The relationship between Great Britain and Ireland has been one of great turbulence, and instability, yet it is constantly evolving. Thus, it is not surprising that there is much diversity between historians’ interpretations of this subject. Three main narratives dominate the analysis of this relationship:- these being the oppressor versus the victim narrative, secondly, the interpretation that glorifies violence and thirdly, the revisionist school of thought by which historians attempt to re-interpret historical records. Most historians’ work is focused around these narratives- either supporting or opposing them. It is these narratives that often manipulate one’s own perceptions of past events and help form bias in the public’s mind. Thus, it is crucial that historians present the past to the public, impartially. However, with a matter as contentious as Anglo- Irish relations it is difficult for historians to approach the topic with out any predispositions that could, potentially, manifest themselves in their work.
Brian J. Mulcahy, makes an interesting point about the evolution of Irish historians’ interpretations of the past in his thesis, in which he discusses how, there have been ‘two generations’ of textbooks discussing Irish- Anglo relations: the first being ‘purist’ books that were used between the 1920s and 1960s. These textbooks had strong nationalist tones and held much contempt towards the British. The second generation of these textbooks emerged in the early 1970s and appeared to have a more moderate and neutral tone without bias.
This distinction between the eras of historiography was also made in the article, ‘History and National Identity Construction: The Great Famine in Irish and Ukrainian History Textbooks’ by Jan Germen Janmaat. In this article, Janmaat explores how historians depicted the Great Famine in textbooks from the beginning of the Irish Free State up to the 1990s. Evidence of an ‘us and them’ narrative soon emerges from these textbooks as great emphasis is put on the separatism and the ‘700 years of oppression’ experienced by the Irish. The authors of these textbooks examined by Janmaat are also extremely critical of the inaction of the British government during this period. The famine is portrayed, not as a natural tragedy, but as a story of unnecessary suffering and death due to “criminal mismanagement”. Thus, Ireland is depicted as defenceless victim against the cruel and harsh British oppression. This prevailing attitude of historians during this period was perhaps influenced by ongoing tensions between Britain and Ireland.
Janmaat’s article also explores the works of a new generation of historians who emerged during the 1970s. The above mentioned ‘revisionist’ narrative became more prevalent during this period and is investigated in Janmaat’s aricle. Historians began to look at the famine more broadly and to question the analyses of their predecessors. Thus came the emergence of more balanced and neutral accounts of the famine. Blame was shifted from external factors, such as the British government and attention was drawn to the many domestic issues in Ireland at this time, such as over reliance on the potato crop. The reason for the transition between these two narratives could perhaps be found in the ongoing conflict in Northern Ireland during this period, resulting in historians re-evaluating the complex relationship between Great Britain and Ireland, as this new form of historiography became more popular.
Although the political climate may have been instrumental in this change in narratives, more balanced and neutral interpretations continue to dominate decades after ‘The Troubles’. This type of analysis is apparent in Carl J. Griffin’s article, published in recent years. Although Griffin admits that the British government primarily adopted a “do nothing” policy regarding the Irish during the famine, he does continue by stating that this inaction did not continue and is often over exaggerated. Griffin also offers the perception of the Irish through British eyes- describing the skepticism felt by Peel in the early months of the famine as he believed that the Irish were “calling wolf”. Griffin provides an explanation that is not often found in literature discussing this issue. Ireland were viewed as second class citizens in the eyes of the British and were not taken seriously. This perception adds yet another dimension to the already complex relationship between Great Britain and Ireland. However, Griffin continues to state that the famine, in fact, united the people of Great Britain and Ireland as fear became a common feeling shared amongst the nations. This unique interpretation forces the reader to re-evaluate Anglo- Irish relations during the famine with an open mind.
As previously mentioned, political climates during the writing of history can often influence analyses and interpretations of past events. As with the ‘Great Famine’, the conflict in Northern Ireland was no exception and it also affected the way in which historians interpreted the 1916 Rising. A new narrative was also developed here and adopted by historians during this period. According to John M. Regan, in his book, Myth and the Irish State, the conflict in the North “transformed the significance of the Rising”. Thus, historians began to present Anglo- Irish relations as a more complex and complicated issue- in a way which would neutralise Ireland’s violent political past. Traces of these early revisions can be traced to the works of Desmond Williams, Maureen Wall and Garret FitzGerald. However, with this being said, conflict in Northern Ireland was not the sole reason for this turning point in Irish historiography, but an occasion for this historiographical development to occur.
The glorification of violence is a trait that can be seen throughout historians’ accounts of Irish history and is particularly dominant in works discussing the 1916 Rising. The late Ronan Fanning, in his book ‘Fatal Path’, argues that, although the Easter Rebellion was ultimately a failure for the ‘rebels’, it was, however, a success, as the Irish Nationalist Movement gained widespread public support. Fanning describes the violence and bloodshed of the 1916 Rising as a positive outcome, as “ death transformed the leaders into martyrs”. In other words, the blood sacrifice that thousands of Irishmen made that day was necessary in order to strengthen the nationalist cause. Fanning continues by comparing Asquith to Pontius Pilate, as he sentences the signatories of the proclamation to death. With this, Fanning implies that these rebels were regarded as Jesus or ‘God-like’ figures- icons of worship. By glorifying the violence of the Easter Rebellion, Fanning places the Irish rebels on a pedestal, declaring that their courageous offering of “blood sacrifice” was absolutely essential in order to get the public behind their cause. With this, Fanning exposes to the reader the Irish public’s dependence at that time on Great Britain, as it took the death of ‘martyrs’ for them to fully support the nationalists’ goal of independence.
However, Peter Hart in his chapter, ‘The Necessity of Violence in the Irish Revolution,’ provides a counter to this narrative. Hart presents an interesting case as he distinguishes between the question of necessity and inevitability of the violence during the Rising. He also opposes the popular opinion that the Easter Rising was a necessary “political catalyst”, and that this sacrificial violence was needed in order to awaken nationalist Ireland. Although, he admits that the execution of many leaders awoke sympathies in the Irish people, it did not, however, provide enough momentum for any real political progress. He further states that to claim that the Rising awakened a rebellious and nationalist spirit within the Irish people would be an overstatement as even the Irish Volunteers were becoming less defensive and beginning to step away from militancy. In his book, Hart provides a counter to the attitude that violence in Irish history was an inevitable necessity in order to free the Irish people. He argues that there are different forms of action other than bloodshed to achieve political progress and that, there is a distinction between “the manual reactive and usually incidental violence” of political movements. Hart suggests an alternative to the violence and combat of 1916 as he argues “it is possible to fight and uphold political principles without killing”. Whilst disarmament still would have led to violence, it would be on a small scale and would have provided the volunteers with ‘people power’ as a means of support. Hart’s re- evaluations and re interpretations offer a revisionist style to his work. When he says that the death toll of the Easter Rising was avoidable, this de-villainises the British and shifts some of the blame onto the Rebels, themselves.
During this same period, over 200,000 Irish men served in the British Army and Navy during the First World War. However, it is rare that the sacrifice that these men made is talked about, let alone commemorated. In his article, ‘The Place of the First World War in Contemporary Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland’, Richard Grayson looks at the role of remembrance of the First World War in Northern Irish politics. Grayson argues that the lack of commemoration for the Irish soldiers of World War I was due to the fact that many nationalists wished to distance themselves from the British war effort. This can be seen as early as 1919 in Northern Ireland, when the parade to mark ‘Peace Day’ in Belfast was dominated by Unionists, with “many nationalists keeping their distance”. Grayson illustrates the fragile state of the relationship between Great Britain and Ireland during this period. Nationalist refusal to acknowledge these commemorations of their own countrymen depicts the bitterness held between the States during the Post- First World War period. However, Grayson also captures the evolving nature of this relationship as he talks about the change in attitudes within Republicanism. By showing that even the strongest of nationalists, Sinn Féin, chose to engage in commemorations for World War I in 1995, depicts how the relationship between Great Britain and Ireland has improved over the last century.
In his book Ireland and The Great War, Keith Jeffrey also demonstrates the unwillingness of the Irish people to commemorate those who fought in the British Army. Jeffrey states that although proposals and plans were put in place for commemorations for Irish soldiers, the government firmly opposed any true plans. The Irish government seemed to be more in favour of schemes involving no physical monument, such as education and housing schemes. The reasoning behind this, according to Kevin O’Higgins, was that the sacrifices of these men was not “State based” and, therefore, devoting Irish landmarks such as Merrion Square to their memory would “give a wrong suggestion to the origins of this State”. With this, Jeffrey, depicts the poor relations held between Great Britain and Ireland during this period as the unwillingness of Irish people towards any commemorations was in fact, driven by the Irish Government.
However, Shannon Monaghan offers an alternate interpretation to this matter, arguing that despite what most literature states, that these ex- servicemen were in fact respected, and not made into social outcasts. The ‘Irish League of Ex Servicemen’ held many charity events for the Irish soldiers, most notably, the annual Poppy Day appeal which began in 1921. Despite the fact that the primary political goal during this period was “developing Irish nationalism and unionism” , Irish public participation actually increased during the 1920’s. As Monaghan contests the popular narrative that there was much hostility between the ex-servicemen and the Irish public, she also suggests that Anglo- Irish relations were not as tense as depicted by many historians. The fact that an organisation was founded and widely supported in order to support former British soldiers and their families suggest that relations between Britain and Ireland were not as tense as often portrayed to us.
The relationship between Great Britain and Ireland has been an issue of some controversy and contention. Thus, it is difficult for historians to explain this subject without being influenced by external factors, such as political agendas, personal bias, or the era in which the historian is writing. Therefore, it is not surprising that central narratives were formed in order to aid analysis on this topic. However, there has been a significant change in historians’ interpretations of this complex relationship. It seems that, in recent years, the emotional connotations associated with this subject have faded, thus allowing historians to explain Ireland and Britain’s turbulent past more accurately. Although some decades have passed before these revisions began to surface, it could be argued that this was perhaps due to the public’s emotional connections to the past (particularily the Irish), not necessarily the fault of the historians. Therefore, as time has passed, whatever emotional wounds connected with this relationship have healed, readying the people for less dramatised and more honest analysis.