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