Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
21-02-2012, 10:44   #16
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 267
[QUOTE=V480;77176519]

Who exactly is responsible for maintaining these monuments? QUOTE]

I had thought there was a republican version of the Commonweath Graves Commision, aren't they supposed to be maintaining them? Or a local committee more likely? Pretty sure it wouldn't be the Co. Councils responsibility.

FYI one wheel off one of the tenders survives in Kilmurray Museum, well rusty and on the verge of falling apart.

Last edited by dmcronin; 21-02-2012 at 10:46.
dmcronin is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
22-02-2012, 03:30   #17
IrishEyes19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Bag View Post
There's nothing wrong with someone coming up with new information or a different view about historical events provided that information is from a reliable source. Harts methodology appears to have been that he came up with the narrative first and then moved or omitted the sources around to fit.

As you stated in the first paragraph above, the problem with Peter Hart's version of the Kilmichael ambush is that he claimed he interviewed the last survivor of the ambush (Ned Young) just before he died. (He even claimed at one stage to have interviewed him the day after he died). Ned Young's son John and others have pointed out that Ned Young was severley affected by a stroke at this time and had great difficulty speaking. John Young has sworn an affidavitt saying that Hart never interviewed his father.

In addition, he also used two anonymous sources. As pretty much everyone involved in the ambush had died at the time Hart was doing his research it seems very, very dubious.

Hart also used a typed, undated and unsigned doc he claimed to have found in the British Military Archive which gave the account of the ambush with prisoners being executed. He used this single source to trump every other known and verified account of the ambush.

I found his book on Michael Collins to be truly bizarre. It was very badly written (it read like an unedited early draft) and was full of inferences that could not be substantiated. As with the IRA and It's Enemies, it appeared that he came up with the notion of taking Collins down a peg or two and ignored anything that did not fit with this.

The use of the term Revisionism has very negative connotations. There is nothing wrong with revising history if the evidence can back it up. Hart's wilder claims just don't have this. Without solid sources Hart's work should be considerd as the authors opinion and nothing More.
The best book on Michael Collins is in my opinion, is Tim Pat Coogans.

Completely agree with you, revisionism if used for the right purposes can be great, using modern tools and far more access to evidence can really shine new light on history, but I think its been taken a bit too far, that its now been used to discredit our really big names in our history like Collins, Pearse, ect......Hart and many other Historians are in my opinion setting out to create controversy and stir emotions by making admired patriots and "Irish Heroes" to be no better than blood thirsty murderers or greedy individuals with their own agenda.

I've noticed in the last few years, being proud of Irish history and accomplishments and celebratory of what those men and women did in the war of independence and before is frowned upon and the media especially, revisionists are having a field day bringing out essays and published books on the downfalls or flaws they believe our past leaders possessed and kept from us. We must be only nation who actually comes to a pause and blushes when we praise our past and achievements. I don't know whether it is since the peace treaty and agreements with northern Ireland that this almost embarassment of our past has taken over, but its rather sad. A crude example is so many Irish will sit down and cheer and swear their way through a Ireland rugby match covered in green screaming for their nation and in the same breath, tolerate and believe the nonsense and anti Irish works that a lot of revisionist publications are bringing out today.
IrishEyes19 is offline  
22-02-2012, 09:40   #18
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishEyes19 View Post

Completely agree with you, revisionism if used for the right purposes can be great, using modern tools and far more access to evidence can really shine new light on history, but I think its been taken a bit too far, that its now been used to discredit our really big names in our history like Collins, Pearse, ect......Hart and many other Historians are in my opinion setting out to create controversy and stir emotions by making admired patriots and "Irish Heroes" to be no better than blood thirsty murderers or greedy individuals with their own agenda.
Some people and events were not nice and it is wrong to edit them out.

However, in Irish history huge swathes got left out from official histories and the history taught in schools was often "makey upey".

The first biographies of Pearse in 1932 just 16 years after his death was scant on facts. Subsequent biographies have followed the trend. I mention Pearse as Collins was not a fan.

A feature of the US in Iraq has been prisoner torture

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3689167.stm





Quote:
I've noticed in the last few years, being proud of Irish history and accomplishments and celebratory of what those men and women did in the war of independence and before is frowned upon and the media especially, revisionists are having a field day bringing out essays and published books on the downfalls or flaws they believe our past leaders possessed and kept from us. .
I agree totally with you.The late Peter Hart however seemed to make things up to sell books.

Now making things up about history in Cork is bizarre !!!!!

Seriously, of all locations it is probably the most documented.
CDfm is offline  
(2) thanks from:
22-02-2012, 15:18   #19
jonniebgood1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDfm View Post
Some people and events were not nice and it is wrong to edit them out.

.......

The late Peter Hart however seemed to make things up to sell books.

Now making things up about history in Cork is bizarre !!!!!

Seriously, of all locations it is probably the most documented.
Peter Hart challenged the consensus but came up short in some instances it seems. I have not read his work but intend to do so because he challenged the consensus and he had no reasons not to be plain about what he found. Meda Ryan for example is from West Cork and what she said would be easy on the ears of people from Cork. Hart was Canadian and what he said was not easy to hear and thus people did not want to hear it. This is fact and rebuttals of Hart would also have been easy on the ears for some. None of which makes him right or wrong of course but should be considered.

An appraisal of him here:
Quote:
Hart’s argument is that in Cork and in many other parts of Ireland, north and south, there was a communal, religious divide between Catholic nationalists and Protestant unionists. Protestant republicans, Hart writes, were an eccentric rarity.

“The sectarian division in Irish politics and society and the revolution’s central organising principle of Catholic/nationalist ethnicity (along with the role of Protestantism in unionism), inevitably structured the revolution north and south”.[30]
The IRA, in this context represented a, “quasi millenarian idea of a final reckoning between settler and native”, going back to the 17th century plantations. [31] For this reason, he describes the targeting of informers by the IRA in terms of reprisal shootings of “enemies”.

Hart notes that in killings of alleged informers in Cork, Protestants and also other “enemy” groups like ex-soldiers, travelers and beggars (outside the “respectable” nationalist community) were over-represented. He argues that this was not because of evidence against them, but simply that when IRA members on the ground said “informer” they really meant “enemy”. “It was not merely (or even mainly) a matter of espionage, spies and spy hunters, it was a civil war between and within communities”.[32]
Taken together with the killing of some thirteen Protestants in west Cork over two nights in April 1922 (apparently in response to the fatal shooting of an IRA officer) that sparked a flight of several hundred Protestants from the area, Hart argued that communal conflict and even “ethnic cleansing” was at the heart of the revolution. “Protestants had become fair game because they were seen as outsiders and enemies, not just by the IRA but by a large segment of the Catholic population as well.”[33]

One wonders, at times, if Hart, a scholar from Canada with no Irish roots, realised how explosive a proposition this was in Ireland in the 1990s. People were still dying in Northern Ireland at the hands of an organisation calling itself the IRA, regarding itself as the same organisation as that of the 1920s and still arguing that it represented all the Irish people, regardless of religion, against British imperialism.
Quote:
Historical debate can rarely really be separated from the present, even less so in Ireland than in most other places. However, talking strictly about the 1920s, was Hart right? Should we see the 1913-1923 period as primarily one of communal conflict, effectively one long Irish civil war?

Firstly, looked at very broadly, the result of the revolution was the partition of Ireland between two states, one primarily Catholic and nationalist, the other Protestant and unionist. This is unsurprising given the very long-standing and deeply rooted sectarian divisions.

There was also some population exchange between the two states. Some 40,000 Protestants left the Free State (though probably a small proportion of these were forced out by violence) and several thousand Catholics fled violence in Belfast to the Free State, though many of them subsequently returned to the Catholic enclaves in the north.

While the scale of this was very small by the standards, for example, of the contemporary Armenian genocide, or “population exchange” in the wake of the Greco-Turkish war, it is unrealistic not to see some sectarian or communal aspect to the revolution.
http://www.theirishstory.com/2010/08.../#.T0T-MHmANfY
So he has left himself open to accusations of making things up but there are reasons for this also.

If he is a revisionist does that make those doubting him post-revisionists?
jonniebgood1 is offline  
22-02-2012, 18:16   #20
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
Peter Hart challenged the consensus but came up short in some instances it seems. I have not read his work but intend to do so because he challenged the consensus and he had no reasons not to be plain about what he found. Meda Ryan for example is from West Cork and what she said would be easy on the ears of people from Cork. Hart was Canadian and what he said was not easy to hear and thus people did not want to hear it. This is fact and rebuttals of Hart would also have been easy on the ears for some. None of which makes him right or wrong of course but should be considered.


So he has left himself open to accusations of making things up but there are reasons for this also.

If he is a revisionist does that make those doubting him post-revisionists?
the problem here is that it is not that he told the truth about what happened at kilmichael its that he lied about what happened and when his lies were challenged and exposed he stuck to his lies because it was selling his books. if he blaintly lied and used false information about the ambush what else did he lie about? what other false information is in his other books?

we all know that many things in Irish history was covered up and brushed under the carpet with the foundation of the Irish state but Hart went about it the wrong way.
R.Dub.Fusilier is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
22-02-2012, 20:50   #21
jonniebgood1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.Dub.Fusilier View Post
the problem here is that it is not that he told the truth about what happened at kilmichael its that he lied about what happened and when his lies were challenged and exposed he stuck to his lies because it was selling his books. if he blaintly lied and used false information about the ambush what else did he lie about? what other false information is in his other books?

we all know that many things in Irish history was covered up and brushed under the carpet with the foundation of the Irish state but Hart went about it the wrong way.
I agree with you on this but there is also an unknown aspect to me as I have not read any of Harts work so cannot see what material is sourced and what is not. All I have read is peoples analysis of his work and it is hard to get a neutral view so I need to get some of his work. He won awards for some of his work and what was the basis for this. His CV is also very impressive. So I think your last point is probably a good summary of what happened, "Hart went about it the wrong way".
jonniebgood1 is offline  
23-02-2012, 00:30   #22
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
he had no reasons not to be plain about what he found. Meda Ryan for example is from West Cork and what she said would be easy on the ears of people from Cork. Hart was Canadian and what he said was not easy to hear and thus people did not want to hear it. This is fact and rebuttals of Hart would also have been easy on the ears for some. None of which makes him right or wrong of course but should be considered.

Meda Ryan was not really unfair and she would have set herself up by raising the questions in 2003 or so.

Quote:
While Kilmichael
veterans were dead in 1998, there were individuals and family members who had heard
them venture opinions on events in which they had participated, opinions that Hart
contested. For example, they reportedly spoke of a false surrender by British forces at
Kilmichael leading to Irish fatalities. This included Meda Ryan, whose uncle, Pat
O’Donovan, had fought at the ambush

http://aubanehistoricalsociety.org/troubled_history.pdf


If you don't like Ryan try John Borgonovo quoted in the same pamphlet.

Quote:
In 2007 John Borgonovo queried Hart’s statistical evidence with regard to
‘defenceless victims’ of the IRA in Cork during the War of Independence. Hart cited
131 unnamed victims,


I think it is fairer to say that Hart used journalistic as opposed to history methods.

Those involved in the review by the Aubane Historical Society included

Quote:
Dr Ruan O'Donnell is Head of the History Department in The University of Limerick. He is the
author of The Rebellion in Wicklow 1798 (1998), Robert Emmet and the Rising of 1803 (2003); The
Irish Famine (2008) and the editor of The Impact of 1916, Among the Nations (2008).
Hart may just have been too focused on what he wanted to find to be objective.
CDfm is offline  
Thanks from:
23-02-2012, 07:50   #23
Dr.Nightdub
Registered User
 
Dr.Nightdub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 106
John M.Regan recently revisited the topic of the "Bandon Valley Massacre" which was one of the most controversial parts of Hart's book "The IRA and its Enemies". He covers Hart's work, criticisms of it and also brings in new (to me) evidence; it's long but well worth a read

The "Bandon Valley Massacre" as a historical problem
Dr.Nightdub is offline  
(2) thanks from:
23-02-2012, 08:14   #24
jonniebgood1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDfm View Post
Meda Ryan was not really unfair and she would have set herself up by raising the questions in 2003 or so.

Quote:
While Kilmichael
veterans were dead in 1998, there were individuals and family members who had heard
them venture opinions on events in which they had participated, opinions that Hart
contested. For example, they reportedly spoke of a false surrender by British forces at
Kilmichael leading to Irish fatalities. This included Meda Ryan, whose uncle, Pat
O’Donovan, had fought at the ambush
http://aubanehistoricalsociety.org/troubled_history.pdf

If you don't like Ryan try John Borgonovo quoted in the same pamphlet.

I think it is fairer to say that Hart used journalistic as opposed to history methods.

Hart may just have been too focused on what he wanted to find to be objective.
Surely being this close to a participant would influence ones opinion of it? I did not realise her uncle was involved in it. She would not be human if this did not influence her. Its not a question of not liking someone, its a matter of trying to get a balance between which account is more realistic. If we leave aside Kilmichael where Hart seems to have fallen short in backing up his views do we then discount his acounts of Dunmanway and other things he wrote about?

EDIT> Are we focusing to much on Kilmichael, what did Meda Ryan write on the Bandon Valley incidents as per Dr.Nightclubs link?

Last edited by jonniebgood1; 23-02-2012 at 08:17.
jonniebgood1 is offline  
Advertisement
23-02-2012, 08:51   #25
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
Surely being this close to a participant would influence ones opinion of it? I did not realise her uncle was involved in it. She would not be human if this did not influence her. Its not a question of not liking someone, its a matter of trying to get a balance between which account is more realistic. If we leave aside Kilmichael where Hart seems to have fallen short in backing up his views do we then discount his acounts of Dunmanway and other things he wrote about?
Why wouldn't Meda Ryan be a tad biased and it is fully disclosed so people can interpret her work.

The Bandon Valley Massacre was fairly awful. As was the murder of Admiral Somerville.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056375171

And there were spies and informers

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...0&postcount=12

But all that does not make the motives of the nationalists sectarian -some may have been.

So Hart gets disputed on factual grounds and on his subsequent interpretation.
CDfm is offline  
23-02-2012, 09:51   #26
jonniebgood1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDfm View Post
Why wouldn't Meda Ryan be a tad biased and it is fully disclosed so people can interpret her work.
Most analysis of the 'debate' between Ryan and Hart does not mention this fact so it is not fully disclosed by some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDfm View Post
So Hart gets disputed on factual grounds and on his subsequent interpretation.
Yes. But is that the only reason that he gets so much attention?
jonniebgood1 is offline  
23-02-2012, 14:23   #27
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
Most analysis of the 'debate' between Ryan and Hart does not mention this fact so it is not fully disclosed by some.
That's because it is an academic squabble and it is no secret.

I highlighted it for your benefit.

Quote:
Yes. But is that the only reason that he gets so much attention?
I think so. It does not make sense.

Just to give you an example. The Colthursts of whom Captain J C Bowen-Colthurst who executed Sheehy-Skeffington didn't get shot. The Sheehy's were from Kanturk. Burnt out maybe.

Don't they still own Blarney Castle.

Michael Collins & Sam Maguire ?

So the sectarian tag doesn't really fit in West Cork.

I might be wrong but I think the reason he was challenged on it was "truthiness" and if it were true it would have been a nasty little secret.

I think a more correct comparison for Bandon would be the Ballyseedy Massacre .

No probs with Kilmichael for me.

Last edited by CDfm; 24-02-2012 at 06:04. Reason: to make the meaning clearer
CDfm is offline  
23-02-2012, 14:27   #28
who the fug
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,003
Off topic, but the signs pointing in the wrong direction warms the cockles of my heart.

Glad to see the youth keeping one tradition going
who the fug is offline  
24-02-2012, 12:54   #29
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by who the fug View Post
Off topic, but the signs pointing in the wrong direction warms the cockles of my heart.

Glad to see the youth keeping one tradition going

You wouldn't be saying that if you were driving around in circles for ages trying to find the damn place. It's not off-topic either, that's what the thread was meant to be about! That and the overall condition of the place which is terrible.
V480 is offline  
24-02-2012, 13:00   #30
who the fug
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by V480 View Post
You wouldn't be saying that if you were driving around in circles for ages trying to find the damn place. .
Is it wrong that I still get as much fun out it now in my forties as I did when I was a teenager.
who the fug 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