|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 2, 2021 16:16:19 GMT
Believe it or not, the centenary of the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty is next Monday. This anniversary has gone almost unmentioned in the Irish media, as far as I can tell.
Admittedly I haven't really been looking at the Irish media for a good few weeks, but whatever is being discussed there usually reaches me through Facebook and the internet, as well as overhearing what people are talking about. And I have glanced at a few Irish media websites to verify. I didn't see any mention of it.
This is an astonishing state of affairs. After 1916, the Treaty is (arguably) the most important event in Irish history. It established the very state we are living in (those of us in the Republic of Ireland, I mean). It was the genesis of all of our major political parties except for Labour.
Perhaps Covid explains SOME of the ommission, but I'm not sure. It's not like the national discussion has been all Covid all the time.
I believe that a disdain for our own history and an all-pervading anti-nationalism amongst our elites is the real explanation.
If we had any regard for history at all, we should really have been talking about this all year long, or at least for several months.
|
|
|
|
Post by kj on Dec 2, 2021 16:36:03 GMT
That really is quite astonishing. I imagine the weekend supplements and so on will tell all in terms of treatment.
I agree that the Establishment probably would be keen to minimise the coverage as its divisive nature is the last kind of thing that suits the great Global Multi-Cultural "Light unto the Nations" we have seemingly been re-designed as.
The RTE 1990 drama "The Treaty" was excellent and still worth a watch. Up on YouTube, I think.
Even more interesting will be the coverage of the Civil War centenaries. I have always been astonished at the lack of general books about the topic. Yes, there are specialist county by county surveys but hardly any popular board surveys. A book by Carlton Younger, who was English I think, is all that comes to mind. I recall looking for RTE documentaries on the CW years back and all I could find was a dreadful thing by Bryan Dobson who labelled all the anti-Treatyites as "lunatics", you know, the same men whose actions 12 months prior had made them "heroes".
Coinicdentally, I got out Ronan Fanning's biography of Dev today from a library. It's quite slim, but there was little else apart from partisan works. It is allegedly balanced according to reviews.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 2, 2021 16:36:50 GMT
Believe it or not, the centenary of the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty is next Monday. This anniversary has gone almost unmentioned in the Irish media, as far as I can tell. Admittedly I haven't really been looking at the Irish media for a good few weeks, but whatever is being discussed there usually reaches me through Facebook and the internet, as well as overhearing what people are talking about. This is an astonishing state of affairs. After 1916, the Treaty is (arguably) the most important event in Irish history. It established the very state we are living in (those of us in the Republic of Ireland, I mean). It was the genesis of all of our major political parties except for Labour. Perhaps Covid explains SOME of the ommission, but I'm not sure. It's not like the national discussion has been all Covid all the time. I believe that a disdain for our own history and an all-pervading anti-nationalism amongst our elites is the real explanation. If we had any regard for history at all, we should really have been talking about this all year long, or at least for several months. I 100% agree. The covid hysteria has pushed a major but politically embarrassing centenary to one side. Does our modern, Liberal, secular, Europhile, multicultural state reflect in any way the hopes and aspirations of the revolutionary generation? Much of the officially approved discussion on 1916-1922 has focused on women and minority outlooks pushing religion and the military struggle to the margins. Not all of the new emphasis is negative or without value but it reflects the current restricted narrow ideological interests of the Irish Times/RTE and Co. who determine the national conversation. Modernism as an ideology is often hostile to history and tradition and this may be an unconscious element among some who have minimised or ignored the Irish Revolution. There is also a surprising amount of historical ignorance and downright stupidity about the foundations of this state and a depressing mindless rerunning of Civil war arguments on social media , with little attempt to view events in context or with empathy for the difficult choices our leaders faced in December 2022. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Dec 2, 2021 16:53:44 GMT
My own background is solidly Republican and anti-Treaty on both sides. Indeed, there is a story that my great-grandmother (I think) stopped talking to her son when he married a Free Stater.
I hope they would not be disappointed that I incline towards the pro-Treaty side, despite my admiration for De Valera.
On both sides there was idealism and self-sacrifice which puts our own generation to shame. To read about Cathal Brugha, for instance, makes you wonder if he is even the same species as Varadkar and company.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 2, 2021 16:56:12 GMT
That really is quite astonishing. I imagine the weekend supplements and so on will tell all in terms of treatment. I agree that the Establishment probably would be keen to minimise the coverage as its divisive nature is the last kind of thing that suits the great Global Multi-Cultural "Light unto the Nations" we have seemingly been re-designed as. The RTE 1990 drama "The Treaty" was excellent and still worth a watch. Up on YouTube, I think. Even more interesting will be the coverage of the Civil War centenaries. I have always been astonished at the lack of general books about the topic. Yes, there are specialist county by county surveys but hardly any popular board surveys. A book by Carlton Younger, who was English I think, is all that comes to mind. I recall looking for RTE documentaries on the CW years back and all I could find was a dreadful thing by Bryan Dobson who labelled all the anti-Treatyites as "lunatics", you know, the same men whose actions 12 months prior had made them "heroes". Coinicdentally, I got out Ronan Fanning's biography of Dev today from a library. It's quite slim, but there was little else apart from partisan works. It is allegedly balanced according to reviews. Fanning is surprisingly good but overly brief. As he is now dead it's unlikely he'll update it. Hopkinson's Green Against Green is the best military overview of the Civil War but is a bit dry at least it seems to me. It's over 30 years old now too. Younger is more readable but written before any archives were opened which limits it too. Interesting that an Australian wrote the main book for years on the subject . Eoin Neeson wrote an account too from a Republican point of view I recall. Recently Diarmuid Ferriter wrote a brief account which uses the recently released pension applications. It's good on individual and sometimes shocking stories of the penury families endured after 1923 but its a thematic approach and leaves out a lot of detail about who did what and when. I like his written work but was disappointed by his latest book overall. I still think the Cork University Press Atlas of the Irish Revolution with all its flaws, is the best overall current survey. Its a magnificent lavishly illustrated which resource which I will be dipping into this weekend. I think the actual treaty documents are on display in Dublin Castle this weekend and month if you are in Dublin. |
|
|
|
Post by kj on Dec 2, 2021 17:04:53 GMT
I can't let a discussion of the Civil War go by without mentioning Ernie O'Malley. Apart from his military exploits, his two books are masterpieces in my view.
Although On Another Man's Wound tends to get the bulk of the coverage, his civil war book The Singing Flame is my favourite. A passionate anti-Treatyite who hated the way Collins spoke about Dev, it is quite another perspective to the general pro-Mick consensus that seems to have become gospel since Jordan's 1996 movie. His chapter on being inside the Four Courts as the famous bombardment began is quite something. O'Malley was a wonderful writer and fascinating individual.
His son Cormac is still alive and does constant work on his father's legacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 2, 2021 17:07:50 GMT
My own background is solidly Republican and anti-Treaty on both sides. Indeed, there is a story that my great-grandmother (I think) stopped talking to her son when he married a Free Stater. I hope they would not be disappointed that I incline towards the pro-Treaty side, despite my admiration for De Valera. On both sides there was idealism and self-sacrifice which puts our own generation to shame. To read about Cathal Brugha, for instance, makes you wonder if he is even the same species as Varadkar and company. To my disappointment I have no family connections to the War of Independence/Civil War but a relation was jailed by De Valera for Blueshirt activities which won't surprise some that know me well. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 2, 2021 17:28:02 GMT
I can't let a discussion of the Civil War go by without mentioning Ernie O'Malley. Apart from his military exploits, his two books are masterpieces in my view. Although On Another Man's Wound tends to get the bulk of the coverage, his civil war book The Singing Flame is my favourite. A passionate anti-Treatyite who hated the way Collins spoke about Dev, it is quite another perspective to the general pro-Mick consensus that seems to have become gospel since Jordan's 1996 movie. His chapter on being inside the Four Courts as the famous bombardment began is quite something. O'Malley was a wonderful writer and fascinating individual. His son Cormac is still alive and does constant work on his father's legacy. Those books are favourites of mine too which I must reread in 2022. I recall his harrowing accounts of hunger striking which ruined his own health. There's a new biography out about him but it looks a bit on the brief side especially on his latter bohemian arty years which I would like to know more about. You might like Peter Hart's revisionist take on Michael Collins - Mick. It's a useful balance to the hagiography around Collins but he gets a little peevish at times discussing Collins yo yo weight issues at one stage. I have a copy of Survivors somewhere. It's a series of interviews with famous and not so famous war veterans which was a bestseller briefly in the 1980s. It would be worth republishing. |
|
|
|
Post by kj on Dec 2, 2021 18:05:55 GMT
You might like Peter Hart's revisionist take on Michael Collins - Mick. It's a useful balance to the hagiography around Collins but he gets a little peevish at times discussing Collins yo yo weight issues at one stage. Yes, I read that when it came out. It was dry, clinical and acerbic. Excellent on the organisational elements and inter-politicking of Collins that he so excelled at. I think in many ways it was a deliberate anti-hagiography and specifically aimed at Tim Pat Coogan's 1990 biography. I did think Hart overdid it a little in trying to play down the scale of the threats faced by and achievements of Collins & co. Plus his championing of Dev in the Treaty debates seemed a little forced, again I assume in service of the broader agenda, but it's a worthwhile book. It also got the desired reaction as I remember a spluttering and incredulous Tim Pat review. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 2, 2021 18:12:07 GMT
You might like Peter Hart's revisionist take on Michael Collins - Mick. It's a useful balance to the hagiography around Collins but he gets a little peevish at times discussing Collins yo yo weight issues at one stage. Yes, I read that when it came out. It was dry, clinical and acerbic. Excellent on the organisational elements and inter-politicking of Collins that he so excelled at. I think in many ways it was a deliberate anti-hagiography and specifically aimed at Tim Pat Coogan's 1990 biography. I did think Hart overdid it a little in trying to play down the scale of the threats faced by and achievements of Collins & co. Plus his championing of Dev in the Treaty debates seemed a little forced, again I assume in service of the broader agenda, but it's a worthwhile book. It also got the desired reaction as I remember a spluttering and incredulous Tim Pat review. Tim Pat in full outrage is nearly as funny as Michael Dee when he gets triggered. I think some reviewers love winding him up about his books. Most of his recent offerings seem pretty forgettable and predictable. I presume he needs to keep bread on the table like everyone else and churns books out to pay the bills. |
|
|
|
Post by kj on Dec 2, 2021 18:30:05 GMT
Tim Pat in full outrage is nearly as funny as Michael Dee when he gets triggered. I think some reviewers love winding him up about his books. Most of his recent offerings seem pretty forgettable and predictable. I presume he needs to keep bread on the table like everyone else and churns books out to pay the bills. To be fair to him, the Collins bio is a gripping and well-researched read. Speaking of the Civil War, I had forgotten his hefty photo book on it, which I remember looked quite good. I also dipped into his massive IRA book, but was never able to go from beginning to end with it. I suppose he has become a caricature of himself, but we all do in the end, if not sooner. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Dec 2, 2021 20:05:09 GMT
Tim Pat in full outrage is nearly as funny as Michael Dee when he gets triggered. I think some reviewers love winding him up about his books. Most of his recent offerings seem pretty forgettable and predictable. I presume he needs to keep bread on the table like everyone else and churns books out to pay the bills. To be fair to him, the Collins bio is a gripping and well-researched read. Speaking of the Civil War, I had forgotten his hefty photo book on it, which I remember looked quite good. I also dipped into his massive IRA book, but was never able to go from beginning to end with it. I suppose he has become a caricature of himself, but we all do in the end, if not sooner. I learned a lot from his work and he has produced some good books too ; Ireland since the Rising and the IRA which you mentioned were groundbreaking books in their day. The Collins book you also mentioned is good but the De Valera one borders on hysterical ungracious polemic. He even hinted at an illicit relationship between Dev and his long serving secretary if memory serves me right. That picture book on the civil war with George Morrison has some great photographs. |
|
|
|
Post by kj on Dec 2, 2021 21:07:39 GMT
the De Valera one borders on hysterical ungracious polemic. He even hinted at an illicit relationship between Dev and his long serving secretary if memory serves me right. Yes, I read that when it came out and it was a disgrace. An absolute hatchet job from beginning to end. Dev was single-handedly blamed for just about everything that ever went wrong in Ireland from 1916 to his death. It takes a lot of demonic energy to write such a hefty and hateful tome. |
|
