Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Kilmichael Ambush Site

2

Comments

  • #52
    R.Dub.Fusilier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 588 ✭✭✭R.Dub.Fusilier


    JBG1 you are right that people dont have to agree with a writer opinions, but i think thats all they are opinions. even you agree that he has been proven to have lied about his sources and refused to name those on whos information he relied on. you are entitled to believe what you want , thats up to you but you seem intent on defending a writer who has beyond a shadow of doubt lied about the Kilmichael ambush.


  • #53
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Let me just say that having credentials from academic institutions does not at all necessarily mean a lack of bias from historians. Far from it – which is why peer review is a valuable tool.
    Peter Hart’s methods and analysis came under much criticism from a wide number of historians. Even his inability to put the War of Independence within the context of the time, and the Irish and wider world colonial experience, shows a weakness in his overall research.


    There is little sense in Hart's book that the rhetoric of opposition to, or of adherence to, the British imperial system animated those fighting in what Manus O'Riordan has called the 20th Century's first war for democracy. Even though Tom Barry and other republican leaders saw their role as defeating the colonial system and the British Empire, and that the British and their allies (including unionists) saw their role as defense of that system, Hart is blind to his animating factor. The British saw Irish independence as a potential domino that could topple the Empire. And they were right, since leaders of anti colonial movements in Asia and Africa took great encouragement from the Irish example. This is unremarkable in a certain sense but needs to be emphasized because Peter Hart has no conception of its importance or relevance. It leads him to ignore the efforts of British propaganda to impose a sectarian ethnic character on the War of Independence.

    It is classic colonial policy to portray the enemies of imperialism as sectional or ‘tribal' interests opposing the evenhanded efforts of progressive colonial administrators to steer an even course in the midst of great difficulties, etc. In a sense Peter Hart's is a replay of British propaganda of the period. For example he emphasizes the Protestant religion of casualties of IRA violence and downplays or ignores the fact that religion was immaterial to Tom Barry, who was always careful to draw a distinction between 'loyalist' and 'Protestant'. Barry noted that "bigotry was not confined to the Protestants for the ignorant and petty-minded Catholics had their fair share of this ancient curse". (in Ryan 2003:170) Hart's big failure is the inability to note that many Protestants supported the War of Independence. But then to see that would negate the central plank of his argument. More Roman Catholics than Protestants were found to have been and were exposed or shot as informers in West Cork.
    Peter died suddenly and unexpected at age 43 so it is fair to say that he was likely going to further develop his various theses and maybe even alter his methods. He gave a number of interviews [I have copies of some] one was in History Ireland - after his publication of this controversial work and the criticism it engendered – and he appears to be contradicting himself and his views or maybe just learning from his critics.

    In the interview Hart implies that his reference to Barry as a “serial killer” was journalistic inference. In fact it was a direct quotation from Hart, given to the Sunday Times (April 19, 1998): "Barry is still considered to be an idealistic figure, unlike the great majority of his comrades he was little more than a serial killer and thought of the revolution largely in terms of shooting people. His politics were very primitive."

    Hart's outburst is one that Ryan demonstrates to be false, as is Hart's claim that Barry had a record of killing prisoners. There is clear evidence that Barry released combatants after battle, based on whether the particular British regiments they were from did or did not torture and/or execute IRA prisoners. For example, after the Rosscarbery ambush Barry permitted medical treatment for prisoners in the local convent. (Ryan 2003:111)
    What is new in Peter Hart's interview is a more negative view of unionism and its role. Thus, though "there was no ethnic cleansing in the Irish revolution (although the attacks on Catholics in Belfast came close) … unionists had direct links to death squads, and people like Edward Carson encouraged the riots in the shipyards. Incidentally, I think that one of the big untold stories of this period is how Protestant churches behaved In the North - it's not a pretty picture." If nothing else, that comment, if given wide enough currency, may put an end to the promotion of Peter Hart's views by unionist and Orange web sites.

    Nationalist rhetoric is recognized as having an anti-sectarian character and intent: "One key difference between North and south was that in the South it was not the Free State or the Catholic church that was responsible for anti-Protestant violence - they were largely blame free."

    If that is the case, why does Peter Hart insist that the killings in Dunmanway were carried out on the basis simply of targeting Protestants?
    It may be that Peter Hart has begun to subjectively respond to and to unconsciously accept the criticism of Murphy, Ryan, Lane, Clifford, O'Riordan and others. It may be that some of the criticism is refracted through the academic community. If so it begins to render his overall thesis in relation to ethnic and sectarian conflict in Ireland, to use his own terminology, “incoherent”.


  • #54
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    .
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Without evidence??? That ignores a body of work. He was not some cowboy spouting off his views without any basis or evidence. The article quoted earlier by Dr. Nightclub shows this http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-229X.2011.00542.x/full

    People don't have to agree with him and I don't on the basis of some of the more neutral reviews. But his opinions should not be dismissed as being 'without evidence'. That is akin to going back to the school book version of events.

    An accusation of sectarianism is a huge thing .

    Harts book was rightly questioned and been discredited by historians because of his questionable methods.

    And the arguments against Hart's work have largely been because of this and not because people did not like what they read as the participants were all dead.

    His work sensationalized tragic events with techniques a bit like this
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Yellow journalism, in short, is biased opinion masquerading as objective fact. Moreover, the practice of yellow journalism involved sensationalism, distorted stories, and misleading images for the sole purpose of boosting newspaper sales and exciting public opinion. It was particularly indicative of two papers founded and popularized in the late 19th century- The New York World, run by Joseph Pulitzer and The New York Journal, run by William Randolph Hearst.


    http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/spanamer/yellow.htm    [/FONT]

    Its disingenuous to suggest that other historians have used questionable methods which is the extension of this position.

    Sectarianism is associated with Northern Ireland and it does not automatically follow that it existed in Cork.

    No one is excusing what happened in Dunmanway and I haven't seen any try to defend it. Explain it yes, defend it no.

    I have seen that Tom Barry acted quickly to prevent a such events occurring again and he himself was responsible for the protection of the protestant population after events came to light and holding the ceasefire in the area.


  • #55
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    My point was that his opinion on 'sectarian motives' was not 'without evidence' and I would stand over that. The link I gave demonstrate what evidence he had for what he said. For example his views on Kilmichael were based on several pieces of evidence (4 no.). This is excellently analysed in this overview of the evidence from Kilmichael by Seamus Fox: http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/Kilmichael%20%28seamus%29%20Ver%204%20-%20Sept%2005.pdf
    Now I do not agree with his conclusions as parts of his evidence were subsequently discredited (I feel that I need to keep stating that). For example his reasoning that Barry had omitted the false surrender from an Irish Times interview was proved to be incorrect. This of course followed his publication rather than preceding it.

    People have strong views on Hart and I am as I said already probing this.
    CDfm wrote: »
    .
    Harts book was rightly questioned and been discredited by historians because of his questionable methods.

    And the arguments against Hart's work have largely been because of this and not because people did not like what they read as the participants were all dead.
    I agree that it was rightly questioned but has it been written off by historians?

    This is what Diarmaid Ferriter said about Harts work in his book 'the transformation of Ireland 1900-2000' page 227. (published 2005)
    6034073
    EDIT> Apologies for size of the given page, if you press Ctrl and + it will make it bigger for reading.


  • #56
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I agree that it was rightly questioned but has it been written off by historians?

    This is what Diarmaid Ferriter said about Harts work in his book 'the transformation of Ireland 1900-2000' page 227. (published 2005)
    6034073
    EDIT> Apologies for size of the given page, if you press Ctrl and + it will make it bigger for reading.

    Jonnie I can’t get any link from your post but looked up the pages – 227/228 - in the Ferriter book that you cite.

    Ferriter actually takes on Hart’s assertion that the war was not widely supported and that most people just wanted to keep quietly away from it all: Ferriter disagrees with this:

    Hart suggested that ‘most people were keeping quiet and out of trouble. Uneasy ambivalence seems to have been the feeling of most communities’…
    Ferriter answers/modifies Hart’s assertion with:
    Such assertions have to be qualified by an acknowledgment that a guerrilla campaign could not be waged without a significant degree of public support.
    Elsewhere in the book Ferriter quotes Hart but does not give unmitigated support to him - in fact he uses Hart's work to make points about the difficulty in addressing the early twentieth century and overlaying it with the NI troubles of later times. Early in his book Ferriter is critical of those historians who place 'the early twentieth century revolution in the context of the North's troubles' and cites Hart as one for doing this - and as Ferriter states 'they were after all very different conflicts'.


  • #57
    R.Dub.Fusilier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 588 ✭✭✭R.Dub.Fusilier


    some well know writers have taken issue with Harts sources in print , Meda Ryan , Brian Hanley and John Borgonovo all i would assume respected historians in their own right.

    the war of independence was a ruthless war at times the rules of war were thrown out the window and tasteless deeds were commited on both sides. but what Tom Barry said later rings true.

    " But the British were met with their own weapons - they had gone down in the mire to destroy us and our nation and down after them we had to go."


  • #58
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »
    some well know writers have taken issue with Harts sources in print , Meda Ryan , Brian Hanley and John Borgonovo all i would assume respected historians in their own right.

    the war of independence was a ruthless war at times the rules of war were thrown out the window and tasteless deeds were commited on both sides. but what Tom Barry said later rings true.

    " But the British were met with their own weapons - they had gone down in the mire to destroy us and our nation and down after them we had to go."

    Yes - and Collins made a similar point also about having to meet the British on their own violent terms.


  • #59
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Jonnie I can’t get any link from your post but looked up the pages – 227/228 - in the Ferriter book that you cite.

    Ferriter actually takes on Hart’s assertion that the war was not widely supported and that most people just wanted to keep quietly away from it all: Ferriter disagrees with this:
    .

    Sorry I was trying to post a scan of the page. I thought he was tentatively giving credit to Harts revisionism and meticulous research in some places while not his conclusions, which I would have agreed. Since my post did not work I will type out the section that gave me that opinion:
    Harts revision was of course at odds with local myth and triumphalist memoir but served to illustrate the murky reality of such exercises, militarily and morally. If such detailed document hoovering was done for other events it would doubtless rattle the bones of other heroes. pg 227

    I very much agree with his differentiation between the war of independence and the 1970's northern troubles.

    Ferriter also wrote on some of these issues (separate to discussing Hart):
    Sectarianism too played its part and there was no shortage of abusive political launguage to identify Protestant enemies (landgrabber, loyalist, imperialist.....) and assert the need for their killing. pg229
    If Hart wrote this would he not be widely criticised for it?

    Meeting the British violence with alike forces seems like a type of karma. It was also something that they clearly understood.


  • #60
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »


    I agree that it was rightly questioned but has it been written off by historians?

    This is what Diarmaid Ferriter said about Harts work in his book 'the transformation of Ireland 1900-2000' page 227. (published 2005)
    6034073

    The "sectarian" thesis proposed by Hart has been written off by historians.

    And why wouldn't Diarmuid Ferriter comment on the narrative given its prominence.

    He has a reputation for sticking to the history and being inclusive and he is great for putting things in context and is respected by both Catholics and Protestant's.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Ferriter also wrote on some of these issues (separate to discussing Hart):
    If Hart wrote this would he not be widely criticised for it?

    Jonnie you seem to think that we're playing the man not the ball.

    Of course sectarianism had a part to play in the War of Independence. However, Hart made sectarianism the sole motivation for the Dunmanway killings. He consistently made controversial claims without supporting evidence. Furthermore, he completely ignored evidence that contradicted his argument.

    Hart was an academic historian. He well knew the methodolgy of his chosen profession. When challenged about his sources he refused to give direct answers. From this I can only deduce that he craved the attention/notoriety his work attracted.

    This isn't about knocking him because he was challenging the conventional view of history, there's nothing wrong with that. I've read two of his books, during which there were numerous moments where I sat up and literally said 'fookin hell, that is just wrong'.

    I know you haven't read any of his stuff (I wouldn't bother if I was you), In an earlier post in this thread I posted some links to articles which critique his methods. They are well worth a read if you have the time.


  • #62
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Yes - and Collins made a similar point also about having to meet the British on their own violent terms.

    And that was the key issue with Kilmichael was that it was a successful operation. It was a new type of operation.


  • #63
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    Jonnie you seem to think that we're playing the man not the ball.

    Of course sectarianism had a part to play in the War of Independence. However, Hart made sectarianism the sole motivation for the Dunmanway killings. He consistently made controversial claims without supporting evidence. Furthermore, he completely ignored evidence that contradicted his argument.

    Hart was an academic historian. He well knew the methodolgy of his chosen profession. When challenged about his sources he refused to give direct answers. From this I can only deduce that he craved the attention/notoriety his work attracted.

    This isn't about knocking him because he was challenging the conventional view of history, there's nothing wrong with that. I've read two of his books, during which there were numerous moments where I sat up and literally said 'fookin hell, that is just wrong'.

    I know you haven't read any of his stuff (I wouldn't bother if I was you), In an earlier post in this thread I posted some links to articles which critique his methods. They are well worth a read if you have the time.
    I'm just probing a bit for arguments sake and to see if there was value in Harts theories (Ferriter indicates there was).
    I don't like what Hart published about Tom Barry in particular. I read Guerrilla days in Ireland in my teens and it has always been a book I return too. Its narrative is in contrast to many Irish history books in that it does'nt end with heroic death. People have fairly definitive views on Hart and it seems he was unable or unwilling to rebutt these, so I have no cause to do so. I might push his work a bit further down the reading list!


  • #64
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I'm just probing a bit for arguments sake and to see if there was value in Harts theories (Ferriter indicates there was).

    I think you might be reading too much into it.

    The contemporaneous political events involved the Anglo Irish/Good Friday agreement and associated ceasefires,decommisioning etc. A wider issue was " what was the nationalist tradition?". Was it sectarian.? No it was not.

    Diarmuid Ferriter acknowledged the debate and dealt with the issue very sensitively (as has Meda Ryan).

    John Borgonovo has done enormous work on analyzing the factual information available.

    Religious communities and traditions that cohabit the same area's are entitled to respect and the theory once raised could not be unraised.It had to be addressed and I think it has been .


  • #65
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    I think you might be reading too much into it.

    The contemporaneous political events involved the Anglo Irish/Good Friday agreement and associated ceasefires,decommisioning etc. A wider issue was " what was the nationalist tradition?". Was it sectarian.? No it was not.

    Diarmuid Ferriter acknowledged the debate and dealt with the issue very sensitively (as has Meda Ryan).

    John Borgonovo has done enormous work on analyzing the factual information available.

    Religious communities and traditions that cohabit the same area's are entitled to respect and the theory once raised could not be unraised.It had to be addressed and I think it has been .
    Perhaps I am reading to much into it but as I said I am kinda stirring the pot also.

    What is your opinion on questioning the 'traditional memoirs'?


  • #66
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Perhaps I am reading to much into it but as I said I am kinda stirring the pot also.

    What is your opinion on questioning the 'traditional memoirs'?

    Not sure exactly what you mean by this?... but any questioning of the historic record must be done within the boundaries of historiographical research i.e. well sourced primary material, is it a legitimate or a biased report, what was the 'purpose' of the document etc - new information comes to light all the time especially with the release of official records etc. but even these must be looked at with a trained eye.

    But just blind questioning for the sake of it without any source material for back up - or for some ulterior agenda - leads nowhere but to nonsense and actually has no place in any valid historic discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Not sure exactly what you mean by this?... but any questioning of the historic record must be done within the boundaries of historiographical research i.e. well sourced primary material, is it a legitimate or a biased report, what was the 'purpose' of the document etc - new information comes to light all the time especially with the release of official records etc. but even these must be looked at with a trained eye.

    But just blind questioning for the sake of it without any source material for back up - or for some ulterior agenda - leads nowhere but to nonsense and actually has no place in any valid historic discussion.

    I think you have answered what I asked in the first part of qouted text but to clarify what I meant, I am going back to Ferriter saying:
    Harts revision was of course at odds with local myth and triumphalist memoir but served to illustrate the murky reality of such exercises, militarily and morally. If such detailed document hoovering was done for other events it would doubtless rattle the bones of other heroes. (pg 227 Transformation of Ireland)
    I changed 'triumphalist memoir' to 'traditional memoir' as I don't think triumphalist does justice to someone like Barry (though it is an understandable description). So the type of memoir I am taking about are the books by Tom Barry or Dan Breen or Ernie O'Malley about their own activities. I agree with your comment on this and it is healthy to question these events if done so correctly. If nothing else it encourages people to look into these events in greater detail and as time progresses more information can come to light that helps do this.


  • #68
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I changed 'triumphalist memoir' to 'traditional memoir' as I don't think triumphalist does justice to someone like Barry (though it is an understandable description). So the type of memoir I am taking about are the books by Tom Barry or Dan Breen or Ernie O'Malley about their own activities. I agree with your comment on this and it is healthy to question these events if done so correctly. If nothing else it encourages people to look into these events in greater detail and as time progresses more information can come to light that helps do this.

    Well the words have very different meaning - so in altering the word you [without meaning to I'm sure] altered the meaning of what was being said, which is why I asked what you meant. 'Triumphalist' means just that, an excessive style, personally hyperbolic even heroic, but importantly, not without merit or without a place in the discipline. "Traditional' could be something entirely different.

    No wanting to speak on behalf of Ferriter at all but his comment reads to me like a carefully nuanced statement - that very close scrutiny of any triumphalist memoir would render the ‘hero’ less than that which is presented in the personal memoir. Of course.

    But there’s nothing new about that statement in terms of historicity and was likely said more for public consumption that a warning to historians - no serious historian would read a personal triumphalist style memoir as anything but something to be gone through carefully to separate the wheat from the chaff. But that does not make the account invalid or entirely fatuous either.


  • #69
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Well the words have very different meaning - so in altering the word you [without meaning to I'm sure] altered the meaning of what was being said, which is why I asked what you meant. 'Triumphalist' means just that, an excessive style, personally hyperbolic even heroic, but importantly, not without merit or without a place in the discipline. "Traditional' could be something entirely different.

    No wanting to speak on behalf of Ferriter at all but his comment reads to me like a carefully nuanced statement - that very close scrutiny of any triumphalist memoir would render the ‘hero’ less than that which is presented in the personal memoir. Of course.

    But there’s nothing new about that statement in terms of historicity and was likely said more for public consumption that a warning to historians - no serious historian would read a personal triumphalist style memoir as anything but something to be gone through carefully to separate the wheat from the chaff. But that does not make the account invalid or entirely fatuous either.
    You are correct of course- 'Traditional' is my own term and what I meant by it was the traditionally accepted views of the war of independence, which these memoirs consisted of. I do not know if these men were questioned in any manner that might have contradicted the accepted views that they gave in their books other than a few pieces of accounts in the military bureau that may have contradicted stories (I suppose I mean in the intrusive manner in which the modern world would investigate). You may be able to inform me on this ? :pac: vs. :confused:


  • #70
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    For anyone that wishes the google preview shows pages 227 & 228 of Ferriters 'transformation of Ireland' http://books.google.ie/books?id=lXa7m8wG84MC&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=transformation+of+ireland+for+many+guerillas+republic&source=bl&ots=gq6g68EgOh&sig=aSD3pN7DcH-367YYW-Jz5U4SWnk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QuVLT--7FsuLhQfdtKC6Dg&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


  • #71
    R.Dub.Fusilier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 588 ✭✭✭R.Dub.Fusilier


    V480 wrote: »
    I wrote an essay on the Kilmichael 'debate' recently. I didn't really want to get into it in this thread though as it tends to create mindless arguments! It is a fascinating debate though and created some very interesting discussion. I wonder why all those vociferously anti-Peter Hart hardmen have left the monument to Kilmichael deteriorate so much?

    since the ambush itself was brought into the debate by a moderator you could enlight us with you findings in you essay and the interesting things that you heard at your debate?

    i was looking at some old issues of History Ireland and came across a review of Harts book "Mick - the Real Michael Collins" and here is what one of the "anti-Peter Hart hardmen" Tim Pat Coogan had to say.

    "To attract readers he has adopted the technique not of the historian but of the contrarian who secures attention by advancing bizarre opinions."

    TPC says that Hart finds "witnesses to the Kilmichael ambush to communicate with him from beyond the grave" and calls him " the sage of Newfoundland"

    TPC finishes off the review by saying "In an immortal phrase Brendan Bradshaw described such revisionist logic as seeking to "fliter out the tramua" of Irish history. Peter Hart has gone further. He has attempted to filter out the logic."


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

    TPC says that Hart finds "witnesses to the Kilmichael ambush to communicate with him from beyond the grave" and calls him " the sage of Newfoundland"

    TPC at his best. :pac:


  • #73
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I don't like what Hart published about Tom Barry in particular. I read Guerrilla days in Ireland in my teens and it has always been a book I return too.

    I too read Guerilla Days in Ireland when I was a teenager and really enjoyed it. For autobiographies from the period its up ther with Ernie O'Malley (and thats a hell of a compliment).

    When I first heard about Harts book I was agitated by the thought that Guerilla Days might have been a pack of lies and I had been sucked in.

    The only time I can remember getting that sinking feeling for real was when Gunther Grass admitted to having been in the SS.


  • #74
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    I have developed a huge respect for Meda Ryan over this and her approach to Hart's thesis was sensitive to the diversity in West Cork while stoll hitting the target.

    As historian's go -she is up there.


  • #75
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    I have developed a huge respect for Meda Ryan over this and her approach to Hart's thesis was sensitive to the diversity in West Cork while stoll hitting the target.

    As historian's go -she is up there.

    She agreed with the view of the majority and didnt ruffle any feathers. Is this the same as being 'sensitive to the diversity in West Cork'?

    I'm not saying that this is incorrect. Diversity means both sides of the community to me so would Cork Unionists have agreed with her?


  • #76
    salutations
    Registered Users Posts: 141 ✭✭salutations


    I think the best explanation I've seen of what possible happened in Kilmichael was in this book. http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/11/01/book-review-ambushes-and-armour-the-irish-rebellion-1919-1921/

    This is the theory of an American Army officer and is explained and clearly arrived at looking simply at the facts and using his knowledge of wartime engagements. A very interesting book


  • #77
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    She agreed with the view of the majority and didnt ruffle any feathers. Is this the same as being 'sensitive to the diversity in West Cork'?

    She re-examined the material and opened it up for further peer review.

    Ferriter commented on her work favourably.

    I'm not saying that this is incorrect. Diversity means both sides of the community to me so would Cork Unionists have agreed with her?

    I don't think there is a Cork Unionist Community, though I could be wrong , though there are Anglican, Methodist and Presbyterian Communities.

    The Church of Ireland held a conference on the issue details of which are here.

    Understanding our History: A Conference for people from the United Dioceses of Cork, Cloyne and Ross
    Diocesan News
    Added on 17/12/2008
    This conference, entitled Protestants, the War of Independence and the Civil War in County Cork, was held in December and was attended by nearly 150 people from Cork, Cloyne and Ross. The conference was funded by Continuing Ministerial Education and the Hard Gospel Project. The day began with a welcome from The Right Revd Paul Colton, Bishop of Cork, Cloyne & Ross.

    The first speaker was Dr David Butler, an historical geographer of religions, who lectures in history at the University of Limerick and is a visiting lecturer in church history at St. Patrick’s College of Education, Thurles and in historical geography at University College Cork (UCC). Dr Butler has conducted ethnographic and historical research into inter-church relations in West Cork and North Monaghan which resulted in a number of co-authored articles including Southern Irish Protestants: an example of de-ethnicisation? (Nations & Nationalism 2007) and Difference, Identity and Community in Southern Irish Protestantism: The Protestants of West Cork (National Identities 2008). Dr Butler gave a lecture entitled ‘West Cork Protestants: Origin, Settlement and Composition c.1590 – c.1920.’

    The second topic was ‘Protestant emigration from the south of Ireland 1911 – 1926; some statistical evidence.’ This was presented by Dr Andy Bielenberg who is a lecturer in Irish economic and social history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries at the Department of History, UCC. His research interests include Irish emigration in the nineteenth and twentieth century and modern Irish economic development. Industry in Ireland during industrial revolution (Routledge 2009), his latest book, will be available early in the new year.

    Following a coffee break Prof Peter Hart continued with ‘Cork Protestants and the Irish Revolution.’ Peter Hart is a professor of history and the Canada Research Chairman in Irish Studies at Memorial University of Newfoundland. He holds a PhD from Trinity College, Dublin and has taught at Queen’s University, Belfast. He is the author of a number of books and articles on Irish history including The IRA and Its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923 (Oxford 1998).

    The final speaker before lunch was Mr John Borgonovo, who spoke about ‘Sectarianism, Republicanism and the Revolution in the City and County of Cork, 1920-1922.’ He is the author of ‘Spies Informers and the “Anti-Sinn Fein Society”, The Intelligence War in Cork City, 1920-1921’ (Irish Academic Press 2007). Mr. Borogonovo is currently in the final year of a PhD at UCC, where he is conducting a local study of Cork City during the Irish Revolution.

    There were two speakers in the afternoon, the first being Senator Eoghan Harris whose subject was ‘Keeping the Head Down: Reflections on enigmatic encounters with Southern Protestants.’ Senator Harris writes a column in the Sunday Independent and between 1993 and 2000 wrote extensively about the peace process for the Sunday Times. He has worked as a political advisor for Mary Robinson, John Bruton and David Trimble and is the author of two plays, which deal sympathetically with the position of Protestants in the Republic. In August 2008 he was appointed to Seanad Éireann by the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern.

    Finally Prof Joe Ruane, who is Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at UCC, covered the subject of ‘Reconciling memories in the Irish context.’ He has directed two projects: one between Northern Ireland and the Republic and the other between Ireland and France and his recent publications include Southern Irish Protestants: from an ethnic to a religious minority? (with D. Butler) and Majority-minority conflicts and their resolution: Protestant minorities in France and in Ireland.

    The day closed with thanks and acknowledgement from the Bishop of the hard work of The Ven Robin Bantry-White in securing all speakers, except for Senator Harris, who was invited by Philip McKinnley of the Hard Gospel Project. The Bishop also thanked the Diocesan Office Staff for making all the arrangements and Dr. Kenneth Milne and Dr Raymond Refaussé from the RCB Library, who have provided many resources for researchers over the years.
    hist_conf.jpg
    From left to right: John Borgonovo, Peter Hart, Joe Ruane, David Butler, Stephen Dallas (Hard Gospel), The Right Revd Paul Colton, Philip McKinley(Hard Gospel), Senator Harris, Andy Bielenberg, The Ven Robin Bantry-White and Earl Storey (Hard Gospel).




    http://ireland.anglican.org/news/2432

    That is quite a cross-section of opinion and I don't think you could ask for a more complete line up.
    salutations wrote: »
    I think the best explanation I've seen of what possible happened in Kilmichael was in this book. http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/11/01/book-review-ambushes-and-armour-the-irish-rebellion-1919-1921/

    This is the theory of an American Army officer and is explained and clearly arrived at looking simply at the facts and using his knowledge of wartime engagements. A very interesting book

    I haven't read this but I have always thought of it in this way.

    Tom Barry was a WWI veteran but the majority of the others were not.


  • #78
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    She agreed with the view of the majority and didnt ruffle any feathers. Is this the same as being 'sensitive to the diversity in West Cork'?

    This is a misunderstanding - or a misstating - about what was actually going on within historiography on this issue. It's not about a dueling of journalistic prowess, conjecture vs conjecture and the winner is whoever outlasts the other in column lines - this was not OPINION on Meda Ryan's part. You are misstating how the issue was both demonstrated and handled within the context of research. She, by her own research demonstrated her points. It was not that she simply 'agreed' as a means of 'not ruffling feathers'. This is research and the results stand up up on the basis of validity vs invalidity. If you don't get that by now , you never will.

    I have to add I am not at all sure why you are repeatedly taking this stand. You admit that you haven't even read Hart - I have to presume that you haven't also read Ryan's researched rebuttal. Yet you are repeatedly giving strong assessments on both. :confused:

    By your own words you say you want to 'stir the pot' - why? This just feels like creating argument for argument's sake.


  • #79
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    This is a misunderstanding - or a misstating - about what was actually going on within historiography on this issue. It's not about a dueling of journalistic prowess, conjecture vs conjecture and the winner is whoever outlasts the other in column lines - this was not OPINION on Meda Ryan's part. You are misstating how the issue was both demonstrated and handled within the context of research. She, by her own research demonstrated her points. It was not that she simply 'agreed' as a means of 'not ruffling feathers'. This is research and the results stand up up on the basis of validity vs invalidity. If you don't get that by now , you never will.

    My apologies -I did not intend to irritate anyone with the line I have taken in this thread. I took an opposite view to the majority as one could be asked to do in a debate (without holding it as my own and I have repeatedly stated this). This is quite different to not 'getting it' on the matter of who has their sources correct and who has'nt.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    By your own words you say you want to 'stir the pot' - why? This just feels like creating argument for argument's sake.

    I do not believe that I have misunderstood or mistated the situation. My questioning & argument was part fuelled by looking at the decline in numbers of Protestants in Cork in the period in this discussion (and I understand that there are several reasons for this). I have asked questions which have created argument (perhaps unnessesarily) though, so perhaps I should leave it at that.


  • #80
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    My apologies -I did not intend to irritate anyone with the line I have taken in this thread. I took an opposite view to the majority as one could be asked to do in a debate (without holding it as my own and I have repeatedly stated this). This is quite different to not 'getting it' on the matter of who has their sources correct and who has'nt.

    The quality of Meda Ryan's Rebuttal of Peter Hart is just fantastic and it was an academic response on the history and not a political or religious community response.

    It forms part of a body of work including that of John Borgonovo .

    So it wasn't makey upey to suit an agenda. Ryan's work here was cutting edge and she gets rightly praised for it.

    Looking at it years after the controversy has made me appreciate just how good it is.

    I do not believe that I have misunderstood or mistated the situation. My questioning & argument was part fuelled by looking at the decline in numbers of Protestants in Cork in the period in this discussion (and I understand that there are several reasons for this). I have asked questions which have created argument (perhaps unnessesarily) though, so perhaps I should leave it at that.

    If you want to discuss the decline of the Protestant population in Cork and the reasons for it we can discuss it.

    Here are some stats

    http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html

    It has been discussed before on history and there have been studies and academic papers written on it.

    If you want to discuss it purely from a sectarian perspective only (i.e. postulate that the Catholic community in Cork were sectarian) many people would find that pejorative.


  • #81
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    If you want to discuss the decline of the Protestant population in Cork and the reasons for it we can discuss it.

    Here are some stats

    http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html

    It has been discussed before on history and there have been studies and academic papers written on it.

    If you want to discuss it purely from a sectarian perspective only (i.e. postulate that the Catholic community in Cork were sectarian) many people would find that pejorative.

    It is something that as you say has been studied already and other than reviewing these studies it may be a futile exercise. My mention of this was a qualification for my asking questions that might otherwise seem unessessary.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    My apologies -I did not intend to irritate anyone with the line I have taken in this thread. I took an opposite view to the majority as one could be asked to do in a debate (without holding it as my own and I have repeatedly stated this). This is quite different to not 'getting it' on the matter of who has their sources correct and who has'nt.

    Well any debate must be first based on knowledge of the subject and not just taking a view for the sake of it without any sources, or knowledge to back up that view. Otherwise it will just become rabble rousing - and as I said, argument for the sake of argument. How can you defend taking a position that cannot be challenged or answered in an intelligent, informed way - because that very position you take is based on air and the air can be ever changing to continue the 'debate'?

    This is not 'debate' within any rules that I have ever known.

    Doesn't the very charter of this forum defend against this kind of uninformed opinion being used for nothing more than 'stirring the pot'?
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I do not believe that I have misunderstood or mistated the situation. My questioning & argument was part fuelled by looking at the decline in numbers of Protestants in Cork in the period in this discussion (and I understand that there are several reasons for this). I have asked questions which have created argument (perhaps unnessesarily) though, so perhaps I should leave it at that.

    You are changing the issue here maybe because you can't stick with your original position - but let me remind you - you stated that Meda Ryan sided with the majority and as such implied that she was doing so for the sake of 'not ruffling any feathers' - your words. Quite an attack on work that you have in fact never read.


  • #83
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Well any debate must be first based on knowledge of the subject and not just taking a view for the sake of it without any sources, or knowledge to back up that view. Otherwise it will just become rabble rousing - and as I said, argument for the sake of argument. How can you defend taking a position that cannot be challenged or answered in an intelligent, informed way - because that very position you take is based on air and the air can be ever changing to continue the 'debate'?

    This is not 'debate' within any rules that I have ever known.

    Doesn't the very charter of this forum defend against this kind of uninformed opinion being used for nothing more than 'stirring the pot'?
    I find your post to be quite offensive in the many assumptions it makes.
    You are incorrect in assuming that I am not informed in this discussion. I have no qualms about saying that I have not read Harts book- I stated this voluntarily. Any point that I have made is based on sources relating to the events or relates to the wide range of commentary on the different interpretations of the event. Where I have been unsure of something and wished to 'probe for arguments sake' I asked questions, rather than "taking a view for the sake of it without any sources, or knowledge to back up that view.". It is quite a jump to assume that this is done without knowledge of the subject. You should go back over my posts and I will happily clarify the basis (source or knowledge) for my views or questions if they are still unclear.

    MarchDub wrote: »
    You are changing the issue here maybe because you can't stick with your original position - but let me remind you - you stated that Meda Ryan sided with the majority and as such implied that she was doing so for the sake of 'not ruffling any feathers' - your words. Quite an attack on work that you have in fact never read.

    It is fair to question me on what I said but I think your interpretation changes the meaning, so I quote it again for clarity:
    Originally Posted by jonniebgood1-
    She agreed with the view of the majority and didnt ruffle any feathers. Is this the same as being 'sensitive to the diversity in West Cork'?

    I said she 'agreed with the view of the majority' which I feel is different than 'siding' with them.
    Secondly I added that she 'didnt ruffle any feathers'. This is quite different than stating that the reason she took the view of the majority was 'for the sake of 'not ruffling any feathers' '. The link between the 2 was not in my post and this was deliberate as I did not wish it to be. Thus it is unfair for you to add/ assume this link and then accuse me of attacking Ryan based upon it.


  • #84
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I find your post to be quite offensive in the many assumptions it makes.
    You are incorrect in assuming that I am not informed in this discussion. I have no qualms about saying that I have not read Harts book- I stated this voluntarily.

    Well that is the point - you have no primary knowledge of the work of either Hart or Ryan that you have been defending/attacking. Secondary commentary that you have read does not count as 'informed' - it's others' views not your own and how can you even judge these views when you haven't even read the original text of either Hart or Ryan that the commentary is on? AND by your words you were just 'stirring the pot' - I have to say that is what jumped out at me anyway and the reason I asked you 'why?' It seemed an irrational thing to do in a discussion of this kind.

    I tried - as others did- to respond to your early comments but it went nowhere because you just kept the issue up with opinion based on no substance of any kind. There was no answering you intelligently, because your position was not based on information or facts that you brought to the table just a continuous well maybe this or maybe that without any evidence at all.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    It is fair to question me on what I said but I think your interpretation changes the meaning, so I quote it again for clarity:


    I said she 'agreed with the view of the majority' which I feel is different than 'siding' with them.
    Secondly I added that she 'didnt ruffle any feathers'. This is quite different than stating that the reason she took the view of the majority was 'for the sake of 'not ruffling any feathers' '. The link between the 2 was not in my post and this was deliberate as I did not wish it to be. Thus it is unfair for you to add/ assume this link and then accuse me of attacking Ryan based upon it.

    The implication of your post regarding Meda Ryan - as I stated- was pretty clear to me anyway which is why I responded the way I did. It read to be deeply offensive to her work - and high-handedly dismissive. You said - in response to CDfm's defence of her work - that she 'agreed' with the 'majority' as if it were a matter only of agreement as a safe haven. And then why use the term that she 'did not ruffle any feathers' as applying to her work if you did not in fact mean that it be applied to her work in a pejorative way?


  • #85
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Meda Ryan is a damn fine historian.


  • #86
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »

    I tried - as others did- to respond to your early comments but it went nowhere because you just kept the issue up with opinion based on no substance of any kind. There was no answering you intelligently, because your position was not based on information or facts that you brought to the table just a continuous well maybe this or maybe that without any evidence at all.

    Please confirm which posts that you assume were not "based on information or facts"? I am happy to clarify this but it unfair to make this comment and not give examples.
    MarchDub wrote: »

    The implication of your post regarding Meda Ryan - as I stated- was pretty clear to me anyway which is why I responded the way I did. It read to be deeply offensive to her work - and high-handedly dismissive. You said - in response to CDfm's defence of her work - that she 'agreed' with the 'majority' as if it were a matter only of agreement as a safe haven. And then why use the term that she 'did not ruffle any feathers' as applying to her work if you did not in fact mean that it be applied to her work in a pejorative way?
    The last paragraph of my last post answered this. I did not dismiss Meda Ryan. In actual fact in the next line of my response to a post about her being right 'up there' I went out of my way to point out that I did not disagree with this. You assumed that I was dismissing her and your assumption is not accurate. The full quote is below:
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Originally Posted by CDfm
    I have developed a huge respect for Meda Ryan over this and her approach to Hart's thesis was sensitive to the diversity in West Cork while stoll hitting the target.

    As historian's go -she is up there.
    She agreed with the view of the majority and didnt ruffle any feathers. Is this the same as being 'sensitive to the diversity in West Cork'?

    I'm not saying that this is incorrect. Diversity means both sides of the community to me so would Cork Unionists have agreed with her?

    I appreciate that this is a sensitive subject and have spent much time reading the forensic breakdown of the matters of fact being contested. The arguments from both sides are multi-faceted and open to question in many aspects. Looking in detail at the interpretations of different historians demonstrates this. I do not mind asking questions of aspects that I need to understand better. However I object to being told that I am dismissing someone like Meda Ryan when I ask a question about her. If you feel that I may be doing this you can ask me to clarify the case as opposed to telling me that I am dismissing her. Should I be asked this I would clarify that I have no grounds in any way to dismiss her. For your information I have looked in detail at the views of Meda Ryan. With all the controversy that surrounded her exchange of views with Peter Hart it would be expected that people may have picked holes in her extensive written record. This is not the case with Meda Ryan and while people do disagree with her opinions there is no contradiction of her recording of history through reliable sourced material. I don't think you will withdraw your comments anymore than I would this so perhaps we should move on?


  • #87
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Please confirm which posts that you assume were not "based on information or facts"? I am happy to clarify this but it unfair to make this comment and not give examples.

    Don't want to belabour this or carry this further - but you did ask and you have a right to an answer - but one that stuck out for me was when you made this comment about Hart:
    jonniebgood1 wrote:
    I would call them false assumptions and it is hard to believe other assumptions he makes when the basis for his Kilmichael assumptions are not all sound. I don't think there is a suggestion that his views were not genuine.
    Or am I reading this wrong? You were answering CDfm on the issue of Hart's 'assertions'. As you hadn't read Hart this came across as a random position anyway....

    And then the rhetorical question you posed of Ferriter vs Hart reads like you are suggesting that Hart is being attacked simply on the basis of bias:
    jonniebgood1 wrote:
    If Hart wrote this would he not be widely criticised for it?
    That's what it read to me like anyway - that you were just throwing stuff out there without any backing.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »


    I appreciate that this is a sensitive subject and have spent much time reading the forensic breakdown of the matters of fact being contested. The arguments from both sides are multi-faceted and open to question in many aspects. Looking in detail at the interpretations of different historians demonstrates this. I do not mind asking questions of aspects that I need to understand better. However I object to being told that I am dismissing someone like Meda Ryan when I ask a question about her. If you feel that I may be doing this you can ask me to clarify the case as opposed to telling me that I am dismissing her. Should I be asked this I would clarify that I have no grounds in any way to dismiss her. For your information I have looked in detail at the views of Meda Ryan. With all the controversy that surrounded her exchange of views with Peter Hart it would be expected that people may have picked holes in her extensive written record. This is not the case with Meda Ryan and while people do disagree with her opinions there is no contradiction of her recording of history through reliable sourced material. I don't think you will withdraw your comments anymore than I would this so perhaps we should move on?


    I accept your position on Meda Ryan as you now state/explain - so, moving on.


  • #88
    R.Dub.Fusilier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 588 ✭✭✭R.Dub.Fusilier


    JBG1 i have to agree with the last few posts as you seem to take no heed to anything or sources provided. this for one of the few times on boards , on such a subject, has been fairly civilised and inforamitive thread. if it was someone else, not you a moderator,making some of the comments you have been making you as the moderator would have taken action. no offence intended to you just asaying what i see.


  • #89
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »
    JBG1 i have to agree with the last few posts as you seem to take no heed to anything or sources provided. this for one of the few times on boards , on such a subject, has been fairly civilised and inforamitive thread. if it was someone else, not you a moderator,making some of the comments you have been making you as the moderator would have taken action. no offence intended to you just asaying what i see.

    No offence taken, the role of moderator does not automatically make one correct in any matter. I took an opposite viewpoint to that which I believe however I don't believe I have been unreasonable or abusive in any of my posts and the questions I asked have brought many opinions into the foreground.


  • #90
    pedroeibar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,108 ✭✭✭pedroeibar1


    Very polite stuff. Unlike the exchange in the Seanad today on another ambush, when Fine Gael Senator Tom Sheahan said Michael Martin 'was not the first Corkman to be shot in the back by a de Valera.' :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Originally Posted by jonniebgood1
    I would call them false assumptions and it is hard to believe other assumptions he makes when the basis for his Kilmichael assumptions are not all sound. I don't think there is a suggestion that his views were not genuine.

    Or am I reading this wrong? You were answering CDfm on the issue of Hart's 'assertions'. As you hadn't read Hart this came across as a random position anyway....

    It was not a random position. I said they were 'assumptions' of sectarianism as opposed to 'accusations' of sectarianism. The reason I made this differentiation was based upon the review of the controversy over Kilmichael by Seamus Fox. To me it is an excellent review looking in forensic detail at many aspects of Kilmichael. It can be read here to see the full basis for my comment which I reiterate was not without foundation. The list of 5 controversies begining on page 6 (section 2.0 of Fox's document) of this document highlights the reasons why Hart made his assumptions (it also shows the mistakes he made in his research and further it demonstrates how Ryan was able to contradict Hart in regard of Barry's 1932 Irish Times interview). I won't quote it here as it is quite long but it was by knowing what Hart had availiable to him that I argued he had made assumptions rather than accusations.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    And then the rhetorical question you posed of Ferriter vs Hart reads like you are suggesting that Hart is being attacked simply on the basis of bias:

    The full part for context of this was:
    posted by jonniebgood1
    Sectarianism too played its part and there was no shortage of abusive political launguage to identify Protestant enemies (landgrabber, loyalist, imperialist.....) and assert the need for their killing. pg229 Transformation of Ireland by D. Ferriter.
    If Hart wrote this would he not be widely criticised for it?

    Meeting the British violence with alike forces seems like a type of karma. It was also something that they clearly understood.
    This was a rhetorical question. The basis for it was in relation to the general dismissal of hart in 'Distorting Irish History Two' by Niall Meehan. Its actually an excellent piece of analysis, with some very useful tables but as for its use in the question above, I don't wish to delve any deeper. It was in this context that I asked the question.


  • #92
    Dr.Nightdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 109 ✭✭Dr.Nightdub


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Very polite stuff. Unlike the exchange in the Seanad today on another ambush, when Fine Gael Senator Tom Sheahan said Michael Martin 'was not the first Corkman to be shot in the back by a de Valera.' :eek:

    Or as someone said on the Cedar Lounge Revolution blog, does this now mean FF are going to split into pro- and anti-Treaty factions?


  • #93
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Very polite stuff.

    On boards it's called the miraculous ability to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear...


  • #94
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Dr.Nightdub wrote: »
    Or as someone said on the Cedar Lounge Revolution blog, does this now mean FF are going to split into pro- and anti-Treaty factions?

    LMAO :D


  • #95
    washman3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,646 ✭✭✭washman3


    pedroeibar1 wrote: »
    Very polite stuff. Unlike the exchange in the Seanad today on another ambush, when Fine Gael Senator Tom Sheahan said Michael Martin 'was not the first Corkman to be shot in the back by a de Valera.' :eek:

    Exactly, what a clown to make a statement like that in the Seanad.
    just goes to show where politics is at in this country.
    90 year old civil war politics.
    The irony is if Collins was alive today he would probably plug both of the aforementioned good-for-nothing wastes of oxygen.:mad:


  • #96
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    This was a rhetorical question. The basis for it was in relation to the general dismissal of hart in 'Distorting Irish History Two' by Niall Meehan. Its actually an excellent piece of analysis, with some very useful tables but as for its use in the question above, I don't wish to delve any deeper. It was in this context that I asked the question.

    I found this to be one of the oddest threads I have contributed too ever on H & H.

    I didn't get the impression that it was a rhetorical question.I don't know what you were looking for from it & don't want to speculate.

    If you had a question why did you not ask it or if you held a position/belief why not just state it.


    MarchDub wrote: »
    On boards it's called the miraculous ability to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear...

    +1


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    I found this to be one of the oddest threads I have contributed too ever on H & H.

    I didn't get the impression that it was a rhetorical question.I don't know what you were looking for from it & don't want to speculate.

    If you had a question why did you not ask it or if you held a position/belief why not just state it.

    I found it odd also for many reasons and have not enjoyed it. Mostly I contribute on boards because I enjoy learning and shared learning is an important function of a forum. That was my aim in this thread and it has been misunderstood (which I take blame for). As for the last point I asked many questions and made my position clear many times so I don't see why you ask this. Its no big deal to ask awkward questions (although I should have substantiated them better) and we all live and learn. Better to leave it at that IMO.


  • #98
    R.Dub.Fusilier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 588 ✭✭✭R.Dub.Fusilier


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I found it odd also for many reasons and have not enjoyed it. Mostly I contribute on boards because I enjoy learning and shared learning is an important function of a forum. That was my aim in this thread and it has been misunderstood (which I take blame for). As for the last point I asked many questions and made my position clear many times so I don't see why you ask this. Its no big deal to ask awkward questions (although I should have substantiated them better) and we all live and learn. Better to leave it at that IMO.

    the reason you didn't enjoy the thread is because no one agreed with the stance you adopted , except for the OP who didn't even come to you defence.

    you didn't ask awkard questions , IMO , you just got peoples backs up by defending a discredited author , on this subject at least.


  • #99
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »
    the reason you didn't enjoy the thread is because no one agreed with the stance you adopted , except for the OP who didn't even come to you defence.

    You are incorrect. This is not the reason that I didnt enjoy the thread.
    R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »
    you didn't ask awkard questions , IMO
    This is your interpretation, others may share it but I disagree.


  • #100
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    You are incorrect. This is not the reason that I didnt enjoy the thread.


    This is your interpretation, others may share it but I disagree.

    I was very uncomfortable with the approach you took on Meda Ryan's Hart rebuttal and the dialogue that occurred in Cork in its aftermath.

    And, I think others were too.


  • #101
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    I was very uncomfortable with the approach you took on Meda Ryan's Hart rebuttal and the dialogue that occurred in Cork in its aftermath.

    And, I think others were too.

    We are all adults here so I accept that people are unhappy about my questions (whether they think they were awkward, uncomfortable, unreasonable or otherwise). Some people are pro-Hart (McGarry, Foster) and most are against (Ryan, Meehan, Murphy) http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/52-northern-ireland/5394-distorting-irish-history-the-stubborn-facts-of-the-kilmichael-incident . You (and others) are uncomfortable with my approach and I am taken aback at how my approach of asking questions can do this. That will happen on a forum, not everyone agrees. No offence should be taken from this.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement