Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
26-02-2012, 23:42   #61
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
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.
Gee Bag is offline  
(4) thanks from:
Advertisement
27-02-2012, 07:30   #62
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchDub View Post
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.
CDfm is offline  
Thanks from:
27-02-2012, 08:23   #63
jonniebgood1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Bag View Post
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!
jonniebgood1 is offline  
Thanks from:
27-02-2012, 09:07   #64
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
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 .

Last edited by CDfm; 27-02-2012 at 09:10.
CDfm is offline  
27-02-2012, 09:40   #65
jonniebgood1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDfm View Post
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'?
jonniebgood1 is offline  
Advertisement
27-02-2012, 13:30   #66
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
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.
MarchDub is offline  
Thanks from:
27-02-2012, 14:30   #67
jonniebgood1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchDub View Post
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:
Quote:
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.

Last edited by jonniebgood1; 27-02-2012 at 14:35.
jonniebgood1 is offline  
27-02-2012, 16:52   #68
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
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.

Last edited by MarchDub; 27-02-2012 at 18:58.
MarchDub is offline  
(3) thanks from:
27-02-2012, 19:48   #69
jonniebgood1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchDub View Post
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 ? vs.
jonniebgood1 is offline  
Advertisement
27-02-2012, 20:21   #70
jonniebgood1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,528
For anyone that wishes the google preview shows pages 227 & 228 of Ferriters 'transformation of Ireland' http://books.google.ie/books?id=lXa7...page&q&f=false
jonniebgood1 is offline  
27-02-2012, 23:43   #71
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by V480 View Post
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."
R.Dub.Fusilier is offline  
(5) thanks from:
27-02-2012, 23:53   #72
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.Dub.Fusilier View Post

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.
CDfm is offline  
(2) thanks from:
28-02-2012, 21:48   #73
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
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.
Gee Bag is offline  
29-02-2012, 09:22   #74
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,645
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.
CDfm is offline  
Thanks from:
29-02-2012, 09:31   #75
jonniebgood1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDfm View Post
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?
jonniebgood1 is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet