Saving Ireland from ‘the revisionists’, or firefighting the truth?
If you think northerners are bad at rucking over history, try this controversy over one documentary programme about Richard and Abraham Pearson, two Protestant brothers were killed by the IRA back in June 1921, at their home in Offaly has fanned some very large flames on an RTE phone-in programme. Ann Marie Hourihane in today’s Irish Times picks up the story:
Irish history is so fragile to some, and so sacred, that they confidently assert that the Pearson brothers must have been British spies, members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, not pacifists at all but given to taking pot shots at IRA men, arrogant towards their Catholic neighbours – in other words, asking for it.It appears impossible for these people, standing guard over Irish history, even to countenance the possibility that the Pearsons were innocent men.
And so we had the strange sound of Joe Duffy speculating on the question of whether you can have a court martial without the defendants (that would be the Pearson brothers) being present, and whether members of the Cooneyite sect – to which the Pearsons belonged – would have even owned a shotgun, considering that the Cooneyites were widely believed to have been pacifist.
All this on a radio programme going out live on a busy weekday in November 2007. This group of people – which seems to be quite small – seems happy to talk and argue tirelessly on the most minor details of the Pearson killings in their efforts to justify them.
The trigger was an RTE documentary called Hidden Histories, which explored the case of the Pearson brothers in some depth, charting the eventual hounding of the family into emigration after the killing. Several have joined in with the counter blast, not least Pat Muldowney at the Village, who argues the documentary ignored the findings of a British Military Court of Inquiry. Hourihane again:
Thousands of us enjoyed the Hidden History television documentary about the Pearson killings simply because we had never heard about them before.
It aroused the suspicion in us that there are other stories like it – and we have no way of knowing how many, or how few, there might be – burning underground, stories that live on in the families of those who suffered, passed on in the deep privacy of family life so that, as one man told me last week: “It’s as if it would be disloyal to talk about it.”
He meant that it was as if it would be disloyal to talk about it in public. Within his family such matters were not discussed routinely, but only when he and his father were feeling particularly close to each other.
They became a family secret, in a country too full of family secrets. And so these stories, these whispers, are lost to the larger, Catholic population – perhaps forever.
It might be time now for the larger, Catholic population to ask itself: are we happy about this? Would we like to look at this small slice of our history, not in order to condemn men and women long dead, but because it is interesting and true?
See also: Indymedia and Niall Meehan in Counterpunch and the Offaly Historical and Archeological Society all of which argue that this is all as a revisionist attempt to re-write history.
http://www.independent.ie/unsorted/features/speak-it-in-a-whisper–irish-ethnic-cleansing-1200486.html
the story is well covered in the irish Independent, what is amazing is the enduring “justitication of two brutal murders”. Curiously today we see another attempted murder and amazingly the condemnation by the D. First Minister, can be read, it’s wrong today – but a few years ago this wouldn’t have been wrong.
irish history is littered with dreadful murders, attacks, and explusions, none of which were or are justifiable, but amazingly they are still “explained”
The relevance for today – well it just proves any hope of truth and reconcilliation for this society is light years away. If after 80 odd years we can’t accept that these were just two dispicable murders, what hope have we of coming to terms with the last 40 years
Ye gods – so much for the ‘two sides to every story’ school of history, if you’re the Offaly Historical and Archeological Society that is. They should invite David Irving over sometime for an encore…
‘The lecture will give an in-depth profile and analysis of the spies and informers executed by the Offaly IRA. Who were they, why did they inform and to what extent did they damage the IRA? Philip McConway will attempt to answer these and other pertinent questions such as the role of ex-soldiers in the Intelligence War. The activities of the Pearson family of Coolacrease, Cadamstown will be covered. Two members of the family, Richard and Abraham, were executed and their home burned down by the IRA in retaliation for their militant loyalist activities which culminated in an attempt to kill IRA Volunteers manning a roadblock. The male members of the family were deeply hostile and presented a dangerous threat to Republicans in the area. The Pearsons were also suspected informers. Recent revisionist claims that the Pearson killings were sectarian, propounded in sections of the media, will be challenged and debunked.’
Don’t ya love that word: “executed”?
Pearsons: “executed”
Shot in the groin, then the buttocks and left in agony for hours…
Eamon Collins: “executed”
Chisel through the eye socket, brains mashed, face unrecognisable: No open coffin.
Oh and I see Slab had a heart attack…
See also: Indymedia and Niall Meehan in Counterpunch and the Offaly Historical and Archeological Society all of which argue that this is all as a revisionist attempt to re-write history.
Its amazing how some in ireland can still get themselves hot under the collar protecting the actions of IRA men years ago. regardless of what your view on the Pearson Killings is, a quick look at the reference above will convince you that Ireland is historically knackered.
Objectivity, evidence etc not required, 2007 speculation and republican purity is all that’s needed. Where the facts don’t fit make it up.
I would love to hear the views of some of these commentators on the deaths of Tim Parry or those who died at Enniskillen. These guys would probably justify the actions of the brave IRA on the basis of some fictional notions of a glorious war against British Imperialism.
Accepted none of us are unbiased but these diatribes masquarading as history is shocking.
I have been struck by how much the word “revisionist” or “revisionism” is somehow used as an insult of worts – somewhat akin to the use of the word “Communist” or comunism” would have been, oh say, in the McCarty era?
The implication is of course that facts, events, opinions never, ever should be revised or revisited.
That, no matter the passage of time or more information coming to light, there is one, only one version of truth, of reality, of the facts.
The basis of that absolute certainty must never ever be questioned and that those who do question should be abused, not argued with.
What’s a good word to describe this attitude?
Revisionism in Irish history is a good thing.
The struggles of 1916-23 were bloody and brutal. Republicans cannot be allowed to whitewash that.
Problem is many prominent revisionists only see it cutting one way – the tribal, primitive nationalists need to overcome their myths and fairystories and come into the modern world.
Doesn’t cut the other way though. Bomber Harris is celebrated on the Strand in statue and on the terraces. No revisionism about the bombing of Dresden or Hamburg, or the Amritsar massacre.
No call in shows, no agonized debates in the newspapers. Just Gordon and a lot of telly historians telling us to be proud of the empire.
Revisionism for the natives and impunity for the empire, it seems.
Fundamentalism?
I did history for 13 years in the Republic, up to honours Leaving Cert level – not a word in any of the history books about these murders (nor so many others which took place in rural Ireland in that period).
Very positive sign for Ireland as a whole that this “hidden history” is now being told, and hopefully future schoolchildren too will learn of these experiences, so that all sides of Ireland’s story can be better understood.
“No revisionism about the bombing of Dresden or Hamburg”
But, shouldn’t there be? Isn’t there?
Come now, Peadar, I don’t think you can really argue that there hasn’t been a heated debate in recent years about the morality or otherwise of Dresden, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the Somme, the list goes on. The Raj maybe less so, admittedly, but that’s because few people on these islands know very much about it.
There certainly has been some focus on the bombing of Dreden, perhaps not sustained revisionist research but a fair amount of discussion nonetheless.
‘Revsionist’ interpretations of history do sometimes border on political attacks. There are better ‘revisionist’ historians (thinking Townshend for istnce, who wrote a brilliant, even moving book on Easter 1916) who avoid that. But you can view the trajectory of a tendentious gnome like Kevin Myarse as embracing revisionism purely because it traduces Republicanism. That is not history, or thinking intelligently about history like the suprior reviionists do.
Revisionism and “bomber harris” – i think if people take time to remember there was a debate about the Harris monument. As far as NI is concerned the last 10 years has been a continuous discussion about the role the Army and the police played in our recent conflict. In fact the role of most groups has been looked at critically with the exception possiby of the paramilitaries. Whilst there has been some analysis of the histories of the paramilitaries there has been little objective analysis of motives.
Everyone who lived through the troubles clearly has a biased perception but there has been little analysis.
Hopefully we as a society will mature quicker than our Southern cousins and will be able to step back and realistically look at our selves.
Bloody Sunday, Bloody friday, La Mon, Enniskillen were all unacceptable massacres. But whether they all were driven by the same hatred or bigotry – well that’s harder to say.
One man meat is another man’s poison, one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. One man’s noble cause is another man’s bigoted reaction.
Sadly history is usually written by the victors – our problem is that nobody really won.
“Objectivity, evidence etc not required, 2007 speculation and republican purity is all that’s needed. Where the facts don’t fit make it up.”
It seems to me that the reason there is a whole debate on this particular incident, and on allied controversies like Peter Hart on the Kilmichael ambush and the murders at Bandon, is exactly because the people who claim they are waging a campaign against revisionism HAVE gone and looked for original documentation, and found stuff to support their case, including in the archives of the British military.
Of course there was sectarianism in the IRA in this era. But many of the instances taken as emblematically and uncomplicatedly sectarian have turned out to look at lot more complicated after further research. It seems to me that this is exactly what the revisionists have been doing for decades. Ironically, they have their own myth, and some of them don’t like it very much when research shows it up as that.
Even on this thread we can see hints of the attitudes that the opponents of the revisionists are nutters (which some of them are) and shouldn’t be taken seriously because they are not professional academics (which is the wrong way to look at things).
Problem for the chappy above is that some revisionism is serious-minded and scholarly, but other revisionist poitions patently are not. The latter are purveyors of the ‘game’ aspect, as satirised and depicted in Alan Bennett’s ‘The History Boys’. The way you get a First class degree or ‘get noticed’ is by producing an eye-catching thesis, nothing to do with the truth (‘boring truth’ about Stalin being a tyrant; revisionist responds by venerating Stalin). Televison historians such as Ferguson follow this inept style in different ways, thus lauding something like the British Empire. That is not good revisionist history, and neither are recent Spanish historians re-assessing General Franco. Must be understood properly.
Joey
Good post above, I missed seeing “The History Boys” My loss, I think.
Jo
Peader and Garibaldy are spot on here.
Revisionism is to be applauded in history – things should be re-examined. The difficulty with “revisionism” in an irish context is that it has often simply meant a return to an imperialist view of history. The actions of republicans were interpreted in the most negative way, the actions of “crown forces” given the most positive spin.
The reason why this causes such excitement is because it attacks at Ireland’s MOPE founding myth; that we are an entirely blameless Opfervolk, savaged in an entirely unique way over centuries by fascistic neighbours, yet still, thanks to our pristine goodness, preserving our decency and tolerance and not doing really bad things to innocent people in wars for base reasons.
Of course it’s bullshit; founding myths usually are. But it’s not uniquely Irish; try pointing out to your random Englishman that Churchill was a war criminal (gassing Kurds in Northern Iraq, early ’20s, and wasn’t Harris involved in all that too)? Or go around the Holocaust Museum in Washington asking why there’s a museum to somebody else’s holocaust but not to the extermination of the native population of the United States?
That doesn’t change the fact that counter-revisionism is often squalid and base and jingoistic, but it’s hardly unique to Ireland.
Sammy Morse,
Another excellent post.
I Wonder – ‘The History Boys’ is well worth a look, because it elucidates a lot of this debate. Though ‘revisionism’ is not mentioned by name, the subject covers the terrain of ‘re-interpretating’ something for the sake of interest alone. There is a difference between listening to the alternative voices and stories chapioned by the best revisionist historians, and the attacks levelled by lacklustre attention-seekers.
Cruise O’Brien was once at the forefront of trying to decimate the national ‘myths’ of Irish nationalist ideology. But as Terence Brown has argued, these myths ‘tapped very real historical and cultural wells’. At its best ‘revisionist’ history is a very fine thing indeed – improving debate and study – but at its worst its earth-shatteringly glib and spurious.
The Pearsons shot at the IRA, according to their friend Stanley, their brother, their father, the RIC reports and the IRA statements. Consequently the IRA shot the Pearsons. Isn’t war hell? As the Pearson’s (Protestant)neighbours said at the time “they brought it on themselves”.
BTW, the medical reports on the Pearsons show that they both died from shock many hours after recieving superficial wounds. The execution was bothched. I believe there’s also a rather juicy revisionist detail doing the rounds that they were shot in the genitals. Not mentioned in the medical reports, or anywhere else for that matter, but what the hell? You have to wonder what goes on in the dark recesses of the dirty little minds that pedal this stuff.
Quality of last couple of days blogs outstanding I have to say. Perhaps, however, not the best illustration of Catholic secterianism. And Sammy Native American museum in NY (might have moved to DC by now) very good.
For me the test is simple. Which came first, the historical story, or the political message it aims to illustrate.
A good revisionist historian looks again at the evidence, and goes where it leads him, including new areas.
A mediocre one, like Ferguson, does the research, but always with the narrative in mind, usually one that backs his own political leanings.
A crap one, like Harris, settles on a political view, often contrarian, and trawls for stories and narratives to back it up, even to the point of shoddy historical research as in this case.
Harris cannot ignore the Crown report on this and hope to maintain historical credibility. but he doesn’t want historical credibility. He wants political and media influence, to get at his enemies. And he was successfull in that.
Sammy Morse,
The Kurds in Iraq were never “gassed” by the British, let alone by Winston Churchill’s orders.
The myth you are peddling here (for courtesy’s sake, I’ll assume you are doing so through ignorance) is a memorandum of his taken out of context. He advocated the use of tear gas to put down a rebellion, ironically because he believed it would minimise loss of life.
Britain did gas the Kurds. The RAF bombed them with mustard gas on Churchill’s orders.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html
Hardly Britain’s greatest war crime or the Kurd’s worst affliction but nasty enough.
“The Pearsons shot at the IRA, according to their friend Stanley, their brother, their father, the RIC reports and the IRA statements. Consequently the IRA shot the Pearsons. Isn’t war hell? As the Pearson’s (Protestant)neighbours said at the time “they brought it on themselvesâ€.”
These are lies, pure and simple. Posted here in the belief that no one knows enough about the case to properly challenge them.
The “friend” Stanley was actually a cousin staying with the Pearsons because he had been driven out of his own home by the IRA because of his religion. The “neighbour” mentioned was a Catholic who actually said, “Shooting was too good for them, they should have been drowned in the river”.
The above by barneyben are lies, I suggest for a true account people read “I Met Murder on the Way” by a son of Stanley’s.
The Penguin,
IIRC from the stuff on Indymedia, the Pearson family said in a later claim for compensation that they had always helped crown forces. Of course, you had to say that to get any chance of money, but it can’t simply be dismissed as lies. There were also citations from investigations by the authorities that give credence to the account offered by Pat Muldowney. He offers arguments in refutation of the book you mention, some of which are grounded on archival records, and some of which aren’t.
But there is enough evidence that we can’t just say the counter-argument is lies.
Getting back to the issue of the murder of the Pearson brothers. I know nothing about the specifics of their lives. However, it is correct to say that Cooneyites are generally pacifists. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_2x2.htm
They are counted by many in fundamentalist Christainity as not true evangelical christians as they deny the atonment and may not accept the divinity of Christ. http://www.reachouttrust.org/articles/othergrp/coony.htm
I say may as they will not usually discuss their beliefs. Indeed they reject the name Cooneyite and would usually call themselves Followers of the “Jesus Way” or Interdenominational. Elenwe has Cooneyite friends but we have never been able to establish much about their beliefs. They seem to mainly be from round Fermanagh.
They can be regarded as aloof and odd. This may have explained their murder. For them to have been murdered was not, however, war but a sectarian murder of harmless people who were identified as odd, different and of course “Prods”. That was probably enough to sign those young men’s death warrants whatever some may suggest.
Stanley was driven out of Laois for his Loyalist paramilatery activities and was received by his distant cousins, and great friends, the Pearsons in nearby Coolacrease. His son went on to write his now infamous book, taking care to wait until all the local IRA volunteers were dead and unable to defend themselves. He also took care not to interview any of them when he was ‘researching’ his book. Nevertheless, Stanley does, somewhat inadvertantly, confirm the central fact that the Pearsons shot at a local IRA unit having first argued with them. So they knew who they were shooting at and they should have been able to guess at the consequences. I recommend Stanley’s book for anyone interested in an alternative version of the subject. But it is not the only one available and it’s easily the sloppiest.
“Stanley was driven out of Laois for his Loyalist paramilatery activities…”
Again, this simply not true.
One of the litany of charges levelled against the Pearsons, as each is destroyed another is thought up, is that they were covertly training UVF members.
UVF members, in Co. Offaly? For God’s sake how ridiculous does it have to become before people see it and accept it for what it was?
One of the Offaly IRA men, who later became a Garda, said years later, “It was wrong, totally wrong. We murdered these people. There is no other way to describe it.”
They murdered them only days before the heavily trailed cessation because they were Prods and they wanted their land.
Last few posts are perfect illustrations that ALL history is revisionist. At its core every history has a perspective and weighs the facts in relation to that perspective.
To claim that history is blatantly false the only thing being revised is the perspective. Adn consequently as the republican movement has comne in from the cold their perspective is also being introduced into main stream history.
The protestant communities belief’s about the IRA are no more true and unasailable then the catholic communities beliefs are about the RUC. Both perspectives have a certain validity but determining where that validity lies is where the conflict arises.
Architectural Blue Prints have a little box on the corner that denotes which revision of the drawing that they represent, perhaps history books should have those as well
Penguino
So – did the family claim they were acting for crown forces or not?
I dont know one way or another but it seems ther is some mixed evidence about the sectarianism of the case
Sometimes this Process seems so absurd, sometimes I think it may work
“I was always known as a staunch Loyalist and upholder of the Crown. I assisted the Crown Forces on every occasion, and I helped those who were persecuted around me at all times.”
- William Pearson, in his compensation application to the Distress Committee/Grants Committee
They were murdered, either way.
Stanley hid out with the Pearsons and assumed the name of Barry, even his own son agrees on that point. You threw in the “UVF in Offaly” and so far as I know it is entirely your own invention
Shawn,
Do you have anything to contribute apart from the traditional APNI “well there might be something in it” bullshit? There’s only ever one truth, what people choose to believe is another matter entirely.
shawn
What absolute post-modernist crap. If I go out and kill someone because of their religion or because they have something I want it doesn’t matter how many other excuses I or anyone else makes, I killed them for those reasons.
“I was always known as a staunch Loyalist and upholder of the Crown. I assisted the Crown Forces on every occasion, and I helped those who were persecuted around me at all times.â€
- William Pearson, in his compensation application to the Distress Committee/Grants Committee”
This was, as you should know, after a previous application was turned down and he was advised to exaggerate the family loyalty in order to get any compensation.
“Stanley hid out with the Pearsons and assumed the name of Barry, even his own son agrees on that point. You threw in the “UVF in Offaly†and so far as I know it is entirely your own invention.”
Of course he adopted an assumed name when staying with the Pearsons, the IRA had driven him out of his own home because of his religion. Does the fact that he assumed the name of Barry prove he was a loyalist paramilitary (too laughable for words) or that he was afraid of being attacked by the IRA again? If you think the former is proof enough, then I’m beginning to understand the mentality of those that killed him.
Your second point is lies yet again. For years, and even on the Duffy show this week, there was talk of the Pearsons holding secret night-time training sessions for the UVF. Anything to blacken their name and try and justify the murders to local people who were mostly apalled.
Another claim was that the house roof blew off because of hidden ammunition. The fact that it had been doused in petrol and was certain to explode was conveniently ignored.
*No revisionism about the bombing of Dresden or Hamburg, or the Amritsar massacre.*
Oh yes, I mean it’s been wall to wall glorification of Dresden and Amritsar in the British media and history text books hasn’t it?
You’ve never ever heard anything negative about those incidents have you?
I mean where are the British revisionist historians to point out that Amritsar wasn’t a jolly good thing?
Jesus wept some people talk such drivel sometimes!
Turgon,
There were, and still are, many protestant families in the Kinnity/Cadamstown area of Offaly. They were not shot at and did not feel any need to flee the area. This is because of a simple fact that was, and still is, well known to everybody in the area: the Pearsons were shot for firing on an IRA unit. That they did so is confirmed in IRA, RIC and British Military records. It is also confirmed in Stanley’s book.
Penguin
“Your second point is lies yet again.” You are becoming a little offencive. You are the person who brought the “Offaly UVF” canard to this thread. How is that a lie? I never heard of it before and I was brought up in the area. If it came from the Joe Duffy show then take it up with him, I never mentioned it and never even heard of it before reading it here, from you.
Do you deny that the Pearsons shot at the IRA, as mentioned in Stanley’s book?
The Penguin,
Do you believe the Pearson family was sympathetic to the goals of the IRA and felt any loyalty to the First Dáil?
Like I said, they were murdered. Whether it was because they were Protestant and the IRA just decided to kill them for land or for kicks because of their religion (unlikely), or because they were loyalists and spies, or because they had shot at IRA members, they were murdered in cold blood.
That much we know.
Care to comment on barneyben’s post?
Strange you never heard that rumour about UVF training, amongst countless such rumours I know, seeing as it was aired on the programme and (coincidentally?) tied in nicely with your charge that Stanley was a loyalist paramilitary and, according to you, deserved to be attacked because he assumed the name of Barry when staying with his cousins. After being driven from his own home, I might add, by the IRA because of his religion. Is it any wonder he assumed another name?
Did the Pearsons fire at some thugs cutting down a tree on their land without permission?
Firstly, this is recounted as yet another rumour in Stanley’s book.
Here in Northern Ireland we know all about the justificatory rumours that spring up for plain murder, and how eagerly communities will grab on to them rather than face the fact of such murdering monsters in their midst.
Second, it is debatable that they even owned a gun, given their religious beliefs, never mind shot at anyone.
Do I believe the Pearson family was sympathetic to the goals of the IRA and felt any loyalty to the First Dáil?
I have no idea, but what I do know is that you cannot murder people simply because they disagree with you. You cannot murder people when, just because of their religion, you presume they must disagree with you.
And you cannot murder people because you tie the above two together to give you an excuse to murder them, when really you just want something that they own.
These people were the softest of targets, Protestants, so people wouldn’t get too vexed over their murders, and owners of a prime farm.
“…because of their religion (unlikely)”
Why unlikely?
Try checking out the Fethard-on-Sea story.
Or what happened to the Protestants in Cork during the United Irishmen uprising.
While Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter were coming together in parts of Ulster in common cause, the UI were butchering every Prod they could get their hands on in, most notably, Co.Cork and other parts of southern Ireland.
Read Kevin Myers column today if you think republicans are above sectarianism. Just because people claim high ideals doesn’t mean they stick to them – in fact it usually means the opposite.
Joey, Garibaldi and Red Branch –
good posts lads.
Penguin,
ave you actually read Stanley’s book? His own father confirms the Pearsons shot at the IRA.
“Stanley was a loyalist paramilitary and, according to you, deserved to be attacked”.
I did not say Stanley deserved to be attacked. In fact he was not attacked, he was captured by the IRA later the same day and released.
Penguin,
I think you’re getting Cork and Wexford mixed up in 1798. Although again, while there were egregious sectarian murders in Wexford in 1798, the Scullabogue incident is slightly more complex (relating to the politics of at least some of those involved and the possibility it was done out of revenge for military killing of rebel prisoners), and there was considerable Protestant participation in the Rebellion there.
I couldn’t agree with you more that those who today are termed republicans are a disgrace to the name. They dress squalid sectarian nationalism up as the democratic, internationalist progressive, anti-sectarian politics of republicanism. Unforunately sectarian nationalists have often called themselves republicans when it suited, and this was certainly true for some in the 1919-23 period. However, there are elements in this particular case that mean we cannot simply say one way or the other. If anything, the archival evidence swings away from the version offered by the producers of the programme, though as you’ve said there are questions about it too.
As for the possibility of them having a shotgun, or shotguns. Didn’t most farmers have them for dealing with vermin (and many still do)? Is it not possible that they had them for this reason? I don’t know if not killing animals was part of their religion, but I doubt it as I don’t know of any other Christian sects that forbid it.
There is an excellent post by World By Storm at the cedar lounge revolution blog putting the southern media coverage of all this in context.
“…WITH YOUR CHARGE that Stanley was a loyalist paramilitary and, according to you, deserved to be attacked because he assumed the name of Barry when staying with his cousins.”
Please don’t quote me out of context. You contended (laughingly) that Stanley was a loyalist paramilitary, not me.
And that because he was living under an assumed name at the Pearsons, to protect him from further sectarian attack, he came under suspicion and, therefore, deserved to be targetted.
Stanley’s father was not present at the “tree felling incident” and speculated to his son that, according to local rumour, this was one of the reasons for the murders. But, as for local rumours, see my point above.
I fully realise it must be difficult for you and many others to accept that amongst those you thought of as heroes were many sectarian bigots, thugs and criminals. If, as you say, you are from the area then possibly family connections make it all the more difficult, so understandably you grasp at any available straw.
But you should at least admit that throughout Offaly, but particularly in the area we are talking about, the majority of people have been quietly – and fearfully – deeply ashamed of what happened to the Pearsons.
To openly acknowledge that profound wrongdoing is all that is being asked, and is the least that can be expected.
The Penguin
“While Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter were coming together in parts of Ulster in common cause, the UI were butchering every Prod they could get their hands on in, most notably, Co.Cork and other parts of southern Ireland…”
You need to revise your historical perspective a bit here – you’ve completely forgotten to mention the papishes who were being terrorised in parts of Ulster because many protestants didn’t want them about the place.
I have no family connections whatsoever to the incident, except to say that my own father talked about it as a tragedy. He as eight at the time and is unlikely to have been involved. How did you work out what the majority of the people in Offaly are thinking? From the Joe Duffy show?
As for Stanley’s Snr, junior’s book shows him to be a liar. And junior does confir the incident, although he maintains the Pearson’e only fired over the IRA’s heads.
“And that because he was living under an assumed name at the Pearsons, to protect him from further sectarian attack, he came under suspicion and, therefore, deserved to be targetted”
Once again, I never said Stanley Snr deserved to be attacked. But the Pearsons must have known they would bring attention to themselves when they decided to shelter a known paramilitary like Stanley. However, that is not why they were attacked either. They were shot for shooting at the IRA. The “straws” I am grasping at are the IRA, RIC and British Military written accounts of the incident. They all agree. What are your sources?
Harry Flashman
“You’ve never ever heard anything negative about those incidents have you?”
Yes we have, they were bad examples – here’s a good example:
http://www.ulsterhistory.co.uk/henrypottinger.htm
Note how the Ulster Historical Circle completely fail to mention that this fella was one of the most vicious international drug traffickers in history.
Historical revisionism is a good thing and should not be mistaken for myth-making or political point scoring, which some posters have already pointed out on this thread.
Now – if possible, can somebody please refer me to an unbiased account of the events in question here.
Ulster McNulty
No you need to revise yours. It’s no accident that the great majority of northern heroes of the UI campaign were Protestant (not just Presbyterian, by the way).
While some Catholics were defending the town hall in Ballymena against the UI the Scots Presbyterian parts of the town were involved in hand to hand fighting with, of all things, a Scottish regiment sent to quell the rebellion. Same thing was happening all over the north.
“But the Pearsons must have known they would bring attention to themselves when they decided to shelter a known paramilitary like Stanley.”
“…a known paramilitary..”(?)
You continue with the lies to try and justify the unjustifiable.
Your father was wrong, it wasn’t “a tragedy” it was cold blooded, sectarian murder, inspired by greed for land.
“The “straws†I am grasping at are the IRA, RIC and British Military written accounts of the incident.”
Well we can dispense with the IRA account for a start, it’s a bit like taking as gospel the Paras account of Bloody Sunday.
And you deliberately misrepresent the RIC and “British Military” accounts that you cite. These were merely reports of rumours in the area after the murder and were not the result of any investigation that actually determined the motive.
If you are going to present the reporting of rumour as fact, and as though derived from investigation, then at least be honest enough to outline all of the rumours that were carried in the reports as possible motives.
These included land aquisition, sectarianism and an eagerness by one of the most ill-disciplined and woefully inadequate IRA units in the country to prove themselves before the cessation came into force.
My sources are the same as yours, except I am reading and quoting them honestly and not in a cherrypicking and contorted fashion.
How do I know how the people of that area felt and feel about the butchery of the Pearsons? Wouldn’t you like to know!
Just take it from me that I know only too well.
*I mean where are the British revisionist historians to point out that Amritsar wasn’t a j
jolly good thing? *
Sure a few left over lefties from the 60s maybe -stuck in the ex-polytechnics. Haven’t seen them on tv though.
No kid studying history will know about it because at school British history begins in 1939 and ends in 1945 and it only happens in Europe.
I’ve never heard a phone in on the subject on five live or radio 4. Apart from the odd corner of the Guardian, its seldom in the papers.
The British imperial state, and its successor, are like the Irish nationalist state. Both were founded on bloodletting and myths. Both have trouble admitting this – the debate about Harris’s statue was as defensive as the debate about the IRA.