Sharing History
Sharing History
"I think the idea that people can have independent histories is interesting, and also wrong, i.e. your history vs. my history. History is simply what gets written and remembered by men or women. I think that both versions of history - the nationalist version and the unionist version - are simply that: subjective versions, to a large extent the result of contemporary concerns."
The comment above, made by Hugh Green a couple of weeks ago, came to my mind when I read about this development in The Economist:
"Next week in Saarbrucken, French and German officials will present a worldwide first: French and German-language versions of a joint history book, covering the period since 1945."
Bearing in mind that their joint history has been as equally turbulent, disputed and yet also shared, why could a similiar project not be tried between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland?
I would suggest that the period from the Famine until the outbreak of the First World War would be a good era to start with, with a group of teachers and historians from Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic discussing and arriving at a common interpretation, about such events as the various Home Rule Crisis and the Gaelic Revival of the late 19th Century.
Of course, it will be argued by those with strong (or entrenched) views that there is a very thin line between a shared and a compromised history, but to my way of thinking, there is absolutely no threat posed to anyone's cultural or political beliefs by this bringing together of the different interpretations of a single event into one objective version. The only possible danger I could see is, that in this attempt to produce a completely factual, emotion-less history, the importance of what people at the time believed to be true, as opposed to the reality is underplayed. And in the context of recent Northern Irish history, we know it is, more often than not, the former rather than the latter which goes onto influence future events.
On a related subject (especially bearing in mind today's date!), I'd like to recommend, especially to any nationalists or republicans reading,this post on the legacy of the Williamite Wars, by Brian Crowe on the Young Unionists site. Forget about the modern manifestation of Orangeism and the sectarian cul-de-sac in which it's parked itself, Brian's interpretation outlines very convincingly the overall political and social benefits the Glorious Revolution brought to 17th Century Europe. You may or may not agree with his arguments, but the more important question is whether this interpretation of 1690 and all that, should be allowed to influence the version of history being taught in Irish schools?
And if not, why not?
After all, it is one held many of your fellow inhabitants on the island of Ireland; what makes your version truer than theirs?
"I think the idea that people can have independent histories is interesting, and also wrong, i.e. your history vs. my history. History is simply what gets written and remembered by men or women. I think that both versions of history - the nationalist version and the unionist version - are simply that: subjective versions, to a large extent the result of contemporary concerns."
The comment above, made by Hugh Green a couple of weeks ago, came to my mind when I read about this development in The Economist:
"Next week in Saarbrucken, French and German officials will present a worldwide first: French and German-language versions of a joint history book, covering the period since 1945."
Bearing in mind that their joint history has been as equally turbulent, disputed and yet also shared, why could a similiar project not be tried between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland?
I would suggest that the period from the Famine until the outbreak of the First World War would be a good era to start with, with a group of teachers and historians from Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic discussing and arriving at a common interpretation, about such events as the various Home Rule Crisis and the Gaelic Revival of the late 19th Century.
Of course, it will be argued by those with strong (or entrenched) views that there is a very thin line between a shared and a compromised history, but to my way of thinking, there is absolutely no threat posed to anyone's cultural or political beliefs by this bringing together of the different interpretations of a single event into one objective version. The only possible danger I could see is, that in this attempt to produce a completely factual, emotion-less history, the importance of what people at the time believed to be true, as opposed to the reality is underplayed. And in the context of recent Northern Irish history, we know it is, more often than not, the former rather than the latter which goes onto influence future events.
On a related subject (especially bearing in mind today's date!), I'd like to recommend, especially to any nationalists or republicans reading,this post on the legacy of the Williamite Wars, by Brian Crowe on the Young Unionists site. Forget about the modern manifestation of Orangeism and the sectarian cul-de-sac in which it's parked itself, Brian's interpretation outlines very convincingly the overall political and social benefits the Glorious Revolution brought to 17th Century Europe. You may or may not agree with his arguments, but the more important question is whether this interpretation of 1690 and all that, should be allowed to influence the version of history being taught in Irish schools?
And if not, why not?
After all, it is one held many of your fellow inhabitants on the island of Ireland; what makes your version truer than theirs?
