Cuttlefish, Cholesterol and Saoirse - Indymedia Ireland · 15 Brian Sykes, Saxons, Vikings and...
17
1 Cuttlefish, Cholesterol and Saoirse Brendan O'Leary He that uses many words for explaining any subject, doth, like the cuttlefish, hide himself for the most part in his own ink. John Ray, seventeenth-century naturalist In sum, rather like cholesterol, there is good and bad revisionism, and we have had too much of the latter in recent years. Richard English, by his own account, has tried to do three things in a quarter of a million words: write the story of Irish nationalist history for the general reader, provide ‘an authoritative but accessible up-to-date, single volume account of what scholars now think and know (or think that they know) about Irish nationalism’, and, more ambitiously, ‘explain’ Irish nationalism. 2 Irish Freedom is partially successful in its first goal, and much more partisan than it presents itself. For that reason it is much less successful in achieving its second goal. It fails in its last goal. FIELD DAY REVIEW 3 2007 1 L. Perry Curtis Jr., ‘Comment: The Return of Revisionism’, Journal of British Studies, (00), 1–, 1 Richard English, Irish Freedom: The History of Nationalism in Ireland (London, 00), – Richard English, Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA (London, 00). I wrote a favourable review of this book, ‘Lethal Mixture of Armalite and the Ballot Box’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 109 (00), 7–, with some reservations, recently re-expressed in ‘Mission Accomplished? Looking Back at the IRA’, Field Day Review, 1 (00), 1–. Irish Freedom: The History of Nationalism in Ireland Richard English London: Macmillan, 00 pages. ISBN 9710019 Professor English recently wrote a highly regarded history of the IRA. 3 Here his tone is often conciliatory but displays the high- handed conciliation that exasperates. He is widely read, cultured (especially in music), eclectic, and presents as generous and fair- minded in his readings. But he has blind spots. The most significant are linguistic, methodological, and ideological. He has also become garrulous. He, like others who imagine themselves to be radical, swims with the present tide of imperial historiography, which cleanses, and even celebrates, the British Empire, or at least accentuates its positive dimensions. 4 Yet Ireland’s colonial treatment by Great Britain, before and after the Act of Union of 101, remains a salutary reminder of negative entries in the ledger of Empire. In accounting for some present nationalist passions and arguments, the ‘catastrophic dimension’ of the Irish historical experience in what we may call the ‘far past’ needs to be emphasized — violent conquest, expropriation, religious oppression, famine, immiseration and demographic collapse. 5 In the ‘near past’, what demands focus is the long denial of democratic autonomy, followed by an unjust partition, and the renewal of domination in one political unit by the historic beneficiaries of the colonial settlements. Such emphases are warranted not as a brief for present courtrooms, not for the joy of savouring past horrors, and not for wallowing in ancient grievances to the neglect of our ancestors’ past pleasures and achievements. Quite simply, the catastrophic components of the past significantly explain Ireland’s present, both its institutional outcomes and the present mentalities of its principal agents,
Transcript of Cuttlefish, Cholesterol and Saoirse - Indymedia Ireland · 15 Brian Sykes, Saxons, Vikings and...
1��
Cuttlefish, Cholesterol and SaoirseBrendan O'Leary
Hethatusesmanywordsforexplaininganysubject,doth,likethecuttlefish,hidehimselfforthemostpartinhisownink.JohnRay,seventeenth-centurynaturalist
Insum,ratherlikecholesterol,thereisgoodandbadrevisionism,andwehavehadtoomuchofthelatterinrecentyears.
RichardEnglish,byhisownaccount,hastriedtodothreethingsinaquarterofamillionwords:writethestoryofIrishnationalisthistoryforthegeneralreader,provide‘anauthoritativebutaccessibleup-to-date,singlevolumeaccountofwhatscholarsnowthinkandknow(orthinkthattheyknow)aboutIrishnationalism’,and,moreambitiously,‘explain’Irishnationalism.2IrishFreedomispartiallysuccessfulinitsfirstgoal,andmuchmorepartisanthanitpresentsitself.Forthatreasonitismuchlesssuccessfulinachievingitssecondgoal.Itfailsinitslastgoal.
FIElD Day REvIEw 3 2007
1 L. Perry Curtis Jr., ‘Comment: The Return of Revisionism’, Journal of British Studies, �� (�00�), 1��–��, 1��
� Richard English, Irish Freedom: The History of Nationalism in Ireland (London, �00�), �–�
� Richard English, Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA (London, �00�). I wrote a favourable review of this book, ‘Lethal Mixture of Armalite and the Ballot Box’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 1�09 (�00�), �7–��, with some reservations, recently re-expressed in ‘Mission Accomplished? Looking Back at the IRA’, Field Day Review, 1 (�00�), �1�–��.
Irish Freedom:The History of Nationalism in IrelandRichard EnglishLondon: Macmillan, �00���� pages. ISBN 97�1�0�0�1�9�
Professor English recently wrote a highly regarded history of the IRA.3 Here his tone is often conciliatory but displays the high-handed conciliation that exasperates. He is widely read, cultured (especially in music), eclectic, and presents as generous and fair-minded in his readings. But he has blind spots. The most significant are linguistic, methodological, and ideological. He has also become garrulous. He, like others who imagine themselves to be radical, swims with the present tide of imperial historiography, which cleanses, and even celebrates, the British Empire, or at least accentuates its positive dimensions.4 Yet Ireland’s colonial treatment by Great Britain, before and after the Act of Union of 1�01, remains a salutary reminder of negative entries in the ledger of Empire. In accounting for some present nationalist passions and arguments,
the ‘catastrophic dimension’ of the Irish historical experience in what we may call the ‘far past’ needs to be emphasized — violent conquest, expropriation, religious oppression, famine, immiseration and demographic collapse.5 In the ‘near past’, what demands focus is the long denial of democratic autonomy, followed by an unjust partition, and the renewal of domination in one political unit by the historic beneficiaries of the colonial settlements. Such emphases are warranted not as a brief for present courtrooms, not for the joy of savouring past horrors, and not for wallowing in ancient grievances to the neglect of our ancestors’ past pleasures and achievements. Quite simply, the catastrophic components of the past significantly explain Ireland’s present, both its institutional outcomes and the present mentalities of its principal agents,
FIElD Day REvIEw
1��
CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
4 NiallFerguson,Empire:TheRiseandFalloftheBritishWorldOrderandtheLessonsforGlobalPower(NewYork,2003).StephenHowe,IrelandandEmpire:ColonialLegaciesinIrishHistoryandCulture(Oxford,2000)
5 BrendanBradshaw,‘NationalismandHistoricalScholarshipinModernIreland’,IrishHistoricalStudies,26,104(1989),329–51
6 IanLustickhaswrittenofthedifficultiespoliticalscientists(andhistorians)haveindealingscientificallywithrivalsecondaryreadingsofprimarysources,andtheresultingtypesof‘selectionbias’;seehis‘History,Historiography,andPoliticalScience:MultipleHistoricalRecordsandtheProblemofSelectionBias’,AmericanPoliticalScienceReview,90(1996),605–18.
7 IrishFreedom,388 HughM.Thomas,
TheEnglishandtheNormans:EthnicHostility,AssimilationandIdentity1066–c.1220(Oxford,2003),315
9 BrendanO’LearyandJohnMcGarry,ThePoliticsofAntagonism:UnderstandingNorthernIreland,2ndexpandededn.(LondonandAtlanticHeights,1996)
collectiveandindividual.RichardEnglish’sbookfailsfullytoappreciatethesematters,buthisfailureisinstructive.
Ofcourse,neitherIreland’snorNorthernIreland’shistoriesareunrelievedcataloguesofdisaster,andonlythelaststrandedplatoonsoftheThirty-TwoCountySovereigntyMovementmightargueotherwise.Infact,theisland’scurrentcircumstancesstem,inpart,fromcatastrophesthatdidnothappen.TheNazisorStalinists,whohomogenizedCentralandEasternEuropeunderthecoverof‘NachtundNebel’,neverconqueredIreland.IntheseventeenthcenturyIrelandwasnotcomprehensively‘cleansed’ofitsnatives,norwasitreligiouslyhomogenized,thoughbothenterpriseswereconceivedandembarkeduponbeforebeingabandonedforlessspectacularformsofsubordination.Inacomparativeperspective,itisthecatastrophicpast,withitslong-termrepercussions,thatexplainstheemotionalandintellectualwellspringsofIrishnationalism.AnditisthecurrentresolutionoftheserepercussionsthatexplainsthediminutionofhostilitytowardtheBritishstateandthepeacefulaccommodationsthatnowprevailinbothofIreland’spoliticalentities.
Whose ancestral voices?
NowheredoesEnglishadmitincompetenceintheIrish,LatinorFrenchlanguagesinPartOne,‘Irelandbefore1800’.Thiswouldseemanecessaryacknowledgementbysomeonewhohastakenuponhimselfthetaskofappraisingtheexistence(ornon-existence)ofnationalconsciousnessinIreland’spre-modernpast.SincenoworksinIrish,LatinorFrencharecitedinthebibliographythereadermayassumethatEnglishlackstheselanguages.Thisobservationisnotadvancedinaspiritofethnicorlinguistictrumping—IhavemostlyforgottenLatinandFrench,andhavebutafewwordsofIrish.Nordoestheobservationimplythatonlythosewiththe
relevantlinguisticskillscanhaveworthwhileopinions.Solidhistoricaljudgementscanemergefromreadingsecondaryinterpretationsofprimarysources,providedthereisascholarlyconsensusthatisnotcontestedaspartisanbyreasonablepersons.6ButEnglish’snotesandbibliographyconveynomasteryofthosehistorians,pastorpresent,whohaveafullcommandofIrish,andwhodifferfromtheir‘angloglot’colleagues—andamongthemselves—onquestionspertinenttoIrishnationalconsciousnessbeforethenineteenthcentury.SowemustbescepticalthatEnglishcanachievehisgoalofassessingGaelicIreland’sself-consciousness.
Likemostofus,heisheavilydependentonanglophonesecondarysourcesforreadingsofIreland’sGaelicpast.Soitisincumbentuponhimtoshowwhyweshouldtakehisword,ratherthanthewordofothers,foranyreadingofthatpast,wherethereisnoconsensus.Thiscriticism,moreover,doesnotapplyonlytohistreatmentoftheconsciousnessofthepre-modernGaelicIrish.ConsidertheissueofhowtonamethosewhoinvadedIrelandin1169,or,intheaccountEnglishprefers,whowereinvitedinbyalocallydethronedpretender.Hesaystherewasno‘“English”invasionatall’.Rather,Irelandwascolonized‘byaninternationalgroup’,‘Anglo-Normanlords…andtheirhybridfollowers’.7ButatleastonestudyofhowtheNormansbecameEnglish,notcited,maintainsthat‘theCelticOtherservednotonlytodrawNormansandEnglishtogether[forsecurityreasons],andtoreinforceEnglishnesswhereitalreadyexisted,but…alsohelpedtomaketheformer[theNormans]adopttheidentityofthelatter[theEnglish]’.8HughThomasarguesthattheNormansacculturatedveryquicklyintoanEnglishidentity.Similarly,JohnGillinghamhaspersuadedmethatJohnMcGarryandIwerewrongtowriteinoneofourbooksof‘Anglo-Normans’invadingIreland,eventhoughthatlabelhasbeenstandardinIrishandBritish
FIElD Day REvIEw CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
1�7
10 SeeJohnGillingham’s‘TheBeginningsofEnglishImperialism’,JournalofHistoricalSociology,5,4(1992),392–409;‘TheEnglishInvasionofIreland’,inBrendanBradshaw,AndrewHadfieldandWillyMaley,eds.,RepresentingIreland:LiteratureandtheOriginsofConflict,1534–1660(Cambridge,1992),24–42;andTheEnglishintheTwelfthCentury:Imperialism,NationalIdentityandPoliticalValues(Woodbridge,2003).
11 IrishHistoricalStudies,theprofessionaljournalforsomeoneinEnglish’sfield,containsanelegantlywrittenarticle,whichhedoesnotcite,byamasterofFrench,Latin,IrishandEnglishsources,whichshowsthattheIrishdescribedthesaid‘Anglo-Normans’as‘English’,andnicelysuggestsparallelsbetweentwentieth-centuryUlster’sdividedpeoplesandthoseoflatemedievalIreland;seeArtCosgrove,‘TheWritingofMedievalHistory’,IrishHistoricalStudies,27,106(1990),97–11.
12 IrishFreedom,4313 IrishFreedom,26;my
emphases14 Someofthemore
egregiouserrorsinProfessorElliott’sbookareamatterofrecord,seemyreview‘HistoryofNorth’sCatholicsRiddledwithInaccuracies’,SundayBusinessPost,22October2000.
15 BrianSykes,Saxons,VikingsandCelts:TheGeneticRootsofBritainandIreland(NewYork,2006)
historiography.9Rather,Gillinghaminsists,thenativeIrishwererighttodescribetherelevantevents,thenandlater,asthecomingoftheEnglish.Gillinghamhasdemonstratedthatthe‘incomers’hadnosuchexpressionas‘Anglo-Norman’forthemselves.ThisabsenceissupplementaryevidenceforaveryfastassimilationofNormansintoEnglishidentitybetweenthe1120sand1140s.10Wemightcallthisthe‘Noussommeslesanglais’thesis.Sothe(French-speaking)English,nottheNormans,orAnglo-Normans,invadedIreland,or,asEnglishprefers,wereinvitedin—and,ofcourse,itwasboth.11
TheexpertisetoadjudicatetheinterpretationsofmedievaldocumentsisnotamongmyaccomplishmentsbutIamableimmediatelytoobserveasthebookbeginsthatEnglishhasmissedanimportantcontroversyintheethnichistoryoftheseislands,andhasinsteadreplicatedtheoldhistoriography.Hashedonesothroughignorance?Perhaps;noonecanreadeverything,evenonthescholarshiprelevanttoasmallcountry.Hashepreferredtheoldhistoriographyonempiricallydefensiblegrounds?Perhaps;butifso,hedoesnotsupplythem.Thesuspicionarisesthattheoldhistoriographyisinthisinstancecomforting:itenableshimtoemphasize‘hybridity’inIrishhistory,andtodisparagetraditionalnationalistaccountsoflong-standingEnglishandIrishanimosityrootedincolonialrelations.Thatisperhapswhyhecanlaterreferto‘theEnglishinIrelandandtheIrishinIreland(astheymightrespectivelybecalled)’,withoutacknowledgingthatiswhattherespectivegroupscalledthemselves,accordingtoextantsourcesineachoftheirrespectivelanguages.12
On politically correct cosmopolitanism
IndependentIreland,thankstoprosperityandimmigration,isnowmulti-ethnic,multi-religiousandmulti-lingualinnovelways.NorthernIreland,thankstothepeaceprocess,isalsoincreasinglyattractive
toimmigrants.Excellent.Butitisananachronismtoreadandcelebratethispresentbackintothemistsoftime,whetherthemistsbedeemedCelticorotherwise.WeareconfidentlytoldbyEnglish,withoutsources,that
Differentcivilizationsandpeoplesandgroupswere,fromtheearliesthistoryofoldIreland,writtenintothestoryofitsinhabitants;sonotionsofamonochromerace,ofanysupposedracial‘purity’orhomogeneity,aredeeplymisplaced.SinceancienttimestheIrishgenepoolhasbeenprofoundlymixed…Therewasnosingle,originalGaelicorIrishrace,justastherewerenodiscerniblenativesinthesenseofanoriginalpeoplethanwhomallothersandtheirdescendantsarelesstrulyIrish[Sic!]…EvenintheIronAge,thepeopleofIrelandweregeneticallyverymixed…13
Readersmaythenexpecttobetoldthattherereallywere‘blackIrish’,oratleast‘blackandtanIrish’,andanticipatetalesoftheskeletalremainsofpersonswhosereconstructedphenotypesarenotCaucasian.Instead,wegetaquotation,andacitation.Thequotationreads‘PrehistoricIrelandwasaconsiderableracialmix.’ThecitationistoMarianneElliott’sTheCatholicsofUlster.Now,whatevermeritsProfessorElliottmayhaveasanhistorian,sheisnotnotablydistinguishedasageneticist.14
Bycontrast,BrianSykes,professorofHumanGeneticsatOxfordUniversity,arguablyis.15InhisrecentlypublishedSaxons,VikingsandCelts(yes,heusesthe‘C’word),hearguesthattheDNAevidenceshowsthatthe‘matrilinealhistoryoftheIslesisbothancientandcontinuous’,andthestrongevidenceof‘exactandclosematchesbetweenthematernalandwesternclansofwesternandnorthernIberiaandthewesternhalfoftheIslesisveryimpressive,muchmoresothanthepoorermatcheswithcontinentalEurope…Onourmaternalside,almostallofus
FIElD Day REvIEw
1��
CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
16 Sykes,Saxons,VikingsandCelts,279,280,281,282
17 Sykes,Saxons,VikingsandCelts,285
18 ResearchconductedintheSmurfitInstituteofGeneticsatTrinityCollegesuggeststhat8percentofIrishmenpossessaparticularY-chromosome:seeLaoiseT.Moore,BrianMcEvoy,EleanorCape,andKatharineSimms,andDanielG.Bradley,‘AY-ChromosomeSignatureofHegemonyinGaelicIreland’,AmericanJournalofHumanGenetics,78,2(2006),334–38.ThisY-chromosomehasaclusterofconcentrationinthenorth-westrunningfromRoscommontoStrabane,where23percentoflocalmalespossessit.GenealogicalevidencehassubsequentlysuggestedthatNialloftheNineHostagesisalsoFatherNiallofnearnumberlessdescendants.TheUíNéill(andtheiraffiliatedfamilies)reallydohaveacommonancestor,thoughtheymaynotyethavemixedtheirbloodorDNAwithRichardEnglishorMarianneElliott.
19 SimonJames,TheAtlanticCelts:AncientPeopleorModernInvention?(London,1999)
20 IrishFreedom,28
[BritishandIrish]areCelts’.SykesconfirmsthatthegeneticdatafalsifytheoldnotionthattheCeltsofIrelandoriginatefrommiddleEurope.WeHiberniansareIberians:‘TheIrishmythsoftheMilesianswererightinonerespect.ThegeneticevidenceshowsthatalargeproportionofIrishCelts,onboththemaleandthefemaleside,didarrivefromIberia,atoraboutthesametimeasfarmingreachedtheIsles’.16ThepaternalY-chromosomedataalsosuggestIberianoriginsforthemalesoftheIsles,especiallyinIreland.Therecentdiscussionofthe‘UíNéillchromosome’enablesSykestohavesomefun;itissaidtobeasanexampleofthe‘Genghiseffect’,thatis,verylargenumbersofmenaredescendedfromonlyafewgeneticallysuccessfulancestors:‘thelongeraclanhasbeeninplaceliketheIsles,themoresimilartheY-chromosomesbecome’.17TheHibernianGenghisinquestionisNialloftheNineHostages.18
BeforepoliticalpanicsetsinamongreadersofFieldDayReviewletmeemphasizethatSykes’suseofDNAdataisnotbeingdeployedtoconfirmsomeprimordialconceptionoftheIrishnation,butmerelytoshowthatEnglish’santi-primordialismispoorlyfounded.Ilackthecompetencetoadjudicatethevalidityofinferencesfromtechnicalgeneticresearch,andwouldwantalotofassurancesabouttherepresentativenessoftherelevantDNAsamplesfromwhichmajorhistoricalconclusionsarebeingdrawn,butwhatcanbesaidwithoutfearofrebuttalisthatneitherProfessorsElliottnorEnglishhavetheauthoritytopronounceconfidentlyonpre-modernIreland’sgeneticmake-up.And,totheextentthatwecanrelyoncurrentscientificevaluations,pre-modernIrelandwasratherethnically(andgenetically)homogeneous.WemaysuspectthatforEnglishtheassertion,anditisnomorethanthat,ofaprofoundlymulti-culturalandmulti-people‘farpast’isintendedtohidethelargelydichotomousrecentpastortosermonizeforthepresent.
Inthecaseof‘theCelts’,Englishalsostraysfromcarefulappraisalofthehistoricalevidence,becauseofakeendeterminationtodebunkIrishnationalistmyths.Hetherebymisleadsthegeneralreader.TheideaofaunifiedCelticpeople—withaheartlandintheformerforestsandmountainsofMitteleuropa—isindeedarecentconstruction,ascertainarchaeologistshaveloudlycomplained.19ButEnglisherrswhenhedeclaresthat‘IfnoracialorethnicgroupinIrelandintheancientormedievalperiod,wasknown,oridentifieditselfasCeltic,thenweshouldnotpretendthattheydidso,and“theCelts”isatitlewhichthereforeshouldberejectedforIrishpeoplefromthesecenturies’.20GeoffreyofMonmouth’sinfluential—iflargelyfictive—TheHistoryoftheKingsofBritainhastheCeltsasoneofthefivenationsofthelargerisland.SosomelabellingofpeopleasCeltsdidoccurinthetwelfthcentury.Moreimportantly,wecanandshouldusetheword‘Celtic’,inagreementwiththecanonicalclassificationsoflinguisticbranches,torefertoGaelicspeakers,andwriters.Suchspeakers,andwriters,precededEnglishspeakers,inhistoryandinresidence,ontheislandofIreland,andontheneighbouringisland.Onecanneitherexplainthepastaccurately,norimprovethepoliticaltemperofthepresent,byseekingtodenyhomogeneityinpre-EnglishIreland,orbytryingtoeffacetheculturalandlinguisticdistinctivenessofIrelandfromeasternandsouthernBritainbeforethetwelfth,andindeedbeforetheseventeenth,century.
What is your methodological poison?
Twoclassesofcaninesroaminthesocialsciencejungle.Theygatherinpackswhichrarelymix.Onegrowls,‘Sowhat?What’sthestory?Whatdoesittellustheoretically?’Theothertendstobark,‘What’sthemethod?Howdoyouknowwhatyouknow?Giventhatweknowhowdifficultitistoknow,whyshould
FIElD Day REvIEw CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
1�9
weacceptyourconclusions?’Itisfareasiertoanswerthegrowlerthanthebarker.Thebarkers,liketheologians,havemanymonistsamongthem,andwanttoknowwhetheranargumentsurvivestheirtests.Methodologically,IrishFreedomisadisappointingmess,nomatterhowpluralistorlaxoneisonthesematters.Englishdeservescreditasahistorianinapoliticalsciencedepartmentforengagingininterdisciplinaryreading.SuchtrespassingisstilluncommonamongIreland’scohortsofpoliticalhistorians,whohaveremaineduntilrecentlysomewhatdismissiveofthesocial
sciences,especiallyifeducatedinCambridgeorDublin.Butonanyone’ssensiblestartingpremises,explainingIrishnationalismrequiresasocial-science-influencedhistoriantogenerateexplicithypothesesfromthegeneraltheoreticalliterature,andtousethesetoaccountfortheoriginsanddevelopmentofIrishnationalism,itsexpression,andmobilization,andsuccessesandfailures.Secondarymaterials—andsometimesappropriateprimarymaterials—shouldbeusedtoappraisethemeritsorotherwiseofthesehypotheses.Suchcase-materialsmustbecarefullyselectedto
FIElD Day REvIEw
1�0
CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
21Theexpression‘revisionist’isunfortunatebecauseitstemsfromtheSecondInternational’sdebatebetween‘orthodox’and‘revisionist’Marxists(ledbyKarlKautskyandEduardBernsteinrespectively).ItsuggestsacontrastbetweenacalcifiedorthodoxyofIrishnationalism,andafreethinkingadaptationofdoctrinetoreality.Allhistoriansshould,ofcourse,beopentotherevisionoftheirarguments—forexample,uponthediscoveryoffreshdata,orthedemonstrationthattheirinterpretationshavebeenunrepresentativeofarchivalmaterials,oriftheyareshowntohavecontradictedthemselves,ortohaveoverlookedcriticalmaterials,tolistafewreasonsforwhichrevisionistheappropriateresponse.Revisionisthistorians,so-calledinIreland,are,inthemain,eitheropposedtomoststreamsofIrishnationalism,orregretfulofthesuccesses,politicalorcultural,ofIrishnationalists.Theirintelligentcriticsarenotanti-revisionistperse—thatwouldbetoembracehavingaclosedmind.Rather,theyareeithersupportiveofatleastonestreamofIrishnationalism,orhappytodemonstratethattherevisionistshavemisinterpretedormisrepresentedtheIrishpast.
testtherelevanthypothesesfairly—andaremorecompellingiftreatedthroughcomparativeanalysis.AlongrompthroughthehistoryofIreland,mildlytouchedoverasahistoryofIrishnationalism,withaselectionbiastowardintellectuals,followedbyageneralsurveyofthelargesocialscienceliteraturedevotedtoexplainingnationalism,withasidesonIrishmaterials,andpoliteunionisthomilies,doesnotmeetthestandardsofeithersocialscienceorofrigorousevaluativehistoriography.
Inshort,onecannotsensiblypresentanapparentlydetached‘story’ofIrishnationalismfirst,andthenfollowupwithageneralliteraturesurveyofthesocialscienceofnationalism,andleaveitatthat.Eitherthe‘story’isprofoundlyinfluencedbytheliteraturesurvey,inwhichcaseitistheoretically‘saturated’,astheepistemologistssay.Oritisnot,inwhich
casethesurveymustbedefendedaccordingtosomeotherclearprinciplesofselection.Nosuchclearprinciplesareproffered.Infact,thestoryofIrishnationalisthistorypresentedhereisfarfromadetachedaccount;itisanaccountofIrishhistoryaccordingtothecurrentlyconventionalwisdomofthosewhounfortunatelyarecalled‘revisionists’,marriedtoaseriesofrebuttalsofextremistorfoolishIrishnationalistclaimsthataretoooftenundocumented.21
Letmesubmitsomeadjectivalevidenceonthe‘revisionist’bias.WearetoldthatIanMacBrideis‘themostauthoritativehistorianofeighteenthcenturyPresbyterianradicalism’,andthatMarianneElliottisTone’s‘mostaccomplishedbiographer’.22WeareinformedofPaulBew’s‘importantseriesofbooks’,ofRoyFoster’s‘magnificenttwo-volumebiography’,ofSeniaPašeta’s
FIElD Day REvIEw CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
1�1
22 IrishFreedom,95,10423 IrishFreedom,526,
529,530,519n.2024 DavidGeorgeBoyce
andAlanO’Day,eds.,TheMakingofModernIrishHistory:RevisionismandtheRevisionistControversy(London,1996);CiaranBrady,ed.,InterpretingIrishHistory:TheDebateonHistoricalRevisionism1938–1994(Dublin,1994)
25 IhavewrittendetailedappraisalsofGellnerandKedourie’sexplanationsofnationalism(‘Gellner’sDiagnosesofNationalism:ACriticalOvervieworWhatisLivingandWhatisDeadinGellner’sPhilosophyofNationalism?’,inJ.A.Hall,ed.,TheStateoftheNation:ErnestGellnerandtheTheoryofNationalism[Cambridge,1998],40–90;and‘InPraiseofEmpiresPast:MythsandMethodofKedourie’sNationalism’,NewLeftReview,2ndseries,18[2002],106–30),andplantodothesamewithAnthonySmith’swork;thefirstwasmydoctoralexaminerandfriend,thesecondaformercolleagueandchairofmyformerdepartment,andIco-taughtaninterdisciplinaryseminarwiththethirdformanyyears.
‘fascinatingarticle’and‘finetreatment’,andofStephenHowe’s‘judicious’discussionofwhetherIrelandhadacolonialexperience.23Nosimilarauthoritativeness,accomplishment,importance,magnificence,fascination,finenessorjudiciousnessappeartoattachtotheworksofIrishnationalists,theirsympathizers,orempathizers,orthoseacademicscriticalofrevisionists.Nowletmesubmitsomebibliographicalevidence.ThecollectionontherevisionistcontroversyeditedbyGeorgeBoyceandAlanO’Dayisfrequentlycited,whereasthateditedbyCiaranBradyisnot,period.24Woulditbeunjusttoconcludethatisbecauseanti-revisionistsaremorevigorouslypresentinoneoftheseworks?
Asnoted,Englishhopedtoprovide‘anauthoritativebutaccessibleup-to-date,singlevolumeaccountofwhatscholarsnowthinkandknow(orthinkthattheyknow)aboutIrishnationalism’.Thatwouldleadonetoexpectregularpassages,ifonlyinhisnotes,thatwouldbeofthefollowingtype,‘historiansA,B,andConcearguedpropositionx,buthistoriansD,EandFhavediscreditedtheseargumentsbecauseofthefollowingconsiderations,a1,a2,anda3’.Thatstyleofargumentationhappensfairlyrarely.Instead,wearetypicallyandpresumptuouslyexpectedtobelievethateachprofessionalhistoriandrawninsupportofEnglish’sstoryisanimpartialexpert,and,byinference,thatthosewhomtheycriticizearemission-committed,blinkered,orold-fashionednationalists.Rivalviewsaresimplydismissed,andwhereacontroversyisnoted,Englishhasaconsistenthabitofselectingthepositionofthereasonableunionistintherelevantquarrel.Thatwouldbefinewereittobeadmitted,butinsteadtheauthorpresentshimselfasanobjectivea-nationalistratherthanananti-nationalist,letaloneaBritishnationalist,thatis,aunionist.
Explanationsareanswerstoquestionsorpuzzles.Surveysofexplanations,whatthepsychologistscallmeta-reviews,can
beextremelyvaluable.ThepuzzleinIrishFreedomistoknowwhatexactlyisbeingexplained.
1. ArethequestionsorpuzzlesbeingansweredorresolvedinEnglish’sbooksetbythegeneralexplanatoryliteratureintheworksofmajortheoristsofnationalism,forexampletheLondonSchoolofEconomics’ElieKedourie,ErnestGellnerandAnthonyD.Smith?25OrCornell’sBenedictAnderson—orBenedictO’GormanAnderson,togivehimhisfullyhybridIrishnames?Apparentlynot,becausethesetheoristsaresurveyedattheend.Theyarenotusedtomarshalthestory,orstories,ortoresolvecontroversies.Atbestthesurveytellsushowimportantthinkershaveexplainedthesalienceofnationalisminthemodernworld.
2. ArethequestionsbeingansweredsetbythepoliticalclaimsmadebyIrishnationalisthistoriansaboutIreland’spast,forexampleEoinMacNeill,whosebooksarenotcitedinthebibliography?Again,apparentlynot,though‘easypickings’aresoughtagainstpopularhistorianssuchasAliceStopfordGreen,ratherthanengagementswithtougherprofessionalspecimenssuchasJ.J.Lee,L.PerryCurtisJr.,EmmetLarkin,orEunanO’Halpin.
3. ArethequestionsbeingsetbytheclaimsofmobilizedIrishnationalistactivists,pastandpresent,abouttheirisland’spast,suchasthoseofIrishLabour’sJamesConnolly,FiannaFáil’sFrankGallagher(someofwhosebooksarecited),SinnFéin’sGerryAdams,ortheSocialDemocraticandLabourParty’sJohnHume?Yes,inpart.(IndeedEnglishmanagestobegeneroustowardHume).
4. Lastly,dothequestionsflowfromthepoliticalopponentsofIrishnationalism,pastandpresent,whetherunionists,cosmopolitansorself-styledpost-nationalists?
FIElD Day REvIEw
1��
CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
26 IrishFreedom,49527 IrishFreedom,47928 ErnestGellner,Thought
andChange(London,1964),andNationsandNationalism(Oxford,1983)
Infact,onecanfindelementsofallfourinterrogativeagendasinIrishFreedom—thesocialscientific,thoseofthe(actualandpresumed)nationalisthistorians,thebeliefsofpopularpoliticians,andthosewemaydeemtheHibernophobes.Buttheyarescatteredratherthangatheredandconsideredinsequence,andthegeneralreaderwillbeasperplexedasme.Englishneverexplicitlypresentshisexplanatoryagenda.Isthequestion,‘WhydoIrishnationalistsholdthebeliefsthattheydo?’,or‘HowvalidarethebeliefsofIrishnationalists?’,or‘WhydothesetypicalnationalistbeliefsresonateamongsomeIrishpeople?’?Hadtheseseparatepuzzlesbeendistinguishedandevaluatedonemightfeelthatsomeworthwhileexplanationhadbeenaccomplished.
Instead,thebookreadslikeafirstdraft,oratranscriptoflectures.Notinthesensethattheproseisuniformlyweak;thoughitiscareless,andwordy.Hereisanexampleofcarelessness.‘FromearliesttimestheinhabitantsofIrelandwereraciallymixedratherthanjoinedbytiesofblood…’26Now,either,themixtureresultedininterbreeding,inwhichcasetheinhabitantswerejoinedbytiesofblood,or,themixturedidnotresultininterbreeding—inwhichcase,inwhatsensewerethey‘mixed’,otherthanbyresidencyofthesameisland?Itisgoodtobeagainstracism,anideology,butitisnotwisetoconfusebloodtiesandkinshipwithracism.Hereisanexampleoftheneedforpruning:
Frequently,nationalisminvolvestheenforcingofattemptedreversalofpowerimbalances(imposinganationalempire,liberatingacolonyfromimperialcontrol),bymeansoftheuseofpowerasleverage.Muchofthepracticaldefinitionofnationalism—whatitdoes,daytoday;howitaffectspeople’slives;whyitappealssomuchtopeople—involvesquestionsofthedeploymentofpowerasattemptedleverage.27
Everythingitalicizedcouldhavebeenprofitablycut.
Thebook,inshort,hasnotbeenediteddowntoproduceafullycoherentargument.Thecommendableaimingofthetextatthegeneralreaderhasaprice:alotofbasicsociology,anthropologyandindeedevolutionarypsychologyarepresentedclearly,butlaboriously,andoccasionallymisleadingly.PartsTwoandThree,thegeneralhistoryofthenineteenthandtwentiethcentury,donotwork,despitetheirlength,becausetoomuchistakenforgranted,andmorecareisdevotedtotreatingfamousleaders’personalitiesthannarratingthepoliticalhistoryofnationalistorganizations.PartFour,theexplanationofIrishnationalism,turnsouttobeaneighty-pageguidetothegeneralreaderonrecentanglophoneliteratureonnationalism,inwhichaccessibilityleadstothesacrificeofrigouranddepth.Insteadofisolatingarangeoftestablepropositionsonnationalism,andevaluatingthemagainstIrishcase-materials,wearetreatedtoanunobjectionableaccountofwhynationalismhasbeensopersistentlydominantinmanymodernlives.
What might have been done?
Letmeprovideexamplestoillustratemethodologicalunderachievement,lestmycomplaintsseempeevish.IneachofthefiveparagraphsthatfollowItakeanagendafromoneormorethinkers,whoseworksEnglishhasread,ormightreasonablybeexpectedtoknow.TheexerciseprovidesasynopsisoftestablepropositionsandquestionsthatcouldhavebeenthefocusofaproperevaluativehistoriographicalsurveyofIrishnationalism.
ErnestGellner’stheoryofnationalismhasatleasttwotestableimplications:itpredictsnationalismarisinginconditionsofunevenlydevelopedindustrialization;anditpredicts
FIElD Day REvIEw CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
1��
nationalistconflictoverstate-managementofmodern(generic)primary,secondaryanduniversityeducationalsystems.28Italsohasatypologyof‘nationalism-inducing’and‘nationalism-thwarting’situations,usingthreeindependentvariablesacrosstwogroups(accesstopoliticalpower,accesstomoderneducation,andaccess
toamodernhighculture).Thesetestableimplications,andthetypology,couldbeexplicitlyevaluated,modifiedorfalsifiedtoappraisetheirmeritsinconfrontationwithIrishhistoriography.Thatwouldinvolvegrapplingwithdifficultquestions,notablythemeaningof‘highculture’(whichisnotareferencetoatonalmusicandopera).
FIElD Day REvIEw
1��
CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
29 ElieKedourie,Nationalism(London,1960);O’Leary,‘MythsandMethodofKedourie’sNationalism’
30 ElieKedourie,ed.,NationalisminAsiaandAfrica(London,1971)
31 JohnHutchinson,‘CulturalNationalism,EliteMobilityandNation-Building:CommunitarianPoliticsinModernIreland’,BritishJournalofSociology,38,4(1987),482–501;TheDynamicsofCulturalNationalism:TheGaelicRevivalandtheCreationoftheIrishNationState(London,1987);‘MoralInnovatorsandthePoliticsofRegeneration:TheDistinctiveRoleofCulturalNationalistsinNation-Building’,InternationalJournalofComparativeSociology,23,1–2(1992),101–17
32 MichaelHechter,InternalColonialism:TheCelticFringeinBritishNationalDevelopment,1536–1966(London,1975)
Itwouldsuggest,inparticular,adetailedappraisalofresearchonthedevelopmentofschoolingandtertiaryeducationsystems,andthecontroversiestowhichtheygaverise.Thatisnotattempted.ItissimplynotenoughtorejectGellner’sapproachbysayingthatIrishnationalismdevelopedbeforeindustrializationdevelopedinGreatBritain—oneneedstounderstandwhatGellnermeantby‘industrialization’,whichwasmorethansmeltingfurnacesandsmokingfactories,andtoconsiderGellner’sownresponsestoallegedcasesofnationalismbeforeindustrialization,forexampleintheBalkans.Itisalsoessentialtoconsiderwhatunevendevelopmentmightmean,andtousecensus,demographicandeconomicdatatoevaluatematters.ButnotonetablegracesEnglish’sbook,eventhoughhehasreadmanybookswiththerelevantdataonthesematters.
ElieKedourie’stheoryofnationalismclaims—wrongly—thatnationalismwas‘invented’atthebeginningofthenineteenthcentury,aclaimrefutedbyanydispassionatereadingofthelaterwritingsofWolfeToneandothermembersoftheUnitedIrishmenbefore1798.29Kedourie’smoreinterestingclaim,elaboratedinalaterworkonNationalisminAsiaandAfricaandnotdirectlyconsideredbyEnglish,suggeststhatnationalismisspearheadedby‘marginalmen’,thosesituatedbetweennativeandimperialcultures,athomeinneither,andblockedfromattainingthesocialmobilitytowhichtheythinktheireducationentitlesthem.30The‘blockedsocialmobility’thesisispartlyinvestigatedforlatenineteenth-andearlytwentieth-centuryIreland,notablyinaquicksurveyofJohnHutchinson’ssubsequentlypublisheddoctoralthesis,someofwhichiscitedbyEnglish,butnotthecensusdata.31Moreover,noconsiderationisgiventoapplyingtheseinsightsexplicitlyandrigorouslytothesituationofNorthernCatholicsafter1921.
MichaelHechter’srecentwork,ContainingNationalism,ismoreinnovativethanhis
better-knownearlierworkonInternalColonialism—thelatterisnotconsideredbyEnglish,thoughitproducedsomeinterestingdebates.32ContainingNationalismiscited,butsimplyamongthosenumerousbooksthattreatnationalismasamodernbeliefsystem.ContainingNationalismismoreoriginalthanthat,andcouldhavebeenafertilesourceoftestablehypotheses,whichseemtofitwellwithsomeofthematerialsthatEnglishpresents.PartofHechter’sproblematicistoexplainattemptedsecession(thedepartureofanexistingterritoryanditsrespectivepersonsfromastatetocreateanewsovereignnation-state),andthecontainmentofsecession.Secessionispolitical,andhastobeexplainedpolitically,heargues.Hiskeyideaisthatsecessionismisastrategicresponseto‘directrule’,thatis,toapoliticalcentre’sdisplacementoftraditionaléliteswhohaveenjoyedsomedegreeofprovincialautonomy.‘Indirectrule’or‘autonomy’,especiallyifappliedearly,andmaintainedwithflexibility,staunchessecessionistdispositionsthroughtheincorporationofkeypoliticalélites.Anobviousagendasuggestsitself:acomparativeassessmentoftheWelsh,ScottishandIrishdispositiontosecedefromtheUnitedKingdom.Thesuccessful‘containingofnationalism’wasinfactthenorminagrarianempiresinwhichsystemsofindirectruleor‘dualpolities’weretechnologicalnecessities.Bycontrast,themoderncentralizedandpenetrativestate,facilitatedbytheresourcesofindustrializationandmodernmilitarism,disruptsoldermodesofautonomyandisthereforemorelikelytoprovokenationalistresponsesintheperiphery.ThistheoreticallensissuggestiveforIrishhistory.Ittreatsnationalismasadependentvariable,andcentralstateactivityastheindependentvariable.ItskeyhypothesesarethatattemptstoconquerIrelandandtoaccompanythemwithdirectrulefromLondonprovokenationalistresponses—whetherinthereactionsofGaeliclordsunhappywithmetropolitaneffortstomonopolizepoliticalpatronage,orthoseofeighteenth-century
FIElD Day REvIEw CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
1��
33 IanS.Lustick,State-BuildingFailureinBritishIrelandandFrenchAlgeria,ResearchSeries,Number63(Berkeley,1985);UnsettledStates,DisputedLands:BritainandIreland,FranceandAlgeria,IsraelandtheWestBank-Gaza(Ithaca,1993)
Anglo-IrishProtestantPatriotsseekingtogovernIrelandwithoutreferencetoLondon.Hechter’slenssuggeststhataccompanyingcentralizationwithnovelsettlerélites(andtheimportingofmassivelydisruptivewholesettlersocieties)isevenmorelikelytoprovokenationalistresponses.Theapproachsuggeststhatthebreak-upoftheUnionwasthepredictableconsequenceofrefusingahomerulesettlementearlyandflexibly.ItsuggeststhatweshouldreadtheActofUnionasanactofcentralization;andtheGovernmentofIrelandActof1920asabelatedeffortto‘containnationalism’bycreatingtwolocalIrishformsofhomerule.Explainingthefailuretodeliverahomerulesettlementbefore1920inturnrequiresafocusonIrishProtestants(especiallyUlsterProtestants),notasProtestantsperse,butratherintheirhistoricformationasprivilegedsettlers.Hechter,likeGellnerandKedourie,inshort,isnotminedforexplanationinthewayhecouldbe.EventhoughEnglishhasreadallthreeauthors,andsummarizedpartofwhattheysay,hehasnotusedthemforexplanatorypurposes.
Secessionmayalsobeconceivedastheend-pointofarégime’sfailuretorenderaterritory’sstatus‘hegemonic’,thatis,unquestionablypartofthe‘natural’order.PoliticalscientistIanLustick’sUnsettledStates,DisputedLands,notcited,isamajorefforttoexplainwhyBritain,FranceandIsraelrespectivelyfailedtorendertheincorporationofIreland,AlgeriaandtheWestBankandGazaas‘hegemonic’.33Hisanswerliesinrégimeactions,inparticularthefatefuldecisionineachcasetobuildsettlementsdisplacingnativeélitesandsomenativepopulationsbutwithoutentirelyexpellingorexterminatingthenatives.Theexistenceofcolonialentitieswithinparliamentaryrégimesposedasimpledilemma:democratizationandtheexpansionoffullcitizenshipwouldunwindtherespectiveconquestsanddamagetheinterestsofthedescendantsofsettlers.Variationsonthisthesislieattheheartof
manyrecentaccountsofconflictinNorthernIreland.Englishdoesnotexplorethisthesisdirectly,perhapsbecausehehasnotreadLustick’sversion,orperhapsbecausehehasmadehismindupthatsettlercolonialismhasnoroletoplayinexplainingtheblockageofhomerule,partitionorthedevelopmentandmobilizationof(Northern)Irishnationalism.
AfifthsourceofexplanatoryreviewcouldhavearisenfromconsideringwhyIrishnationalistsecessionistmovementshavefailed(mosthave),andwhyonlyonehas(partly)succeeded.Inthewiderworldthenumberoffailedsecessionsalwaysexceedsthenumberofsuccessfulsecessions,andweneedtoexplorebothfailuresandsuccesses.Thatsecessionsfrequentlyfailtestifiestothestrengthofstates,andthedifficultiesfacedbysecessionists.Shouldweseekuniformexplanationsofallattemptedsecessions(orsuccessfulsecessions,orthefailures?).Isgeopoliticswhatmatters?—thatis,whethertherelevantterritoryiscontrolledorcontestedbygreatpowers.Aregeographyandtopographyimportant?Isthepotentiallysecessionistterritorymountainous,insular,contiguous?Isitthemilitarystrategyofthenationaliststhatisdecisivefortheirchances?Ortherégime’scounter-insurgencystrategy?Doesdemocratization—throughtheformationofnewélitesandfollowings—precipitatetheconditionsforsecessionistsuccess?Domaterialfactorsmatter?Istheregionbackwardoradvanced?Theanalyticalquestionscontinuewithoutpause.Whenaresecessionscontested?Whenaretheyaccepted?Incontestedcases,secessionistsarecalled‘separatists’or‘traitorous’,by‘unionists’(or‘federalists’).Thelanguagesuggestsbetrayalwithinthefamily.Aresuchunionistclaims‘nationalist’?Materialisttheoriesofsecessionemphasizeexploitation.Thesecessionistsmayclaimtheyarebeingtaxedwithoutrepresentation.Theymayclaimthelandsystemisexploitative,thatitbenefitssettlers,orthatthetariffsystembenefitsthemetropolis.Thesecessionistsmayarguethatsecessionisin
FIElD Day REvIEw
1��
CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
34 WalkerConnor,‘Eco-orEthno-Nationalism?’,EthnicandRacialStudies,7(1984),342–59
theircollectivematerialself-interest.ThereisanabundanceofIrishhistoriographytotestsuchclaims.Materialistexplanationshaveproblems:Howdowejudgetheircomparativeimportance,asmotivations,orascauses?‘Grouppride’and‘groupself-esteem’mayrelatetoeconomicvariablesinnon-linearways—thatis,groupsmayseekself-governmentevenwhenitisneitherobjectivelynorsubjectivelyintheirmaterialself-interest.‘Ethno-nationalism’maymattermorethan‘eco-nationalism’,asWalkerConnorhascrisplyputit.34TheIrishdata,properlyevaluated,maysustainConnor’sthesis.Culturaltheoriesofsecession,bycontrast,emphasizeculturaldifferences.Thesetheoriesconformwithnationalists’
self-conceptionsoftheirmobilizations;andtheyarewhatEnglishtendstoaccept.Yetsecessionistsmayhavesignificantlyacculturatedintothecultureofthedominantgroupbeforetheysecede.IrishnationalistshadbecomemoreliketheEnglishbeforetheWarofIndependence;NorthernIrishnationalists,itiswidelyagreed,hadbecomemoreliketheBritishbeforethecivilrightsmovementandthelaunchoftheProvisionalIRA.Thedispositiontosecedewithinastatemaynotbestronglyrelatedtoculturaldifferencesbetweenpotentialsecessionistsandthedominantculture:WelshspeakersarefarmoreculturallydifferentiatedfromWestminsterthanworking-classBelfastCatholics.Politicaltheoriesofsecession,
FIElD Day REvIEw CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
1�7
35 IrishFreedom,62–63 bycontrast,generallysuggestthatthreevariablesmatterinexplainingnationalistsupportamong(prospective)citizensofasecessioniststate.Theyarefear(fortheirnation/group—whichmayincludeculturalfears,butmayalsobearesponsetopastoranticipatedrepression);expectationsofprospectsforprosperity;and,lastly,recognition(ofidentityorstatus),thatis,isthegroupinquestionrespectedasanequal,ornot?The‘strongdemocracythesis’suggeststhatdemocraciesstopsecessionsbecausetheyreducefear,enhanceprosperityandsettlerecognitiondisputes(asoptimisticCastilianunionistssayofmodernSpain).TheconverseimplicationisthatIrishnationalismbecamesecessionistbecausetheUnitedKingdomwasnotdemocraticintherightways.ExplainingIrishnationalismthereforerequiresarigorousappraisaloftheBritishstateanditspublicpoliciessince…atleast1798.Thatisnotprovidedinthisbook.
On building bridges between one’s eyes
HavingsuggestedthelinguisticandmethodologicalblindspotsofIrishFreedom,letmeturntotheideologicalfailings,whereobjectiveappraisalisnecessarilymoredifficult.EnglishcriticizesGeraldofWalesforseeing‘historywritingasinvolvingamoraldimension’,buthehasmoralsofhisownwhichheregularlyimparts.HewishestoemphasizethepermanentlyhybridcharacterofIreland’spopulation.Hepreferstoemphasizeinteraction,exchangeanddiffusioninBritish–Irishrelationsratherthanconquest,colonizationandcontrol.HeisolatesandmocksweakpointsinIrishnationalisthagiographyandpoliticalpropagandaratherthanproperlyaddressingthecatastrophicdimensionsinIrishhistorythatprovidedIrishnationalistswiththeirwell-documentedandnon-mythicalresentmentsagainstBritishrule.HeperhapsconcentratestoomuchonpoliticallyradicalIrishnationalists—theUnitedIrishmen,theFenians,theIRA—and
notenoughonmoderateIrishnationalistorganizations—theRepealmovement,theIrishParliamentaryParty,thepartiesofindependentIrelandandofNorthernnationalists.TheideasofIrishliberalsandnon-socialistrepublicansaretreatedwithlessscrutinythanthoseofleftists,socialists,andfascists—whosetasteshavealwaysbeenthoseofdemographicminorities;andIreland’snationalistfeminists,asalways,areratherneglected.DataonclericsperpersonamongProtestantscomparedwithclericsperpersonamongCatholicsarenotprovided.Personaljibesareoccasionallyodd:ErskineChilders’suseofcocaineisremarkedon;itisnotremarkedthatitdidnotstophimfrombeingafirst-classanalystoflegalmaterials.Andsoon.
Ratherthanengageintediousquestioningofeverynormativejudgementofthework,itisbettertoassessitsideologicalcontentbyconsideringwhatitdealswithbrusquely—orignores.IttreatsOliverCromwell’sconquestofIrelandoveronepage.35Noestimatesareprovidedofthetotaldeathtollsthisdeeplyunpleasantmanandhishenchmenproduced,bothinwarandthroughlayingwastefields.WilliamPetty,apioneeringdemographer,suggestedone-thirdofIreland’spopulationdiedasaresultofmassacre,diseaseanddeliberatelyinducedfamineinCromwell’sreconquestofIreland.NoreferenceismadetoCromwell’spartiallyimplementedexpulsionprogrammes,offeringHellasanalternativecondominiumtoresidencyinConnaught.Astatueofthisman—whomIrishnationaliststypicallyconsideragenocidalmurdereroranethniccleanser,orboth—standsoutsidetheHouseofCommonsoftheWestminsterparliament.NocontrastbetterrepresentstherivalnarrativesofEnglishandIrishnation-building.Perhapswecanputmattersinadifferentcomparativeperspective.Whatwouldonethinkofa625-pageofZionismthatminimallyreferencedexpulsionsandmassslaughterofJewsatthehandsofEuropeanrulers?Ora625-pagehistory
FIElD Day REvIEw
1��
CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
36 IrishFreedom,44–4537 IrishFreedom,84–8638 IrishFreedom,83;my
emphases39 Thereareoldandnew
guidestoKeating:GeoffreyKeating,ForasFeasaarÉirinn:TheHistoryofIreland,4vols.,ed.D.ComynandP.S.Dineen(London,1902–14);BernadetteCunningham,TheWorldofGeoffreyKeating:History,MythandReligioninSeventeenthCenturyIreland(Dublin,2000).‘FoundationofKnowledgeofIreland’isabettertranslationofForasFeasaarÉirinnthan‘HistoryofIreland’,saythosewhoknow.
40 IrishFreedom,64–6541 IrishFreedom,65
ofPalestiniannationalismthatdealtwiththesuppressionoftheArabRevoltandtheexpulsionofthePalestiniansoveronelongparagraph,withoutdata?TheCromwellianmassacresarelocallyandinternationally‘contextualized’byEnglish.Heobservesthattheyoccurredafterthe1641massacresofProtestantsettlersinUlster,forwhichafigureof4,000deadisprovided(butwithnocitation);and,moreobscurely,aftertheslaughterofProtestantsinMagdeburgin1631.Englishdoesnotbelievethattoexplainallistoexcuseall,butthistypeof‘contextualization’veerstowardapologetics.
Theneglectofmajorcolonialsettlementsandmomentsofconquestandtheirlong-termrepercussionsisconsistent.Thereismethodhere.TheStatutesofKilkenny(whicharenotquoted),wearetold,‘saidmuchmorethanjustthattheEnglishnessoftheEnglishinIrelandshouldbepreservedfromcorruptingGaelicinfluences,butitisforthisthattheytendtoberemembered’.36ThePenalLawsaretreatedoverapageandhalf,withmostwordsdeployedtheretosuggesttheirnon-implementation.37OnecanonlyexpectsometwocenturieshencethatanAfrikanerhistorianwillemphasizethattheapartheidlawswereoftennotapplied,andfellintodesuetude.IsaythisinresponsetoEnglish’sunexplainedandunjustifiedasidethat‘comparisonsbetweentheIrishPenalLawsandthetwentiethcenturySouthAfricanapartheidsystemareutterlymisconceived’.38
Hewantstoemphasizethecentralityofreligionintheeighteenthcentury,andherethemethodrevealsitself.Ifreligionratherthancolonialismisanalyticallyprimary,thenIrishnationalismcanbepresentedascollective—heprefers‘communal’—sectarianism,ratherthanasmovementstoreversetheconquest(s).Theargumentisthis:ProtestantsfoughtanddisplacedCatholicsfrompowerintheseventeenthcentury;theCatholicpopulationwasnotethnicallyhomogeneous,becauseitwasa
fusionoftheOldEnglishandtheIrish;ergo,itwasnot—then—anethnicconflict,butareligiousconflict.YettheveryfactthatwecantalkoftheNewEnglish,theOldEnglishandtheIrish,andthatEnglishhimselfdoesso,showsthefactofethnicdifferentiation,andconflict.Thatnewsettlersdisplacedprevioussettlersfrompowerdoesnotmeantherewasnodistinctiondrawnbetweencolonizerandcolonized.Rather,thenewconquestandsettlementmeantthattheOldEnglishwhohadacculturatedwiththeIrishwerereclassifiedasIrishCatholics,andaspoliticalinferiors.GeoffreyKeating’swork,notcited,foundationalforIrishnationalism,deliberatelysoughttoincorporatetheOldEnglishintoasharedGaelicnationalpastinoppositiontotheimperialNewEnglish.39Theallegationthatreligionwasthegreatdivide—ratherthanthemajormarkerofthedistinctionbetweencolonizerandthecolonized—issaidbyEnglishtodemolish‘anyneatsensethatIrishnationalism-versus-unionisminvolvedanative-settlerdivision:notonlyweremanymodernIrishunionistsnotdescendedfromthePlantation[sic!],butmanyofthesupposednationalist“natives”werethemselvesdrawnfromcomparativelyrecentwavesofimmigration’.40Thisstatementismostrevealing.Settlersaccompanyingconquestsareconflatedwithvoluntaryeconomicimmigrants.Englishassumes,withoutcitation,that‘many’modernIrishunionistsarenotdescendedfromthePlantationsettlers.Suchstatementsaretypical,butIhaveneverseenthemstatisticallyverified,ordocumented,eitherbydemographersorgeneticists.Theymaybetrue,dependingonwhatwemeanby‘many’.Iftheyaretrue,thatmeanstheremusteitherbeextensiveevidenceofconversion,intermarriageorillicitsexacrossthereligiousboundary,orextensiveevidenceofimmigrationofProtestantsintoIrelandsincetheeighteenthcentury,orsomeconjunctionofsuchphenomena,which,peculiarly,escapedtheattentionofcontemporariesandsubsequenthistorians.
FIElD Day REvIEw CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
1�9
AsfortheassimilationoftheOldEnglishandtheGaelicIrish,thisiswellattested,anddeniedbynone,andwascelebratedbyGeoffreyKeating(c.1569–1644),butthisassimilationoccurredoutsideofUlster,becausethelatterwasconqueredlate.
English’sideologicalperspectiveisplain:letusnotcodetherecentconflictasasettler–
nativeconflict.Asheputsit,‘canpeopleborninacountry,andpossessingancestorstherewhodatebackverymanyyears,reallybedelegitimizedasinauthenticsettlers?WouldthisbeanargumenttodeployagainstAmericanswithIrish,orPolish,orGerman,orItalianancestry,oragainstPakistanisorWestIndiansincontemporaryEngland?’41Therhetoricisrevealing,butthemoral
FIElD Day REvIEw
170
CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
heatleadstolossofintellectualcontrol.Ifthereisany‘delegitimizing’goingon,itispresumablybecausepeopleareallegedtobeauthenticratherthaninauthenticsettlers—ordescendantsofsuchsettlers.Theargumentconflatesvoluntaryimmigrants(theIrishandPolesinAmericaandthePakistanisandWestIndiansinEngland)withsettlercolonialistswhodispossessednatives.Mostimportantly,theslippagerevealshowpoliticallyimportantitisforhimtocodethekeyconflictsofrecenttimesasreligiousratherthanasrootedinapastsettler–nativeconfrontation.TheformercodingsuggeststhattheCatholicsofIrelandbecomethehistoricalproblem;thelattercodingsuggeststhattheBritishstateanditssettlersbecomethehistoricalfocus.TheserespectivewaysofframingIrishhistoryarenotlikelytoberesolvedbyempiricalevidence,asEnglish’scavalierapproachtoevidenceonthiscrucialmattersuggests.Butbothframingsshouldbeevaluatedproperlyinanylargescaleexplanatoryevaluation.42ItdoesnotoccurtoEnglishthattousesettlercolonialismasakeyfactorinexplainingIrishnationalism’sstrengthhasnonecessaryconsequenceforpoliticalprescription.Itdoesnotfollowthatanysettlers’descendantsshouldbeexpelled.ItdoesnotfollowthattheirpresenceinIrelandisnowpoliticallyillegitimate,evenifsomesayso.Explanationandprescriptionarenotalwaystightlycoupled.
ForEnglish,thekeyquestionofmodernIrishhistoryis‘WhydidtheReformationfailinIreland?’Theassumptionisthathaditnotfailed,therewouldhavebeenalmostnoIrishCatholics,andergo,noIrishnationalism.Hereviewsarangeofexplanationsforthisfailure,including:thelackofroyalwill(includingclosetCatholickings);thelackofstatecapacity;thestrengthofreformedCatholicinstitutions;and‘thelackofguile,craftandsubtletyinvolvedintheattemptedProtestantimplementation’.Hesaysthat‘Numerousmistakesweremade.RatherthandealingwiththerelevantIrishelites…asallies,theTudorrégime
increasinglyreliedinsteadonthepolicyofplantationorsettlement’.43AndtheypreachedProtestantisminEnglishratherthanGaelic.These‘mistakes’,aswearetocallthem,madeProtestantismseemforeign,and‘theReformationcametobeseenasanEnglish,foreignimposition…Incontrast…Catholicismcametobeseenasnativeandindigenous’—eventhough,ashehasspenttimetryingtoestablish,IrishCatholicism(viaSt.Patrick)wasaBritishimport.44TheTudors,likeanyotherpolicymakers,werecapableoferrors,buttheyembarkeduponcolonialsettlementsforareason.TheywantedtosecureIreland.ThefailureofthenewProtestantstopreachextensivelyinIrishmayalsohavebeennomistake:seekingconversionacrossthelinguisticboundarywouldhaveremovedthebarriersbetweenthenewcolonistsandtheIrish.
Alastreflection.NohistoryofIrishnationalismcanavoidevaluationofviolence,includinginsurgentviolence,staterepressionandparamilitarybrutality.Englishhasanentirelycommendabledistasteforviolence.ButheisnotimpartialbetweenhisstateandIrishnationalists.HecitesMichaelDavittfortheviewthat‘England’sruleofIrelandisgovernmentbyphysicalforce,andnotbyconstitutionalmethods’,andobservesthatsuchviewscouldlegitimate‘cruelandawfulacts’.45YethedoesnotdirectlyengageDavitt’sthesiswitharguments.ThereisaconsistentunderemphasisinhisbookontherepressiveandilliberalnatureofBritishruleinIreland—ajudgementthatisnotintendedtojustifyasinglekillingbyanyIrishnationalist,pastorpresent.GeneralLake’scoercionofUlsterbeforethe1798uprising,thepolicesurveillanceofnineteenth-centuryrepublicans,theundemocraticnatureoftheUnioninIreland,internmentwithouttrialin1971,tonamebutafewexamples,arenotgiventheirappropriatehistoricalweightandimpact.
HewritesofRobertEmmetthat‘intruththenotionthatIrishfreedomcouldbewonand
42 JohnMcGarryandBrendanO’Leary,ExplainingNorthernIreland:BrokenImages(Oxford,1995)
43 IrishFreedom,5244 IrishFreedom,5345 IrishFreedom,213
FIElD Day REvIEw CUTTlEFISH, CHOlESTEROl aND SAOIRSE
171
Irishdifferencesresolvedthroughviolenceremainsasquestionablenowasitwasin1803’.46IndependentIrelandobtaineditsfreedomthroughbothdemocraticandviolentmeans.Itsindependencewasresistedbothbycoercionandundemocraticmeans.Afteraverylongperiodofviolence,NorthernIrelandnowhasanadmirablepoliticalsettlement.ItwouldbepleasanttoconcludethatbothofIreland’scurrentpoliticalrégimescouldhavematerializedwithoutviolencebyIrishnationalists,but,regrettably,nothinginEnglish’sbookcompelsthisconclusion.
Spinoza,thefirstmodernseculardemocraticrepublican,declaredthatthepurposeofthestateispoliticalfreedom.Thetypicalmobilizingpurposeofpoliticalnationalismisfreedomfromanempireorfromastatethatblockscollectiveself-governmentorotherwisemaltreatsanation.Ireland’snationalistsdidnotwinself-governmentfromtheBritishstatebyexclusivelypeacefulmeans.Itisunclearthattheycouldhave
doneso.Ireland’shistorywithintheUnionofGreatBritainandIreland,andNorthernIreland’ssubsequenthistorywithintheUnionofGreatBritainandNorthernIreland,isareproachtothosewhofavourregulatingnational,ethnicandreligiousdifferencesthroughintegrationistandunitarygovernment.Integrationhasitsplacewithimmigrantminorities;butitcannotsettlenationalminorities.TheprospectiveresolutionoftheNorthernIrelandconflictshowsthemeritsofconsociationalandfederalphilosophies,institutions,policiesandnorms.AmoreflexibleBritishstatemighthavebeenabletodeliverafederalreconstructionoftheIslesinthenineteenthcentury,whichwouldhaveleftIrelandassociatedwithbutnotsubordinatedtotheBritishstate.Itdidnotdosopartlybecauseitwasinthegripofanimperialistunionism—aBritishnationalism.YetRobertEmmet’sepitaphmaybewrittenbecausehiscountryhastakenitsplaceamongthefreenationsoftheearth.
46 IrishFreedom,123
