Kilmichael Ambush Site

who the fug · 24-02-2012 3:57pm

CDfm wrote: »

who the fug wrote: »

Is it wrong that I still get as much fun out it now in my forties as I did when I was a teenager.

So its you :eek:

No Kilmichael would have been outside area of operation.

Fenian Army · 24-02-2012 5:01pm

I imagine its the NGA who look after it, they are short of funds, help out by buying an easter lily, or by donating.

http://www.nga.ie/

jonniebgood1 · 24-02-2012 10:22pm

CDfm wrote: »

That's because it is an academic squabble and it is no secret.
.......

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

No probs with Kilmichael for me.

I'm just probing TBH. If an authors published opinions are proven to be unsound then it is hard to know what to believe.

Fenian Army wrote: »

I imagine its the NGA who look after it, they are short of funds, help out by buying an easter lily, or by donating.

http://www.nga.ie/

Are they assuming control for graves, I would have thought the council were responsible for a monument that is adjacent to their road?

Fenian Army · 24-02-2012 10:27pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Are they assuming control for graves, I would have thought the council were responsible for a monument that is adjacent to their road?

A simple reading of the link would have informed you.

To restore, where necessary, and maintain fittingly the graves and memorials of our patriot dead of every generation.

To commemorate those who died in the cause of Irish freedom.

To compile a record of such graves and memorials.

Probably is something to do with the council but generally they don't care or do anything. The NGA would be willing I reckon to take responsibility for it, if they haven't done so already, but I would certainly get in contact with them, fantastic people involved with it.

They take care of similar monuments, in fact most republican memorials are on roadsides.

The dublin govt do a terrible, terrible job of looking after our heroic dead, look at how long it took to get the forgotten ten a decent burial.

jonniebgood1 · 24-02-2012 11:55pm

Fenian Army wrote: »

A simple reading of the link would have informed you.

Probably is something to do with the council but generally they don't care or do anything. The NGA would be willing I reckon to take responsibility for it, if they haven't done so already, but I would certainly get in contact with them, fantastic people involved with it.

They take care of similar monuments, in fact most republican memorials are on roadsides.

Fair enough but to use your own terminology a 'simple read' of the OP will inform you that it seems noone is taking care of the Kilmichael memorial. Kilmichael is the site of one of the most successful actions in our War of Independence in Republican terms and I agree with the OP sentiments, it deserves to be in prestine condition.

Fenian Army · 25-02-2012 12:15am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Fair enough but to use your own terminology a 'simple read' of the OP will inform you that it seems noone is taking care of the Kilmichael memorial. Kilmichael is the site of one of the most successful actions in our War of Independence in Republican terms and I agree with the OP sentiments, it deserves to be in prestine condition.

Perhaps they dont know its condition, fire them off an email and let them know. Perhaps they dont have the cash, but they do sterling work. Send the NGA an email or whatever and let them know.

For example, they look after the 1916 plot, you'd think the state would. They also look after Wolfe Tones grave.

The grave of Castlerea Fenian John Lavin, unveiled by Maud Gonne in 1901:
Before:
189904_197159883641747_165309353493467_662357_5768127_n.jpg

189904_197159883641747_165309353493467_662357_5768127_n.jpg

After:

190268_197159856975083_165309353493467_662356_6213966_n.jpg

The state have never given a damn about the patriot dead.

Edit:

Actually from reading you post it seems you wanted to find a way to write a snarky rely, I was obviously well aware of what the content of the OP was and the condition, I acknowledged that clearly in my post. You however were ignorant of the fact that the NGA maintain memorials too, which the monument is.

Gee Bag · 25-02-2012 2:07am

I think there is general agreement here that letting the commemerative monument at Kilmichael fall in to disrepair is shameful.

I know this thread has gone a bit off topic by discussing the controversy surrounding Peter Hart's work, so I'm going to drag it off further by posting two links to articles criticising Hart's methodology

http://gcd.academia.edu/NiallMeehan/Papers/322984/Distorting_Irish_History_the_stubborn_facts_of_Kilmichael_Peter_Hart_and_Irish_Historiography

http://gcd.academia.edu/NiallMeehan/Papers/618347/Distorting_Irish_History_Two_the_road_from_Dunmanway_Peter_Harts_treatment_of_the_1922_April_killings_in_West_Cork

CDfm · 25-02-2012 7:10am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I'm just probing TBH. If an authors published opinions are proven to be unsound then it is hard to know what to believe.

What is hard to believe , that he was wrong ?

Or that he may have deliberately made a false accusation of sectarianism ?

Gee Bag wrote: »

I think there is general agreement here that letting the commemerative monument at Kilmichael fall in to disrepair is shameful.

I know this thread has gone a bit off topic by discussing the controversy surrounding Peter Hart's work, so I'm going to drag it off further by posting two links to articles criticising Hart's methodology

http://gcd.academia.edu/NiallMeehan/Papers/322984/Distorting_Irish_History_the_stubborn_facts_of_Kilmichael_Peter_Hart_and_Irish_Historiography

http://gcd.academia.edu/NiallMeehan/Papers/618347/Distorting_Irish_History_Two_the_road_from_Dunmanway_Peter_Harts_treatment_of_the_1922_April_killings_in_West_Cork

I think you are right to do so.

The Dunmanway killings were carried out in defiance of the ceasefire and to prove sectarianism he would need to go further.

That does not mean people in the Protestant Community in Cork were not afraid etc ,but fear does not equal sectarianism .

So the narrative of the protestant community may need to be looked at in its own right .

jonniebgood1 · 25-02-2012 5:53pm

Fenian Army wrote: »

You however were ignorant of the fact that the NGA maintain memorials too, which the monument is.

My point was that if they were looking after monuments in this area then surely the significance of Kilmichael would see it get attention. THe fact that it has not done so goes in the face of the suggestion that they may be responsible for looking after it. If they were responsible then it would be in better condition.

Either they are responsible for looking after it or not?

Fenian Army · 25-02-2012 5:58pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

My point was that if they were looking after monuments in this area then surely the significance of Kilmichael would see it get attention. THe fact that it has not done so goes in the face of the suggestion that they may be responsible for looking after it. If they were responsible then it would be in better condition.

Either they are responsible for looking after it or not?

You really are struggling aren't you?

I've already said that they struggle for funds and they also may not be aware of its condition. They look after other monuments because the state cant be arsed and some of these are a bit dilapidated, they don't have unlimited funds you know. Take the pictures I posted, they didn't know of its condition until a member of the public told them.

Its obvious you know feck all about the group with your assertion that it "goes in the face". Theres a simple solution, email and ask and dont start putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5.

jonniebgood1 · 25-02-2012 6:03pm

CDfm wrote: »

What is hard to believe , that he was wrong ?

Or that he may have deliberately made a false accusation of sectarianism ?

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.

jonniebgood1 · 25-02-2012 6:07pm

Fenian Army wrote: »

You really are struggling aren't you?

I've already said that they struggle for funds and they also may not be aware of its condition. They look after other monuments because the state cant be arsed and some of these are a bit dilapidated, they don't have unlimited funds you know. Take the pictures I posted, they didn't know of its condition until a member of the public told them.

Its obvious you know feck all about the group with your assertion that it "goes in the face". Theres a simple solution, email and ask and dont start putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5.

???
I am not familiar with the group. You brought up the group and suggested that they were responsible for maintaining the Kilmichael monument. You suggested they look after it when the premise of the thread is that nobody is looking after it, that is what I am pointing out.

Fenian Army wrote: »

I imagine its the NGA who look after it, they are short of funds, help out by buying an easter lily, or by donating.

So what are you so touchy about??? If its a funding issue they have then thats fair enough.

Fenian Army · 25-02-2012 6:20pm

So get in contact and ask, they may think someone else is maintaining it, They may not know its damaged, they may know and not have the cash to fix it. It could be any number of things.

I'm sure they will be willing to help fix it. The state wont, I can tell you that from experience.

I would have thought anyone with even a basic knowledge of Irish history, particularly graves and monuments, would know about the NGA. Especially considering they have a pretty high profile Lily sale every year.

Anyway, enough, OP, I suggest alerting the NGA about the condition.

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.

Gee Bag · 25-02-2012 7:06pm

Fenian Army wrote: »

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.

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 in the extreme. People have different opinions. Get over it.

jonniebgood1 · 25-02-2012 7:18pm

Fenian Army wrote: »

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 · 25-02-2012 7:30pm

Gee Bag wrote: »

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 · 25-02-2012 7:44pm

Fenian Army wrote: »

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 · 25-02-2012 11:35pm

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.

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 · 25-02-2012 11:37pm

V480 wrote: »

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 · 26-02-2012 11:39am

CDfm wrote: »

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/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.

R.Dub.Fusilier · 26-02-2012 3:13pm

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 · 26-02-2012 4:00pm

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 · 26-02-2012 4:19pm

.

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.

jonniebgood1 · 26-02-2012 7:11pm

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.

MarchDub · 26-02-2012 7:54pm

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)

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 · 26-02-2012 9:17pm

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 · 26-02-2012 9:27pm

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.

jonniebgood1 · 26-02-2012 11:37pm

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.

CDfm · 27-02-2012 12:24am

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)

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.

Gee Bag · 27-02-2012 12:42am

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.

Kilmichael Ambush Site

Comments