[jonniebgood1]

Originally Posted by Fenian Army

As for Hart, well, he was just one of a cabal of "free staters/southern nationalists", west brits and blueshirts who have engaged, and continue to do so, in a decades old quest to find reasons to be ashamed of our past and to disgrace Irish heroes. A fool, best ignored. His work isn't even in any way convincing.

This says all we needed to know.

[Fenian Army]

Originally Posted by Gee Bag

Not everything that happened during the War of Independence and it's aftermath was wonderful and glorious.

Historians are supposed to question what happened in past, not blindly accept orthodoxy.

I find the name calling/labelling highlighted in your post above childish. People have different opinions. Get over it.

Harts methodology and sources he relied on in his claims re Tom Barry are amateurish and incompetent. If people want to hold him up as a credible historian lets judge him by those standards. I believe that Hart, and those like him who make such damaging claims on little or no evidence, have an agenda. Sometimes its simply to make money, but sometimes not.

I've no problem with new, credible, theories, none whatsoever. I don't mind being challenged or having my historical world "turned upside down". My opinions on the hunger strike in 1981 has been utterly shook up for example in recent years with the allegations and revelations.

Hart however, is not credible. A fool. Worse are those who subscribe to his accusations, especially about Kilmichael.

[Gee Bag]

Originally Posted by Fenian Army

Harts methodology and sources he relied on in his claims re Tom Barry are amateurish and incompetent. If people want to hold him up as a credible historian lets judge him by those standards. I believe that Hart, and those like him who make such damaging claims on little or no evidence, have an agenda. Sometimes its simply to make money, but sometimes not.

I've no problem with new, credible, theories, none whatsoever. I don't mind being challenged or having my historical world "turned upside down". My opinions on the hunger strike in 1981 has been utterly shook up for example in recent years with the allegations and revelations.

Hart however, is not credible. A fool. Worse are those who subscribe to his accusations, especially about Kilmichael.

Fair Enough. If you read my other posts in this thread you'll see that I agree with you 100% about Peter Hart.

[CDfm]

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.

Assumptions aren't a sound basis for history.

I don't think there is a suggestion that his views were not genuine.

I don't know what his motivation was or what his beliefs were. All I can see is that he said that people were sectarian and had sectarian motives without evidence.

He may have believed it or he may have been shamelessly trying to sell books.

[Orizio]

Originally Posted by V480

There are so many gung-ho republicans around Cork constantly singing the praises of Barry & co and condemning anybody who begs to differ

...there is?

[jonniebgood1]

Originally Posted by CDfm

All I can see is that he said that people were sectarian and had sectarian motives without evidence.

He may have believed it or he may have been shamelessly trying to sell books.

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/1...1.00542.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.

[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.

[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”.

[CDfm]

.

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1

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/1...1.00542.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

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/C01115...mer/yellow.htm

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.

[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/Kilmi...0Sept%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.

Originally Posted by CDfm

.
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)

EDIT> Apologies for size of the given page, if you press Ctrl and + it will make it bigger for reading.

[MarchDub]

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1

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)

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'.

[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."

[MarchDub]

Originally Posted by 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."

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

[jonniebgood1]

Originally Posted by MarchDub

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.

[CDfm]

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1

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)

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.