debates essay

The 'myth' as a narrative inthe discourse of civilisation has served and continues to serve a myriad
of functions. The political myth offers explanations for political phenomena for certain social
groups,the religiousmythprovidesexpressionforthe will of aparticular creedor denomination and
the national myth aims to provide an inspiring narrative to extol the virtues of a nation or indeed
deride those of another.Whateachof these varietieshave incommonhowever is the fact that they
are essentiallyfictitiousandare therefore (atleastinthe free world) exposedto rigorous scrutiny by
academicsof many different professions such historians, political scientists, sociologists etc. Since
the time of Copernicus, empirical and scientific reasoning has asserted itself as the legitimate
barometerbywhichto measure andevaluate age old 'bona fide' theories and hypotheses, be they
historical,spiritual orcultural. Infact,it istrue to say that since Galileo establishedthe ideaof asun-
centreduniverse andthusundermined the 'divineword'of the Bible,ithascome to be believedthat
in all matters of truth seeking, tradition, legend and myth have become encumbrances and in the
pursuit of truth (in any field) academics must constantly strive to overcome such obstacles. In this
atmosphere of meticulous scholarly analysis, quite literally nothing is sacred. It should be of no
surprise therefore that historians and schools of history have come to dispute national myths and
historical narratives regardless of what 'scriptural' essence has been ascribed to such narratives in
the past.
This form of historical analysis (though I am loath to recognise it) is called 'revisionism' and in this
essayI will attemptto illustrate how revisionist schools of history challenge national myths. In the
context of this work I make little distinction between the notion of 'national myth' and that of
'popular narrative'. It stands to reason that whilst there may be a history behind the myth, and a
semblance of fact buried in the myth itself, this cannot be automatically regarded as history. The
popularnarrative caneasilybecome mythologizedanditisthe jobof anygood historian (sans label)
to deconstruct it and present us with a more accurate understanding of past events. In order to
demonstrate how this is done, I will investigate three historical debates in the hope of shedding
some lightonthe methods,consequencesandultimatelythe importance of contemporaryhistorical
inquiry. The 'local'debatesIwill use concern the 1798 rebellion and the Irish war of Independence
(specificallythe Kilmichael Ambush 1920). But, to provide a more global perspective; I will analyse
the Shoah/Holocaust in terms of the momentous and far reaching "Ordinary men/Ordinary
Germans" debate instigated by Daniel Goldhagen in 1996. It is my hope that each of these will
provide some common insights into the various aspects and characteristics of so called 'revisionist
history';insightsalsocommontocountlessothernarrativesthatoccupy that incomprehensibly vast
ocean of prior collective human experience.
"The question of the perpetrator is indisputably one of the most central to understanding the
Holocaust"1
,notsurprisingly,itisalsotheythe mostcontentiousandhasbeensince the Nuremburg
trials1945-46. HoweverwhenDaniel Goldhagen, a young political scientist burst onto the scene in
1996 witha publication entitled'Hitler'sWillingExecutioners'amoststridentassertion was made as
to the true nature of the perpetrators and how it was they came to be responsible for the worst
instance of genocide in recorded history. Goldhagens polemic offered (in his mind at least) a fully
1 The "WillingExecutioners/ Ordinary Men" Debate, Selections from the Symposium, April 1996,Michael
Berenbaum, Introduction,pg 3.

comprehensive 'catch all' explanation for the systematic extermination of six million people. This
explanationwasgroundedquite simplyin whatGoldhagenperceivesas the endemic anti- semitism
of the German people themselves. This particular 'brand' of anti-Semitism surpassed all other
Europeanand western varietiesintermsof malevolentanimusandwas as much part of the German
cultural identity as their own language. By expounding his theory of 'eliminationist anti-semitism'
unique toGermanidentity anddevelopedoverthe course of centuries Goldhagen challenged what
he perceived to be the universalist narrative which dominated (and continues to dominate)
scholarlydiscourse of the Shoah at the time. This universalist approach as viewed by Goldhagen in
laymen'stermsiseasiestexplainedby the age old pretext of 'just following orders' which has been
used ad nauseam as justification for countless crimes against humanity throughout the course of
humanhistory. Of course thissimplisticattitude doesnot go far when trying to counter Christopher
Brownings ground breaking work 'Ordinary Men' published a few years previous. Brownings
heretofore unique investigation intothe actions, intentions and psyche of one police battalion and
their involvement in the final solution in Poland went some distance in setting a new tone for
academic research and discussion in the area.
Both Browning and Goldhagen concentrated their energies on this same police battalion 101, but
their conclusions were manifestly different. For the latter, these men epitomised the wider
animosity towards Jews and lesser races shared by the wider German public and were perfectly
happyto volunteertheireffortstothe eradication of these lesser peoples. For the former historian
however, they provided a veritable mirror of the complexities of German and indeed wider
European attitudes and psychology at play in the context of nationalism, racism, war and ethnic
cleansing. These attitudes were not unique to the Germanic people as demonstrated by the
involvement of Luxembourgers in the same battalion or on a much broader international scale the
zealous activities of the Hungarian government when deporting their own Jewish population.
Goldhagensfailuretoacknowledgeanti-semitism in a proper inclusive European manner according
to Browningmeans"he viewseventsthrougha single narrow vantage point that blocks out context
and perspective."2
In the absence of such a perspective, no true explanation can be forthcoming.
Without delving any further into the intricate particularities of this debate we must consider the
significance of what has been dubbed 'the Goldhagen Phenomenon' and how it is relevant to the
subjectat handi.e. historical revisionism.Goldhagen offered a patently different counter narrative
to the prevailing(albeitstill recent) one of ourtime andthe reactionto itwas explosive if not (as has
beenafore suggested)'phenomenal'.Salesof his 'Willing Executioners' skyrocketed worldwide yet
"the enthusiasticwelcome of the public was as warm as the impatient dismissal of most historians
was cool."3
The reactionfromacademiccirclesfilledmore columninchesthanthe bookalone and as
such, it is possible that the controversy aroused by its publication threatened to overshadow the
metahistorical significance of the Holocaustitself.Surely this was not the intended consequence of
manyyears of researchby eitherGoldhagen,Browning or the multitude of historians who engaged
in the debate. But unfortunately that is what Goldhagens 'revisionist' tome succeeded in doing.
Ratherthan reallycontributingtoasearch for historical truth he may well have just "left us with an
2 The "WillingExecutioners/ Ordinary Men" Debate, Selections from the Symposium, April 1996,Christopher
Browning, pg 21
3 Structure and Agency in the Holocaust:Daniel J.Goldhagen and His Critics,A.D. Moses, History and Theory,
Vol .37, No. 2, pg 194

image of a medieval-like incubus, a demon latent in the German mind, which had been waiting for
an opportunitytostrike out."4
RecentscholarshipconcerningnumerousNazi personalities including
those present at the infamous Wannsee Conference disputes any such stereotyping and presents
manyof those involvedatall levelsof the Final Solution as rational and intelligent human beings. If
that be the case, 'Hitler'sWillingExecutioners' may be regarded as no more helpful than a Stephen
King novel in our quest for understanding of the most terrible event in contemporary European
history.
Why thenwas it so popular? Hans Mommsen opined that "they (the public) don't want to hear the
historical truth. They don't want to accept the triviality of this process (of systemic mass murder).
They are far more attracted to myths, which historians are not in the business of making."5
No
doubt there is a terrible and dubious convenience in imagining the Germans as some barbaric
people more capable than most of committing evil deeds. Indeed, what better way for a French,
British or Belgian imperial apologist to nullify their own outrages on the African continent than to
measure them alongside the nightmares of Auschwitz and Treblinka. The scope for jingoistic
hypothesisingisendless. However, (returningtoMommsen) appealingtosome code of professional
historianorthodoxyhardlyservestodomuchmore than polarise those in academia from the wider
laypopulace. It must also be remembered that it is still too early to properly quantify Goldhagens
contribution tothe narrative andit mightbe more productive forhistoriansto use this phase in said
narrative toreflectonthe more enduring issues of Holocaust research. That is, those issues that go
beyond a particular current framework. Of course, therein lies one potent challenge posed by
historical revisionism on both a national and indeed global level.
Since the 1930s in Ireland, there has been a concerted effort on the part of some of the country's
leadinghistorians (T.W.Moody,D.B.QuinnandR. DudleyEdwards) totransformIrishhistoriography
whichto theirmindhadbeen"subordinatinghistorical truthtothe cause of the nation"6
. This effort
was further reinforced by the eruption of the troubles in the north of Ireland from the late sixties
onwards whereby it was perceived that nationalist mythology "offered legitimation to the
Provisional IrishRepublicanArmy"7
andtheirterroristactivities.Thistheyfelthadtobe counteredin
order to 'liberate' the Irish people from these mythologies and pave a way towards peaceful
reconciliation with our Saxon neighbours. Thus Irish historical Revisionism was born. In the
proceeding decades Ireland has been treated to a wealth of 'new' interpretive histories many of
whomhave challengedthe standard conventionsthatportrayedold Ireland as the noble oppressed
colony constantly trying to break the chains of serfdom imposed by a cruel and heartless empire.
Luminariesof the IrishRepublicantraditionsuchasPadraigPearse,Wolfe Tone andRogerCasement
have come underparticularscrutinyas a resultof thisshiftinthe historiographical paradigm.Forthe
purposesof thisessayhowever,Iwill concentrate chieflyonone republican personality (Tom Barry)
4 The Goldhagen Phenomenon, Raul Hilberg,Critical Inquiry,Vol.23,No 4 (Summer, 1997) pg 727
5 Structure and Agency in the Holocaust:Daniel J.Goldhagen and His Critics,A.D. Moses,History and Theory,
Vol .37, No. 2, pg 197
6 "Varieties of Irishness":Historical Revisionism,Irish Style,Nancy J. Curtin, Journal of British Studies,Vol.35,
No. 2, Revisionism,1996,pg195.

and howhisownversion/popularnarrative of a particularepisode inthe IrishWarof Independence
(the Kilmichael Ambush) has been hotly contested in this atmosphere of insistent revisionist
historiography.
From the outset,itmustbe acknowledged that The Kilmichael Ambush was no minor 'skirmish' but
a daring and bloody military engagement in which a group of semi trained Irish rebels killed
seventeenmembersof anelite anti IRA force in the field of battle. It delivered a profound shock to
the establishmentandimmediately became one of the most celebrated republican victories in the
historyof Anglo/Irishconflict. Unsurprisingly,certainaspectsof the ambush may have been glossed
over, ignored or simply forgotten about through the passing of time. One contentious aspect
howeverhas refusedto exitthe discourse and has prompted extensive debate in recent years due
in the main to the probing of Newfoundland native and Queens University Professor Peter Hart.
WhenHart disputedTom Barry'sclaimthat a 'false surrender'wasissuedbythe Auxiliaries resulting
in further fatalities on both sides, he effectively accused Barry of war crimes. According to Hart,
Barry was systematic in his deceit about the circumstances with regard to the closing stages of the
attack and afterwards,dictatedanarrative thatwas "riddledwithliesandevasions"andthat"There
was nofalse surrenderashe describedit.The surviving Auxiliaries were simply 'exterminated'."8
If
this was the case then one of the most distinguished republican personalities of the era was a
flawed and callous murderer. Hart further suggests that Barry may have felt slighted by the British
Armywithwhomhe servedonthe continentoverhispension and this, coupled with a young man's
desire torebel againsthisfatheriswhatendearedhimto the republicancause rather than any deep
rooted love of liberty. "To Tom Barry, revolution meant combat and killing, and he used this
yardstick to judge everyone else. He was a hard man obsessed with his own hardness."9
Harts
descriptionof Barrycouldscarcelybe less hostile. As controversial as all this sounds however, such
assertionsare notout of place (at leastnotin the worldof academia) whenconsideringRuth Dudley
Edwards treatment of Patrick Pearse (a latent paedophile dreamer) in 1977 or Marianne Elliott's
portrayal of Wolfe Tone as a disaffected outsider in 1989.
Hart also investigated the 'Dunmanway Killings' in county Cork in which thirteen Protestants were
shot by the IRA over a two day period during the truce in 1922. According to Hart, this was a
sectarian massacre with no political motive whatsoever. This claim, though fiercely disputed runs
very much counter to the plebeian narrative in Ireland which claims to distinguish between the
'good' IRA (1918-1922) and the 'bad' i.e. the Provos (1969-present). This narrative suggests that
there is no connection between the 'honourable' flying columns of Cork and the balaclava clad
terroristsof moderntimes.Bypointingoutthatsectariankillings took place on a considerable scale
long before the Provisionals were assimilated Hart inadvertently established an ideological link
betweenthe twoandunderminedthe notionthatthese were twoveryseparate republicanentities.
For the modern day commentator it may not take a seismic leap to identify 'common cause'
betweenthe shootersatDunmanwayorthose responsible for the 'Kingsmill Massacre' in 1976. As a
result of these altered narratives within modern Irish historical scholarship it often happens that
"traditional villains have been rehabilitated to some extent while a cold eye has been cast on
8 The IRA and its Enemies, Violenceand Community in Cork 1916-1923,Oxford,1998, Peter Hart, Pg 36.
9 The IRA and its Enemies, Violenceand Community in Cork 1916-1923,Oxford,1998, Peter Hart, Pg 32.

traditional heroes."10
The danger here of course is that good historical research could become
subordinate to a negative bias that potentially generates sympathy to the point of apologetic for
the formerrulingclass and otherswho held positions of power. Such are the consequences of Irish
style revisionism and to counter such a bias is the new challenge.
The popular narrative concerning the 1798 rebellion has been subject to numerous variations and
revisions since the bloodletting in Wexford resulted in the deaths of thirty thousand rebels,
militiamen and English soldiers in the space of a few short months."It stands as the most
concentrated outbreak of violence in recorded Irish history."11
The paradigm has been constantly
shifting in accordance with various folklorist interpretations, repressed memory, ideological bias
withinthe scholarlycommunityandindeedthe changingpolitical landscape of the country over the
course of two centuries. Most recently, during the bi centenary commemorations in 1998 certain
interpretations(andindeedomissions) were positivelyencouragedbythe political establishment in
the Republic . The idea was to present a portrait of the time that would appeal most to the
sensitivitiesof the northernunionistpopulationwhowere nervouslycommitting to the Good Friday
Agreement(theninitsinfancy).Asaresultof thisagendamany narratives and counter narratives of
the periodwere put forward, old narratives were also dug up in attempts to frame the rebellion in
accordance withthe interpretations of differenthistoriansand beliefsof various political groupings.
A multitude of booksandarticleswere published andalotof airplaywasdedicatedto the subject, it
was a golden age for revisionist and anti revisionist debate. These narratives and how they were
structuredand challengedare worthyof some seriousconsiderationhere,astheyperfectlyillustrate
the multi faceted and curious nature of modern historiography in Ireland.
When Wolfe Tone and the rest of his compatriots in the United Irishmen affirmed their desire to
unite 'Protestant,CatholicandDissenter'underthe commonname of Irishmanit seemed to signal a
newdawnfor republicanpoliticsinthe westof Europe.The egalitarian and secular principles of the
French Revolution and the Enlightenment were taking root in the soil of a religiously divided and
polarisedisland.However, when the rebellion took place in 1798 it became hard to identify where
and howthese honourable principleswere sharedamongstthe commonpeasantswhomade up the
bulkof the rebel army.Suchnoble sentimentsare rarelywitnessedduringtimesof warand it should
not be ignored that despite the best intentions of the United leadership these sentiments were
almost totally absent both on and off the battlefield. Suffice to say, there existed a considerable
ideological disconnectbetweenthe middle classupperechelonsof the movementandthe labouring
pikemen on the ground. This disconnect most be bore in mind if a definitive and accurate
interpretation of the period is to be established.
The orthodox take on the PeoplesRising"wasshapedbyfittingthe narrative tothe over-neatgrid of
a military campaign, a tradition which also foregrounded its heroic aspects."12
To have done this
accordingto Tom Dunne was to ignore the profoundeffectthatsectarianismhad on the events that
took place during those turbulent months. The obscenity of this sectarian mindset revealed itself
11 Remembering 1798,The Irish Story.pg 214, (sourced on Blackboard,no further publication detailsprovided)
12 Rebellions Memoir, Memory and 1798,Tom Dunne, The LilliputPress Dublin,pg131.

most markedly through the burning to death of approximately two hundred innocents in a barn in
Sullabogue near New Ross in June of 98. The massacre was committed by the Irish insurgents
(possibly ordered by a rebel priest Fr Bryan Murphy) and most if not all the victims were non
combatant Protestants including women and children. No single outrage during the period ran so
obviouslycontrarytothe afore mentionedidealsof the UnitedIrishleadership, most of whom were
Protestantsthemselves.Motivesbehind the slaughter are unclear, but what motives could explain
or evennegate suchcarnage.Unsurprisingly,when the time came to commemorate the Rising, the
Irish government was unwilling to encourage any deeper analysis of the episode. Should a true
account of it enterthe popularnarrative itmightunnerve the northernunionistpopulation,apeople
everybitas prone to feelings of historical victimhood as those of a nationalist bent. What analysis
was affordedtothe massacre generallyserved to downplay the powerful sectarian dimension that
existednotjustoutside the doorof the inferno but also in the wider geographical area occupied by
the rebels. With some justification so called 'revisionists' expressed their indignation. Most
frustratingforsome wasthe fact thathistorianslike Kevin Whelan who had previously detailed the
sectarian nature of the fighting in numerous 'revisionist' articles were now actively involved in
minimising its significance. Whelan, a notable historian well regarded for; among other things
artfully debunking the myth of the 'patriot priest' and highlighting many rebel outrages during the
fightingwasnow(accordingtosome) aidinginthe subordinationof the historical truth(that Moody,
DudleyEdwards etal hadstrove to save) to some political cause of the nation. No doubt some 'anti
revisionists' delighted in tasting the sweet dripping irony of it all. This characteristic of the debate
may promptquestionsastothe resolve possessedbysome revisionists when they are brought into
the mainstream discourse of the populace.
The widerhistoryandmembershipof the UnitedIrishmenhasalsocome inforconsiderable scrutiny
and isworthmentioninghere.NancyCurtainsworkremains unsurpassed in this particular area and
her dispassionate but fair analysis of the origins of the movement has served to neutralise the
romanticfire generatedbythe manyballadsandfanciful epicsof the time.Crucially,she argues that
"increased membership took priority over ideological conversion"13
and that as a result were
"weakenedatthe outsetof theirrevolutionarycampaignbyexploiting rather than confronting class
and sectariandifferences."14
She furtherinvestigatesthe alliance between the United Irishmen and
the avowedlyCatholicDefenders,asomewhatirresponsible alliance (onthe partof the United men)
considering the militantly bigoted psyche of the latter. However, by raising such pertinent issues
Curtinforcesus to re-evaluate that which has been mythologized from the period and perhaps we
woulddowell to considerthat"ratherthan fostering the union of all Irishmen, the republicans and
theirrebellionprecipitatedthatvery unwanted union of Ireland with Great Britain and contributed
to the institutionalisation of sectarian conflict in Ulster."15
13 The Transformation of the Society of United Irishmen into a Mass-Based Revolutionary Organisation,Nancy
J. Curtin,Irish Historical Studies,1985 pg464.

Having examined how revisionist schools of history challenge national myths, we must also
acknowledge how effective these challenges are. Deconstructing a myth may be simple in and of
itself andevenformulatinganalternative narrative to take its place may not be overly problematic
for a goodhistorian,but to posit such a narrative in the same space and have it held with the same
regard as the former can be very tricky indeed. As Raul Hilberg points out in relation to the
Goldhagendebate "The growthof knowledge is slow and painful, and it takes time, often decades,
before detailedinformationisabsorbedbya community of historians, let alone the wider public"16
He goes further by stating "Thus the cloud Goldhagen created will hover over the academic
landscape will notsoon disperse."17
This 'cloud' is present not just in the field of Holocaust studies
but overa multitude of contentioushistorical debates worldwide and as we have seen in this essay
much closer to home. In a country where historical discourse is often 'informed' (amongst the
plebeianmajorityatleast) byimaginative rebel songs,irresponsible film making and familial voting
traditions the cloud may seem especially dense and stubborn. However, it is the responsibility of
every good historian, whether classified as a revisionist or no to tackle that cloud and attempt to
create a more transparentnarrative for the sake of posterity and a healthy national consciousness.
It isa noble cause andhistorianshave neverbeen better placed to address the challenge. In recent
decadesthere hasbeenaplethoraof new researchmethodologiesandtechniquesintroducedtothe
area of academic research and the continuing 'opening up' of national archives provide for any
number of mouth watering possibilities in the field. It obviously remains that historical fact is still
fact, but historiography is transient and just like all other disciplines is subject to change. A good
historian may or may not prompt such a change, but either way his/her actions should serve to
undermine the trite aphorisms of Napoleon and Churchill whereby "history is a set of lies agreed
upon" or that it is simply "decided by the victors".

Bibliography/Sources
 The Aims of History, David Thompson, 1969.
 OrdinaryMen,Reserve Police Battalion101 and The Final Solution in Poland, Christopher R.
Browning Penguin Edition, 2001.
 The Goldhagen Phenomenon, Raul Hilberg, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 23, No 4 (Summer, 1997),
pp.721-728.
 The "Willing Executioners"/"Ordinary Men" Debate, Daniel J. Goldhagen, Christopher R.
Browning, Leon Wieseltier, Michael Berenbaum, Selections from the Symposium April 8,
1996 (sourced on Blackboard.)
 Structure and Agency in the Holocaust: Daniel J. Goldhagen and His Critics, A. D. Moses,
History and Theory, Vol .37, No. 2 (May 1998). pp. 194-219
 Guerrilla Days in Ireland, Tom Barry, Anvil Books Edition, 1999.
 Tom Barry IRA Freedom Fighter, Meda Ryan, Mercier Press, 2003.
 The IRA and its Enemies Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923, Peter Hart, Oxford,
1998.
 Terror in Ireland 1916-1923, David Fitzpatrick (ed), Dublin, 2012.
 Rebellions Memoir, Memory and 1798, Tom Dunne, The Lilliput Press Dublin (sourced on
Blackboard).
 Rememberingthe Yearof the French,IrishFolk History and Social Memory, Guy Beiner, The
University of Wisconsin Press, (sourced on Blackboard).
 Remembering 1798, The Irish Story. (sourced on Blackboard, no further publication details
provided).
 "Varietiesof Irishness":Historical Revisionism, Irish Style, Nancy J. Curtin, Journal of British
Studies, Vol .35, No 2, Revisionisms (April, 1996) pp. 195-219
 NationalismandHistorical ScholarshipinModernIreland,BrendanBradshaw,IrishHistorical
Studies, Vol. 26, No. 104 (November, 1989), pp. 329-359
 The Transformation of the Society of United Irishmen into a Mass-Based Revolutionary
Organisation, Nancy J. Curtin, Irish Historical Studies, 1985

debates essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to debates essay

Similar to debates essay (19)

debates essay