John Mullen Université de Rouen
You will find here a set of documents given as a
homework assignment for M1 MEEF in 2019, in the form of a mock CAPES exam
exercise, but done at home with access to research resources. First there is
the set of documents, then a series of methodological comments, then a draft
proposed commentary, and finally remarks about a few of the mistakes and
weaknesses found.
As I mentioned in class, my aim in the first semester is to revise history related to the programme and warn you about the main content mistakes made in the exam. Much more detail on methodology (how to construct an introduction etc) will be covered by my colleague in the second semester.
Study this carefully, and come to the next class with any questions you have, or send them to me by email.
In the documents I have highlighted some of the
elements it would be good to show you knew something about.
Document A
Why Blair deserves bouquets for Famine apology
The Irish Times Thu,
Jun 5, 1997, 01:00
MARY HOLLAND
TONY Blair has
taken a lot of flak - and received precious few bouquets - for his statement on
the Famine,
read by Gabriel Byrne at last week's commemoration concert in Millstreet. While
falling short of a formal apology. this was the first time that a British Prime
Minister publicly acknowledged the fact that his predecessors in government had
failed the people of Ireland in their hour of greatest need.
The Labour Party leader spoke of a "defining and
dreadful event in the history of England and Ireland" and of the deep
scars that bad been left by politicians in London who had stood by and allowed
"a crop failure to turn into massive human tragedy". He also paid
tribute to the courage and resilience of those Irish men and women who had
triumphed in the face of this catastrophe, and said that Britain in particular
had "benefited immeasurably" from their skills and talents.
Mr Blair has been roundly criticised by sections of
the British media for the tone of the statement, and his political judgment has
been called into question for making it at all. Yet, there has been very little
reaction on this side of the Irish Sea. The Taoiseach welcomed Mr Blair's comments,
saying that he had confronted the past in a way which laid a basis for healing
in the future. But, as far as I can ascertain, there has been no public
response from Bertie Ahern. Two years ago, the Fianna Fail leader said that "a
frank acknowledgment and expression of regret about the shortcomings of the
then British government (at the time of the Famine) would contribute to a much
better climate of relations".
[…] FOR many years Irish people have asked for some
official acknowledgment by the British that a great wrong was committed 150
years ago. Now that the Prime Minister has tried to respond to that demand, we
seem strangely reluctant to admit that something important has happened.
The statement has been noticed in Britain, of course.
It isn't easy for any country to admit that it has behaved badly in the past
and there are particular problems for the British in accepting that they may
have been less than generous in their treatment of Ireland. The comments have
ranged from the sneers contained in letters to the newspapers, asking if it
might now be appropriate for the British government to seek an apology from
Denmark for the actions of the Danes during the reign of King Alfred, to
more serious criticism of Mr Blair.
The Prime Minister was reprimanded by the Daily Telegraph for
encouraging "the self-pitying nature of Irish nationalism". There was
a real danger, the paper warned, that Mr Blair's letter would simply feed
"the grievance culture which allows Nationalist Ireland to place the blame
for all the country's ills at the door of the Brits, ultimately justifying
terrorism". It was a theme taken up in the London Independent, which
referred to the Irish "culture of victim hood". There were dire
warnings that this could start a flood of demands for apologies for perceived
grievances. Bloody
Sunday in Derry was
quoted as an example.
HISTORIANS also voiced their disapproval, albeit in
more measured terms. The argument was made that the Famine like many great
tragedies of history, flowed from immensely complex political and economic
causes and that it was simplistic to lay the blame for what had happened on a
callous or indifferent British government. To do so was to undermine the work
done by professional historians in seeking out the more complicated truth.
Several writers suggested that it was wrong to judge
what happened then by the standards that would probably be applied now to such
a disaster. But it is one of the most refreshing aspects of Tony Blair's
government that it does seem prepared to confront the gross injustices that
have been committed in the past, and where possible, to put them right. The
decision a couple of weeks ago to pardon soldiers, including young
Irishmen, who were shot for cowardice in the first world war is another
example of the kind of generous imagination which has already been brought to
bear on old griefs.
[…] We have seen from our own experience in the North
that an expression of obviously sincere contrition for having inflicted
suffering can make trust seem possible in even the grimmest situation. No one
who saw it is likely to forget the announcement of the loyalist ceasefire in
October 1994. What quickened hope that a quite new kind of leadership had
emerged from the world of the loyalist paramilitaries was the way Gusty Spence
offered to "the loved ones of all innocent victims over the past 25 years,
abject and true remorse". And, in spite of all that has happened since,
the brutal resurgence of loyalist violence in recent weeks and the almost unbearable
images of grieving innocents, that hope has never quite died.
Admitting responsibility for what has happened in the
past is the first step towards creating a better future. That is true of
personal relations and of public life. Tony Blair has made a brave and generous
attempt to lay part of our shared and painful history to rest. Perhaps, when
the general election is over, the new government should respond to what he has
said.
Document
B 2018
Document C
Bloody Sunday: PM David Cameron's full statement
15 June 2010, source : BBC News,
http://www.bbc.com/news/10322295
This is the full transcript of the statement Prime
Minister David Cameron made to MPs in the House of Commons on the day the
Bloody Sunday report was published.
"The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is
publishing the report of the Saville inquiry - the tribunal set up by the previous
government to investigate the tragic events of 30 January 1972, a day more
commonly known as Bloody Sunday. We have acted in good faith by publishing
the tribunal's findings as soon as possible after the general election.
Mr Speaker, I am deeply patriotic. I never want to
believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the
behaviour of our soldiers and our army, who I believe to be the finest in the
world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous
circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve. But the conclusions of
this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing
equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both
unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong.
Lord Saville concludes that the soldiers of the
support company who went into the Bogside did so as a result of an order which
should not have been given by their commander. He finds that, on balance, the
first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army. He finds
that none of the casualties shot by the soldiers of support company was armed
with a firearm. He finds that there was some firing by Republican
paramilitaries but none of this firing provided any justification for the
shooting of civilian casualties. And he finds that, in no case, was any warning
given by soldiers before opening fire. He also finds that the support company
reacted by losing their self-control, forgetting or ignoring their instructions
and training and with a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline. He
finds that despite the contrary evidence given by the soldiers, none of them
fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers.
And he finds that many of the soldiers - and I quote knowingly - put forward
false accounts to seek to justify their firing. […]
Mr Speaker, these are shocking conclusions to read and
shocking words to have to say. But Mr Speaker, you do not defend the British
Army by defending the indefensible. We do not honour all those who have served
with such distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in
Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth. There is no point in trying to
soften or equivocate what is in this report. It is clear from the tribunal's
authoritative conclusions that the events of Bloody Sunday were in no way
justified.
I know that some people wonder whether, nearly 40
years on from an event, [if] a prime minister needs to issue an apology. For
someone of my generation, Bloody Sunday and the early 1970s are something we
feel we have learnt about rather than lived through. But what happened should
never, ever have happened. The families of those who died should not have had
to live with the pain and the hurt of that day and with a lifetime of loss.
Some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. The government is ultimately
responsible for the conduct of the armed forces and for that, on behalf of the
government, indeed, on behalf of our country, I am deeply sorry. […]
Mr Speaker, while in no way justifying the events of
January 30th, 1972, we should acknowledge the background to the events of
Bloody Sunday. Since 1969, the security situation in Northern Ireland had been
declining significantly. Three days before Bloody Sunday,
two RUC officers, one a Catholic, were shot by
the IRA in Londonderry,
the first police officers killed in the city during the Troubles. A third of
the City of Derry had
become a no-go area for the RUC
and the Army. And in the end, 1972 was to prove Northern Ireland's bloodiest
year by far, with nearly 500 people killed. And let us also remember, Bloody
Sunday is not the defining story of the service the British Army gave in
Northern Ireland from 1969-2007. This was known as Operation Banner, the
longest continuous operation in British military history, spanning 38 years and
in which over 250,000 people served. Our armed forces displayed enormous
courage and professionalism in upholding democracy and the rule of law in
Northern Ireland. Acting in support of the police, they played a major part in
setting the conditions that have made peaceful politics possible. And over 1,000
members - 1,000 members - of the security forces lost their lives to that
cause. Without their work, the peace process would not have happened. Of
course, some mistakes were undoubtedly made, but lessons were also learned. And
once again, I put on record the immense debt of gratitude we all owe to those
who served in Northern Ireland. […]
Mr Speaker, this report and the inquiry itself
demonstrate how a state should hold itself to account and how we should be
determined at all times, no matter how difficult, to judge ourselves against
the highest standards. Openness and frankness about the past, however painful,
they do not make us weaker, they make us stronger. That is one of the things
that differentiates us from the terrorists. We should never forget that over
3,500 people from every community lost their lives in Northern Ireland, the
overwhelming majority killed by terrorists. There were many terrible
atrocities. Politically-motivated violence was never justified, whichever side
it came from. And it can never be justified by those criminal gangs that today
want to draw Northern Ireland back to its bitter and bloody past. No government
I lead will ever put those who fight to defend democracy on an equal footing
with those who contine to seek to destroy it. But neither will we hide from the
truth that confronts us today. In the words of Lord Saville, what happened on
Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased hostility towards the Army and
exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed. Bloody Sunday was
a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded and a catastrophe for the people of
Northern Ireland. Those are words we cannot and must not ignore. But I hope
what this report can also do it is mark the moment where we come together in
this House and in the communities we represent to acknowledge our shared
history, even where it divides us. And come together to close this painful
chapter on Northern Ireland's troubled past. That is not to say we should ever
forget or dismiss the past, but we must also move on. Northern Ireland has been
transformed over the last 20 years and all of us in Westminster and Stormont must
continue that work of change, coming together with all the people of Northern
Ireland to build a stable, peaceful, prosperous and shared future. And it is
with that determination that I commend this statement to the house.”
Proposition de commentaire composé
(The elements in blue of course would not appear in
your commentary, they are simply there to remind you that all these points need
to be covered, sometimes briefly, sometimes more at length).
There are many, many ways of commenting
on these extremely rich documents - certainly you would not be expected to
include all the elements I am including here, by a long way. However, it is
always best if you have at least something to say on almost all the following
questions
Who ? (is expressing themselves),
To whom ? (are they trying to
communicate)
When ? (what is important about the
fact that it was at this date and not at another)
What ? (is the essential content of
the document),
Why? (are they saying all this),
How (do they express themselves, or try
to persuade people ?)
and
What difference did it make ?
(Where does this document or incident fit into the long history of Anglo-Irish
relations).
Everybody makes mistakes and omissions, but which ones
are dangerous? For this piece of work I would say it is dangerous 1) not to
show that you know who was fighting whom in Northern Ireland and why, and when
and how the military conflict started and was stopped. 2) not to show that you
understand that these histories are strongly contested and controversial 3) not
to show that you can explain more than one point of view in these ideological
conflicts.
It is also essential to identify and comment on the
point of view in each document. The journalist Mary Holland is giving an
opinion – you must say what it is. David Cameron, also. Even the author of the
picture which is document two is giving an opinion, although it is a little
more difficult to identify.
A central element of documents 2 and 3 is the conflict
between unionists and nationalists in Northern Ireland, so if you define the
question as simply international relations between countries it will be
impossible for you to explain.
References which it would be good to show you are
familiar with.
The Irish Times is
a respected Irish newspaper, and naturally will tend to give an opinion whose
main priority is an Irish point of view. Within Irish public opinion, there is
a general consensus that Britain was partly to blame for the tragedy of the
Irish famine. The most radical speak of genocide. In Britain, there is no such
consensus.
The Daily Telegraph is
the most conservative of the serious daily newspapers published in the UK. It
is unsurprising, then, to see that they have very little sympathy with those
who emphasize the negative legacy of British colonial domination.
The Taoiseach is
the equivalent, in the Irish Republic, of the Prime Minister. If you knew that,
that is good, but if you knew it and did not show you knew it, that is a pity.
You should write “ the Taoiseach (equivalent of the Prime Minister in the
Irish Republic “).
The Irish famine. Again, you
can show in a very few words that you know what is being talked about. “The
article deals with an apology for the famine” gains you no marks – your reader
is waiting for you to say something interesting. However, “the article deals
with an apology for the Irish famine (a tragic event of the mid-nineteenth
century during which a million Irish people died and two million emigrated)” is
infinitely better. It is important to not speak of the Irish famine as if it was
just one more sad thing that happened in the past. The population of Ireland
did not recover, in numbers, for more than a century. The mass emigration much
accelerated by the famine sent Irish people around the world, in particular to
the USA and to Australia, where Irish diaspora communities have had an
important effect on local society. The Irish famine is one of the founding
myths of Irish society, and Tony Blair’s change of attitude compared to
previous UK governments was an important political event.
Pardons for First World War soldiers: The
article in the Irish Times mentions this. During the First World War, a number
of British soldiers were executed by their own army, for questions of discipline
(sometimes sleeping on duty, sometimes running away etc). These executions,
from today’s point of view, are rather shocking, and for many years there was a
campaign for an official pardon for these soldiers. For decades different
governments said this was impossible, but finally it was declared in 2006. (A
similar campaign exists in France, but so far the French parliament has not
agreed to a pardon). The pardon is an example of an attempt, many years later,
symbolically to redress injustice, and the writer uses it to compare with the “apology”
for the famine.
A hard border:
we see the expression frequently, but you must show you know what it is. It is
simply a border at which you must stop and show your passports, and at which
all goods vehicles must show what they are carrying and prove that they have
paid the required customs duties if any. A “soft border” is like the border
between France and Belgium today, or France and Germany, at which the only
reason you know you have crossed into another country is that you receive a
message on your mobile phone from your phone operator telling you that you are
abroad, but that everything is fine.
Derry/Londonderry
The city of Derry was renamed Londonderry in the
17th century, as a symbol of colonial domination. For a very long time
nationalists (generally Catholics) called the town “Derry” and unionists
(generally Protestants) used the name “Londonderry”. The use of one or the
other name was rich in political signification. It is certainly no accident that
Cameron alternates between the two names in his carefully written speech. He is
attempting to showcase equal respect for the two sections of the population. In
recent years in Northern Ireland, one often sees (on the front of buses or
trains, for example) the double name “Derry/Londonderry” leading to the
humorous local nickname for the town: “slash city”.
Suggested commentary
These three documents all deal with aspects of the
relationship between the United Kingdom and the island of Ireland. Two speak of
apologies, and one of an acute political problem. In all three cases, the
history of Ireland (The Famine, Bloody Sunday, and the conflict between
loyalists and republicans in the North) has a strong effect on political life
today. They can then easily be linked up
with the theme of “le passé dans le présent” as in all three cases we can see
the exploration of an attempt to mitigate the effects of past injustice or
conflict.
[Notice that in this case the link between all three documents is not too difficult to establish - all deal with Ireland and conflict. This is not always the case, and sometimes you have to choose a very general and distanced viewpoint in order to group all three of the documents together. Note that writing about only two of the three documents, because the third is difficult, is absolutely forbidden].
The first document is a newspaper article from the
Irish Times, in which the author praises and defends[1] Tony Blair’s controversial “apology”
for British government action (or indeed lack of action) during the famine in
Ireland in the middle of the 19th century. The “apology” and the article both
date from 1997, a crucial year in the development of the conflictual situation
in Northern Ireland.
The second document is an image in the form of a
mathematical puzzle, summarizing in a humorous manner the dilemma of Theresa
May’s minority government in 2018-2019 in its attempts to find a commons
majority for an orderly withdrawal from the European Union.
The illustration is still very relevant today in 2020, as negotiations are
continuing between the UK and the European Union concerning a number of issues
including customs borders in Ireland.[2]
The final document is a speech in parliament by
Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron from ten years ago, in which, more or less obliged by the publication of the
Saville report, he officially apologizes for the killing by the British army in
January 1972 of unarmed demonstrators, at the same time as presenting this
event as exceptional and not typical, and praising in general the actions of
British troops in Northern Ireland during the 30 year period after 1969.[3]
In what way are they about le passé dans le présent?
Two of the documents are concerned with apologies, in
each case for actions of a dominant power towards a subaltern group at a moment
relatively distant in the past. Both of the events referred to – the famine and
Bloody Sunday, left much bitterness against the British, in particular among
Irish nationalists, for whom such cruelty was considered typical of British
imperial crime.
In the first case, Tony Blair suggests that the
British government should have done more to alleviate the effects of the famine.
(1 WHO)
It might be considered unsurprising that it should be
Tony Blair who volunteered this apology. Tony Blair’s premiership was
characterized by a series of measures and policies intended to modernize
institutions and turn the page on old ways of doing things (which went in
parallel to the use of a new, personal style very much more informal than Prime
Ministers had traditionally been). For example, the House of Lords was
thoroughly overhauled, and the vast majority of hereditary Lords were excluded.
A Freedom of Information act on a North- American model changed the relation of
the state to the media. On inner-party issues, Blair changed the name of his
party (to “New Labour”) and changed its constitution and
policies. Thus, a new attitude to the history of the Irish famine
and to Britain’s colonial past in general might be seen as just one more novel
approach brought in by Mr Blair. In addition, since the Labour Party did not
exist during the famine, it is uncomplicated for Blair to be critical of the
governments of the time.
(1: When, and what difference did it make?)
This first “apology” took place in 1997, shortly after
the election of Tony Blair. Irish nationalists were hoping that the new Labour
government, elected after 18 years of Conservative government, might mark a
change in attitudes to Ireland, even though John Major’s government had already
been working on negotiations between nationalists and loyalists. Margaret
Thatcher’s time in office, for 1979 to 1990, had been marked by the death of
ten Republican prisoners on hunger strike, but in the 1990s, the British Army,
the IRA, and the loyalist paramilitaries all seemed to be coming to the
conclusion that a military victory was impossible. This “apology” by Tony Blair
for an old historical injustice might have helped an atmosphere of negotiation
which was to lead up to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, which managed to end
the military conflict in return for work on Catholic human rights in the North,
and increased cooperation between the North of Ireland and the Republic.
(How and what)
Nevertheless, the form of the apology is to be noted.
It was not (unlike document 3) an official government apology given formally in
the House of Commons, but a statement sent to be read out at a commemorative
concert for the victims of the famine. The article only uses very
short quotes of less than a sentence from Blair’s words, but the full text
includes the words “Those who governed in London at the time failed their
people through standing by”. Holland welcomes this expression of regret at the
failings of previous British governments and feels it is an important step
forward in the respect it shows for Irish feeling on the still
burning question of the famine. One scholar has underlined its
historical significance in that “Blair’s rhetoric was one of the first examples
of a collective apology issued by a post-Cold War era political.”
Indeed, the famine, whose immediate cause was a
disease affecting the potato crops, began in 1847 and lasted several years.
More than a million died, more than a million emigrated, and population levels
in Ireland did not recover for over a century. Although some government aid was
forthcoming from Westminster, it was severely limited by “laissez-faire”
politics in this period long before the welfare state. The ideology of
conservative elites considered that the Irish people were no doubt to blame for
the famine, or even that it was punishment come directly from God. Ireland’s
people were often represented at this time as inferior and even animal. We
should remember that until 1829 Catholics in Ireland had not been allowed to
sit as Members of Parliament.
As the famine continued, soup kitchens and “public
works” were organized, but the latter was often forced and humiliating labour,
rather than useful work, in keeping with attitudes to the poor at the time.
Even more shocking was the fact considerable quantities of food (which the poor
did not have the money to buy) were exported from Ireland during the famine,
and the government was not prepared to reduce taxes on foreign wheat which
might have helped the situation.
The famine became, in subsequent decades, something of
a founding myth of Irish identity. The fact that the British helped so little
was considered by many to be typical of colonial domination, and some
nationalist historians have even referred to the British government’s attitude
at the time as “genocidal”.
Mary Holland is disappointed that Irish politicians
have not received with more enthusiasm this expression of regret. Although the
Taoiseach (the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic) made positive comments
about it, Bertie Ahern, leader of Fianna Fail, a centre right political party
and one of the two main parties in the Irish Republic,[4] has not yet reacted, despite his
earlier interest in seeing Britain express regret. She underlines the fact that
conservative forces in the UK have denounced Blair’s statement. For example,
the Daily Telegraph, the most conservative of the serious daily newspapers, had
objected, and Holland suggests that Blair’s political courage should be
praised. The Daily Telegraph had expressed a common conservative complaint in
cases where historical injustice is the target of modern political
campaigns: it said that this was a case of “grievance culture”, people enjoying
playing at being victims,[5] suggesting that the dark past is
better forgotten rather than re-hashed. For the Daily Telegraph, far from
providing the basis for a future of mutual respect and peace, apologizing in
this way would tend to encourage terrorism.
To strengthen her argument in favour of this apology,
Holland gives two examples of apologies which she feels have been positive. One
is the decision in 2006 by the British government to accord a posthumous pardon
to British soldiers executed by their own army in the First World War, the
result of a very long campaign, and a pardon which resulted in official statues
to the executed being set up in official places of military commemoration. The
second was the ceasefire declared by the loyalist paramilitaries opposed to the
IRA. The expression of apology by loyalist leaders, she felt, led to real
progress in the peace agreements.
The third document is also connected to apology: it is
the official statement of Conservative prime minister about the report from the
Saville inquiry.[6] Although it is David Cameron who
makes the apology, it is the result of a long process in which he himself had
little influence, as indeed he underlines, saying that the 1970s was a period
he had read about but had not lived through (Cameron was six years old in 1972,
and became Britain’s youngest Prime minister since the early
19th century when he took office in 2010.)
After British troops were sent to Northern Ireland in
1969, in a situation where inter-community violence was at a high level, and
Catholic parts of town in particular were in danger, their reputation among
Catholics rapidly deteriorated, as it became clear that they did not have the
same attitude to nationalist Catholics and to loyalist Protestants.
Imprisonment without trial was brought in for paramilitary suspects in 1971,
but only used systematically against Republicans. At one point, Britain was
denounced by international organizations for the use of torture.
In January 1972, an unarmed political demonstration
took place in Derry. Fourteen young men were killed by the British Army, in
front of hundreds of witnesses. Several of them were teenagers, and one of them
was shot dead while he was waving a white handkerchief in sign of peace. An
inquiry, the Widgery inquiry, set up by the Conservative government of the time
in the days following the events concluded that the soldiers had acted in
self-defence, and both houses of parliament approved the report of the inquiry,
despite misgivings being expressed even in establishment circles.
The events of Bloody Sunday strengthened the Irish
Republican Army in Northern Ireland. It was well-known in Northern Ireland that
the men killed had been unarmed, and often shot in the back in cold blood, and
this fact, along with government and media insistence that the shooting was
done in self-defence, made it seem to many that only a military or paramilitary
option was open for defending Catholic nationalist interests in Northern
Ireland. In his speech, Cameron confirms this, saying that Bloody Sunday
“strengthened the provisional IRA”.
Twenty five years later, when it had become apparent
to all sides that a military victory was highly unlikely, there were the
beginnings of negotiations for a peace agreement. The question of Bloody Sunday
came to be very important. Many Republicans were not prepared to negotiate as
long as the official position of the British government was that these killings
were justified. The whole future of the very fragile peace negotiations might
have been threatened.
There had been a campaign for justice for many years
by families and supporter of those killed, but there was a technical problem:
it is not normally possible to open a new inquiry once an inquiry on a given
event has reached its conclusions. A special dispensation was obtained to open
a new inquiry, under the leadership of Lord Saville. The inquiry lasted twelve
years, partly because hundreds of witnesses had seen the people shot (since the
events took place below blocks of flats). The result showed that the people
killed were not armed and were not threatening the soldiers in any way.
David Cameron had inherited this situation, and his
priority was, naturally, damage limitation. There are still very small
paramilitary groups uninterested in the Good Friday process, and any attempt to
block the conclusions of the inquiry could have been dangerous. He decided on a
formal, public apology, hoping thus to close this chapter in history. The
apology did not, in fact, quite close the chapter, in that there are campaigns
for the soldiers who carried out the murders to face criminal charges.
Cameron’s position was unenviable, since the Saville
Report made it clear that the victims of Bloody Sunday were executed in cold
blood, and the question must therefore be raised as to how it was possible for
the first inquiry under Lord Widgery to exonerate the soldiers involved.
Cameron concentrates then on presenting the events of that Sunday as wholly
exceptional. British troops he says are “the finest in the world”, and over the
thirty years or so that British soldiers were in Northern Ireland, they deserve
“honour” not reprobation. They showed, in general, according to Cameron,
“enormous courage and professionalism”. He further argues that it is the work
of the large number of troops who were in Northern Ireland which made the peace
process after 1998 possible.
By mentioning the large number of deaths resulting
from the “Troubles”, in particular in the 1970s, he aims at contextualizing,
perhaps even minimizing, the scandal of Bloody Sunday. He carefully does not mention
the specific responsibility of the Conservative government in 1972.
In this way, Cameron replies in advance to the
arguments that will be put forward by Irish nationalists, who will consider
that Bloody Sunday was certainly an extreme case, but that the logic was wholly
typical of British forces in Northern Ireland, backing up anti-Catholic racism
and a Northern Irish statelet which the nationalists consider to be
illegitimate and temporary.
Cameron ends his speech by expressing the hope that
this clear apology will “mark the moment where we come
together in this House and in the communities we represent to acknowledge our
shared history, even where it divides us.” That is, he expresses a wish that
truth and reconciliation can be attained, and that the Good Friday process can continue,
and relations improve. In 2020, there are still a number of Catholic and
Protestant neighbourhoods in Northern Irish cities divided by “peace walls” so
it is clear that there is still work to do to unite Catholics and the
Protestants who the British army was aligning itself with.
(1, 3 context)
The first and third documents also fit into a series
of events and initiatives within Britain and indeed other countries- actual or
proposed apologies for past injustices. One of the best-known cases is the decision
of the Australian government a few years back to apologize for the treatment of
Aboriginal children of “the stolen generations” when racist policies involved
the taking of children from their families and placing them, often secretly,
with White families. In Britain there have been such examples as the apology by
the British State for the mistreatment of gay mathematician Alan Turing, and
the apology some years ago by the Church of England for their involvement in
the slave trade.
The second document is quite different in form. It is
a mathematical puzzle, presented as a “paradox”. How can one follow the instructions?
It is mathematically impossible to do so. Because of this, the intention of the
diagram is no doubt humorous.[7]
The diagram refers to the dilemma facing Theresa May
and her government in their negotiations for withdrawal from the European Union
after the referendum decision of 2016. This problem has still not been solved
today. There are political reasons for each one of the instructions, and, as we
shall see, they do have a strong connection with “le passé dans le présent”. We
will take them, not in order.
Why must there be no hard border between Northern
Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? Although the military conflict has almost
completely ceased, the Irish nationalists in the North and in the Republic
still wish, by political means, to work for the eventual reunification of the
whole Ireland, since they see the 1920 partition as a colonial carving up of
the island, caused by colonial settlements going back centuries, in a process
which imposed Protestant domination on an island which held a Catholic majority.
The lack of a real visible border at the moment is very important to
nationalists, seeing that the militarized border before 1998 was felt as an
insult to Irish national aspirations.
Loyalists also are not keen for a hard border (with
customs barriers, passport controls etc) to return. From a practical point of
view, many thousands of people cross the border every day simply to go to work,
and also, if a hard border were to encourage those nationalists who
have not abandoned armed struggle, this would be a negative.
There must be a hard border between France and
Britain. The UK has decided to leave the European Union, and thus no longer be
part of the single market nor the free movement area, nor, eventually, the
customs’ union. The European Union has true, hard borders all around its
exterior, and it would be illogical for this not to be the case for Britain.
These two imperatives lead to a contradiction. How can
there be no hard border to the North of the Irish Republic, and yet a hard
border between the EU and the UK?
One idea which has been floated to solve this dilemma
was to have some kind of border between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain:
that is, to allow Northern Ireland, although it is part of the United Kingdom,
to have a special relationship with the European Union, on a tariff-free
principle. This would no doubt be complex to put into place, but it would have,
in theory, solved the political problem. There would have been customs checks
on items entering England Scotland or Wales if they came from anywhere on the
island of Ireland.
However, there was an “accidental” complication. This
solution would have been unacceptable to many, very influential, unionists, who
are firmly opposed to Northern Ireland being treated in any way differently
from the rest of the United Kingdom, because they see any such difference as
the beginning of a dangerous slope leading to the reunification of Ireland.
Rule from Dublin has been the nightmare of unionists since the very beginning
of the 19th century, when Ireland was brought into the United Kingdom by
the Acts of Union, passed in Westminster and in Dublin. At the end of the
19th century Home Rule for Ireland, a plan for partial autonomy for
Ireland, was fiercely fought against by unionists, through such actions as the
Curragh mutiny. After the First World War, the determination and force of
unionists allowed the division of Ireland and the formation of a Northern
entity of which the majority of the population was Protestant.
It might have been possible for the British government
to ignore these unionist feelings, or compensate them by making concessions on
other issues, had it not been for an unfortunate political coincidence. The
British Conservative government of Theresa May did not have a majority in the
House of Commons (always an uncomfortable position for any government). The
only way they could have decisions voted in by a majority is by relying on the
ten or so MPs from the Democratic Unionist Party, a hard-line unionist
organization, often considered to be anti-Catholic, and which campaigned
against the Good Friday agreement when it was put to a referendum in 1998.
The DUP Members of Parliament would never accept that
Northern Ireland be treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom,
leading to the dilemma illustrated in the diagram. Although this is above all a
question of twenty first century politics, the link with memory and heritage is
clear, in that the partition of Ireland almost a hundred years ago, a
compromise intended to solve the problem of the conflict between the
nationalist population and the unionists created by earlier settlement and by
religious and social divisions, has come back to haunt today’s politicians.
All in all, the three documents highlight past
injustices and conflicts, and the use of the government apology in processes
connected with Truth and Reconciliation. The two apologies are interventions in
delicate situation – the first voluntary, the second constrained.[8] The diagram, a more factual
presentation rather than a rhetorical one, illustrates the dilemma inherited
from past conflicts and bitternesses.
General questions of methodology
Here are some general points on writing a text
commentary in civilization, which is completely different from in
literature. Many thanks to the teachers from the University of Paris 7: this
section is made up of extracts from their document, which I have slightly
adapted.
This is one suggested method. Others are possible, but
they will tend to draw in the same questionings. The two main grave errors are
a) paraphrasing the document and b) reciting your history classes without
linking them to this particular document and what the document is trying to do.
(Their document is online here https://fr.scribd.com/document/362914625/Brochure-Externe-2016-17-Site-Ufr-2 )
Objective of the commentary
In a text commentary, your role is to determine the
historical significance of the text. In order to do so, you must discuss the
perspective given by the author on the historical issues presented in the
text. You must determine what his or her objectives are and how / to what
extent he or she achieves them. This implies that there needs to be 3
levels to your analysis:
Level 1: define, explain, highlight the events,
developments etc mentioned in the text, using your knowledge of the
period; demonstrate that you know your history, understand what the author
refers to, and that you are able to make the text comprehensible to people who
do not know the period or have not read the text.
Level 2: comment on the intentions of the author, on
how they present the issues at stake, and why.
Level 3: what difference did it make? What is the role
of this particular document or incident in the long trends of historical
development?
Preliminary work on the text
1. Look at the “margins” of the text: title,
source, date (situate it within your period), author (see whether it’s anonymous
/ anybody famous; if the author is known to you, gather in your mind the
elements you know about him/her)
2. Read the text carefully, at least 3 times. When you
read the text for the first time, do not make any notes or write on the text;
do not make assumptions and keep a clear and open mind until you have read the
last word of the text: texts can be deceptive and the key to the interpretation
may be at the end of the passage – it’s always difficult to get rid of
wrong assumptions.
3. Once you have perceived the general idea of
the text, look closely at the following elements:
a. nature of the text (official report / letter /
petition / speech). The specificity of the text will have to be taken into
account in your analysis.
b. period analysed in the text + date when the
text was written. They may be the same or they may be different, in the case of
memoirs for instance - the retrospective aspect of a document should never be
ignored. Place the date(s) within your period + is it immediately before/after
a major historical event, reform etc. Before you start your analysis, you must
be clear on the
context in which the text was written, or the
speech delivered
c. author (or multiple authors); if you know who
they are, determine whether they are likely to have a particular perspective /
events they describe and why.
d. readership / audience: this is essential to
help you analyse the objectives of the author, who they intend to convince
and what means they will use to do so.
e. tone/ literary qualities… because they
are markers of subjectivity and will help you determine the intentions, means
and perspective of the author.
f. structure of the text: uncover the internal
logic of the text, the argumentative dynamic of the author’s demonstration,
(if it is an argumentative text, as texts chosen for exams often are) looking
closely at repetitions/progression…
Detailed analysis of the text
One of the main challenges here is to distinguish the
main arguments from the more minor points. This does not mean of course that
details are to be overlooked: but they should not obscure the central dynamic
of the text, which should be at the heart of your commentary. A linear
analysis of the text will first enable you to choose the terms, dates,
concepts, events, etc that need to be defined, explained, and
commented on. Select the quotes that you will include in your commentary. But
the objective of your analysis should be to go towards the most problematic
elements, towards what is implicit, what is left unsaid, what is hidden
(consciously or unconsciously) by the author.
You should uncover whether the author is being
influenced (and by whom or what), to what extent they are partial, and to what
extent they are trying to influence the readership/audience. It is on these
points that your commentary should provide a critical (which of course means
constructive assessment) perspective on the text. Compare the way the
author presents events to what you know of these same historical events,
to ultimately determine why the author writes as he or she does, what the
motives are and what, therefore, is the historical interest of the text. Once
you have completed this detailed analysis, you will be able to organise the
main themes of the text into a logical, detailed outline and determine a
“problématique”. Remember that this is not an essay and that
the problématique should be based on the historical interest of
the text and the intentions of the author, not on the topic in general.
Introduction
1. Begin with the context: select relevant historical
developments that will lead to the issues raised by the text.
Select the context critically: the historical
long-term perspective is only interesting if relevant: avoid equally
superficial and naïve comments, such as “England has always been/ For
centuries…”
The introduction should remain dense, concise, to the
point: it is not the place to cram in knowledge, so do not give a vast panorama
of events on the subject at stake in the text.
2. Present the main idea/theme of the texts (brief but
to the point), the objective of the author, the date, the readership; show that
you have understood the context in which the text was written or the speech
delivered and that you will reflect on its significance.
3. Introduce a clear problématique,
focused on the text (not simply on the general topic of the text) and on its
interpretation. Once again, the essential elements in a commentary are the
interpretation that the author gives of the period concerned, and your own informed
interpretation of the author’s perspective. You need to reflect on how the text
should be read in order to be properly understood, in its explicit and implicit
elements.
Development: argumentation
Do not hesitate to draw comparisons between the document
you are asked to study and other documents you have read that would highlight
the interest of the text and help you build a critical analysis.
Interpretations are central in history and the quality of your analysis will be
improved if you can use briefly and selectively other documents that may be
relevant to fully understand the significance of the text you are to study.
Similarly, do not hesitate to use the historiography on the period to support
your analysis. Referring to books and/or articles by historians of the period
will give weight to your own analysis and demonstrate that you have a broad and
informed perspective on events.
Conclusion
The conclusion should not be a summary (neither of
your development nor of the text itself). You must reflect on what you have
demonstrated and pull together the threads from your main arguments, conclude
on the historical interest/significance of the text, the objectives of the
author and his/her degree of subjectivity. Needless to say, you must provide a response
to the problématique given in the introduction. Include your reflection in
a broader historical context (without giving the impression that it is a mere
“what happened next”.
To be avoided
at all costs
1. Paraphrase and reformulation: this will be avoided
if you remember the 2 levels that your commentary must include (cf above). 2.
Essay rather than commentary: (cf above: never provide
an analysis that is not closely linked to the text and its specificity; this
should also enable you to avoid any
placage de cours).
3. Literary commentary: style, rhetorical devices etc
are only useful if they support your analysis of history; if not, they are
irrelevant.
[If you want to talk about lexical fields, anaphores
and cataphores, you should probably wait until you are working on a literary
document].
4. Judgment on the author, pseudo-psychology on
his/her feelings and intentions. Bold statements (particularly if unfounded):
valuable comments generally come from the confrontation between several
interpretations of the same event/process.
[e.g. Do not write “The author’s presentation does not
fit with the facts.” Write instead: “Other commentators such as X have seen
these events in quite a different way, claiming that ….”.]
[9][1] http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab74oct.htm
[10][2] The
full manifesto can be found here: http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/con74oct.htm
Questions of language
1. No contractions in university work when not quoting
dialogue, ever.
2. A few people have problems translating the
« conditionnel de conjecture » (“des tragédies dans lesquelles le
Royaume Uni aurait sa part de responsabilité “). This is not
translated with “would”.
3. Be careful with infinitive and gerundive
structures. The correct form with “risk”, for example, is “There is a risk OF
ENCOURAGING a return to a military conflict”.
[1] Note that from the very first
mention of the document, it is best to clearly express what the document is
trying to do. « The first document deals with Tony Blair’s apology »
is weak.
[2] One student suggested that the
colours in the document were significant – the green words for Ireland’s
priorities, etc. This is creative but not correct in this case.
[3] Same comment here: from the
beginning try to characterize what the document is doing, and what the
motivation is. Cameron is forced to apologize because of the facts
officially uncovered by the Saville inquiry, but he wants to do it in a manner
which limits the damage to the reputation, in Britain, of the British Army. You
should not characterize the apology as something Cameron felt like doing
because he was so honest. If this were how politics worked, the apology would have
come decades earlier.
[4] At the exam, obviously, if you
do not know who Fianna Fail are, you cannot add these words, but if you do know
you must show you know.
[5] If you can define
« grievance culture » this would definitely be a bonus.
[6] Be careful: inquiry not
enquiry.
[7] The characterization of the
second document is considerably more difficult than that of the other two, and
I think it would be possible to get a good mark on the exam even without
understanding the humorous intent of the diagram, as long as you showed you
understood*why* it was being considered essential to have « no hard
border » in one place and a « hard border » in another. You
should also show you know what a « hard border » actually is.
[8] Many students were too generous
with their analysis of the interventions by politicians. Of course, it is quite
possible that Blair and Cameron were motivated by the highest of ideals – this
is not really something we can know. What we can know and explain is the
circumstances which made it a good idea to apologize (Blair) with a particular
political aim, or made it compulsory to apologize (Cameron) in the hope of
damage limitation.
No comments:
Post a Comment