history and a 'protestant' from East Belfast who grew up during The Troubles - just linked me this article by Fintan O'Toole with a note saying 'Truth commission urgently required. It is a no brainer.'

Selective memory
If Gerry Adams had anything to do with the killing of Jean McConville, he should answer for his actions. But it would be far better if he gave those answers to an open, independent commission with a remit to investigate all unsolved killings by state forces or by paramilitary organisations. If, by design or accident, Adams seems to be singled out, while other crimes are ignored, the cycle of selective memory and selective amnesia will go on. There are no special victims and there must be no special perpetrators.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/mcconville-case-signals-pressing-need-for-independent-commission-of-inquiry-1.1784237?page=2

It expresses what I have been arguing. Don't select which murders deserve investigation but remain silent about the others - a tactic all sides are engaging in.

If one side/individual is being called to account - then all must be called to account as all those innocent people killed equally deserve to have their deaths investigated and their killers brought to justice.

alastair wrote: »

Or - as every historic tome has agreed - it's a war framed by the declaration of independence, and the signing of the treaty. Spare me the strategic vagueness and dissembling.

Not remotely convincing - sorry - particularly by your need to toll out red herrings to support this theory.

A bun fight you appear to have lost a long time ago.

Actually it is - refer to any history book and check out the dates for the war of independence. There's a clear consensus that it's 1919-1921. Sorry to be so cut and dried, but there you go.

Fine.

I am finished arguing with you who appear to have read every single article and book on the period and this allows you to state with certainty what professional historians are still debating- you have read every single article and book on the period and examined the primary sources yeah?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Fine.

I am finished arguing with you who appear to have read every single article and book on the period and this allows you to state with certainty what professional historians are still debating- you have read every single article and book on the period and examined the primary sources yeah?

Unless you can demonstrate that there isn't a consensus within historic documents as to the dates 1919-1921 for the war of independence, I think we can agree that you're rather more interested in your academic bunfights on the fringes than disputing that such a consensus exists.

alastair wrote: »

Unless you can demonstrate that there isn't a consensus within historic documents as to the dates 1919-1921 for the war of independence, I think we can agree that you're rather more interested in your academic bunfights on the fringes than disputing that such a consensus exists.

Do you know what a 'historic document' actually is?

It is a Primary Source - documents written at the time by people involved which refer directly to the events.

History books are Secondary Sources - documents written after the events by people who were not there/active participants but read/heard about the events and are interpreting what happened based on what they heard/read.

The books you insist are absolutely correct are all secondary sources - you have read them all yes so can absolutely state with certainty they all agree? - this means they are interpretations of the Primary Sources - no historian worthy of the name would insist they are the last word on the topic.

There is no primary source which states as an absolute fact that 'The' war of independence began in 1919 which is why people like Ferriter refer to a war of independence not The as he recognises that what began as an unpopular rising in 1916 escalated into a full blown war once those involved in 1916 were released from prison. The genesis of the conflict was long before 1919.

But I am sure you know more than a professor of Irish history so can confidently use The where he uses a.