Originally Posted by DrNightdub

Lads, lads - too much information. Seriously...

I've read a couple of books written / edited by Fitzpatrick recently - one was The Two Irelands from a few years back, the other was the recently-published Terror in Ireland. One thing that struck me was that his use of language can often appear not just value-laden but deliberately provocative

(e.g. constantly using "Irregular" instead of "anti-Treaty",

"terrorism" instead of "violence", etc). At times you just wish he'd get down from the pulpit and just give you the history.

After reading his letter in History Ireland, I couldn't help thinking that he can give it but he can't take it. Regan's criticism of him at the HI hedge school in the NLI was restrained and the original "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" article raised valid questions. In response to which Fitzpatrick starts muttering darkly about possible recourse to solicitors...?

They were also known as Die Hards...probably more so than any other term as it's colloquial.

Originally Posted by former wesleyan

They were also known as Die Hards...probably more so than any other term as it's colloquial.

They were known by lots of things in their day ('Soldiers of the Republic! Legion of the rearguard...'). 'Anti-treaty' is from an academic point of view the fairest description as it literally describes their defining position regarding the Civil War, and avoids propaganda terms cooked up by the Free State press.

Originally Posted by shutuplaura

They were known by lots of things in their day ('Soldiers of the Republic! Legion of the rearguard...'). 'Anti-treaty' is from an academic point of view the fairest description as it literally describes their defining position regarding the Civil War, and avoids

propaganda terms cooked up by the Free State press.

No bias for you then !

Originally Posted by DrNightdub

Lads, lads - too much information. Seriously...

I've read a couple of books written / edited by Fitzpatrick recently - one was The Two Irelands from a few years back, the other was the recently-published Terror in Ireland. One thing that struck me was that his use of language can often appear not just value-laden but deliberately provocative (e.g. constantly using "Irregular" instead of "anti-Treaty", "terrorism" instead of "violence", etc). At times you just wish he'd get down from the pulpit and just give you the history.

After reading his letter in History Ireland, I couldn't help thinking that he can give it but he can't take it. Regan's criticism of him at the HI hedge school in the NLI was restrained and the original "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" article raised valid questions. In response to which Fitzpatrick starts muttering darkly about possible recourse to solicitors...?

I agree with you re: provocative terminology. Most modern Irish historians would recognise that terms like 'irregular' are loaded and politically-motivated and for a historian to use them in this day and age is to make the point from the get-go that objectivity is out the window - I say this, as academic historians cannot plead ignorance as to the loaded nature of these terms the way an undergraduate might, having simply read it in one of Fitzpatrick's books.

I'm sure DrNightdub, harry_w, shutuplaura and others will understand the origin of the term 'Irregulars'. Apologies, folks, I have none of my books to hand and all I could get was Wikipedia - but, anyway:

On 15 October, directives were sent to the press by Free State director of communications, Piaras Béaslaí to the effect that Free State troops were to be referred to as the "National Army", the "Irish Army", or just "troops". The Anti-Treaty side were to be called "Irregulars" and were not to be referred to as "Republicans", "IRA", "forces", or "troops", nor were the ranks of their officers allowed to be given.

The article links to Purdon's book on the Civil War.
It was the 'IRA Godfathers' of the 1920s, essentially.

I wonder would a republishing of Manning's The Blueshirts have the subtitle The Free State's Fascists
I would hope not - to be consistent, like.

Originally Posted by former wesleyan

No bias for you then !

No. No bias for him.
Newspapers who refused to abide by the Free State directives - another term for 'censorship' - were to be shut down.

Originally Posted by former wesleyan

They were also known as Die Hards...probably more so than any other term as it's colloquial.

Among Free State troops. In the same way Fine Gael are 'Blueshirts' among certain people - but would you use it in an academic work? I hope not.

I believe the Free State officer who caught a mortally-wounded Liam Lynch asked one of his men to give Lynch a bandage, the soldier refused, calling Lynch a 'Die-hard [expletive]'

Not the most balanced of terms.

Originally Posted by former wesleyan

No bias for you then !

Moi!

Everyone has some bias of course, as you rightly point out. It beholds historians to try and put it aside, or at least avoid its most provocative elements. Otherwise the line between history and polemic become dangerously blurred.

David Fitzpatrick discusses some of these issues re political violence and sectarianism in the Irish Revolution here.

David Fitzpatrick on “Terror in Ireland” | The Irish Story

Originally Posted by SeamusNapoleon

No. No bias for him.
Newspapers who refused to abide by the Free State directives - another term for 'censorship' - were to be shut down.



Among Free State troops. In the same way Fine Gael are 'Blueshirts' among certain people - but would you use it in an academic work? I hope not.

I believe the Free State officer who caught a mortally-wounded Liam Lynch asked one of his men to give Lynch a bandage, the soldier refused, calling Lynch a 'Die-hard [expletive]'

Not the most balanced of terms.

The Freemans Journal had its presses smashed by The Fourcourts IRA after they published an unflattering account of the March 1922 IRA convention - which included Tom Barrys call for a military dictatorship.

Lynchs opinions were anti-democratic and wholly militaristic ..." " views and opinions of political people are not to be too seriously considered ", he said. A Die Hard, in other words.

Kevin O'Higgins referred to them as a " bunch of Apaches ".

The headline of an article in yesterday's Sunday Times, surprised nobody picked up on this.

The recently broadcast documentary on the shootings in west Cork – titled An Tost Fada – has had to have to factual errors removed before any further re-broadcasting. According to Tom Cooper – ‘chairman of the Irish National Congress, which espouses a united Ireland by peaceful means’ – the station deliberately conflated two sets of events.

The two men mentioned in the documentary who were friends with the Salter family – Canon Salter, who took part in the documentary, being the son of those who experienced the period – Matthew Connell and William Sweetman, were not shot in April 1922 as detailed by the documentary (thus linking them to the Bandon Valley killings) but, rather, were shot in February 1921.

RTE apparently also made a mistake of stating that Canon Salter’s father received £1,700 compensation from the British government. In the absence of any clarifying remarks in the article on this, it must be presumed that the Salter family received no financial aid from the British government?

Cooper has called on RTE to broadcast a “balancing programme” and – more realistically and sensibly – called for the reinstating of the previous practise of ‘appointing a historical adviser to such documentaries’.

The documentary had been written by Eoghan Harris.
Eoghan Harris is not a historian.

Originally Posted by SeamusNapoleon

The headline of an article in yesterday's Sunday Times, surprised nobody picked up on this.

The recently broadcast documentary on the shootings in west Cork – titled An Tost Fada – has had to have to factual errors removed before any further re-broadcasting. According to Tom Cooper – ‘chairman of the Irish National Congress, which espouses a united Ireland by peaceful means’ – the station deliberately conflated two sets of events.

The two men mentioned in the documentary who were friends with the Salter family – Canon Salter, who took part in the documentary, being the son of those who experienced the period – Matthew Connell and William Sweetman, were not shot in April 1922 as detailed by the documentary (thus linking them to the Bandon Valley killings) but, rather, were shot in February 1921.

RTE apparently also made a mistake of stating that Canon Salter’s father received £1,700 compensation from the British government. In the absence of any clarifying remarks in the article on this, it must be presumed that the Salter family received no financial aid from the British government?

Cooper has called on RTE to broadcast a “balancing programme” and – more realistically and sensibly – called for the reinstating of the previous practise of ‘appointing a historical adviser to such documentaries’.

The documentary had been written by Eoghan Harris.
Eoghan Harris is not a historian.

So RTE have admitted to some factual errors but lack of balance was alleged by Tom Cooper?