Sir, – David Adams (Opinion, April 25th) has made some strange points about the teaching of history in Ireland, although it must be noted that he writes from a Northern perspective.
He betrays a considerable lack of knowledge about the current state of scholarship in the historical sciences here (to historians, quoting ATQ Stewart is a bit of a giveaway) and, crucially, he confuses the work of historians with the polemical and partisan uses that have have sometimes been made of that work by publicists, commentators, politicians and other axe-grinding merchants.
It is a commonplace that there is no such thing as an impartial historian, nor is there such as agreed and uncontroversial history. Faced with evidence, an historian has always to edit, sift and judge. It is the integrity and openness of that process which marks out the best historians from those who are not. As an example, he mentions the Scullabogue massacre of Wexford Protestants in 1798. Has he read Tom Dunne's award-winning and forensic examination of that incident in his Rebellions – Memoir, Memory and 1798 (2004 and 2010)? This, emphatically, does not play to "the public's prejudices", and rests on solid evidence.
“Revisionism” as applied to Irish history writing has taken on the pejorative association of most “-isms” – but, in the Irish context, it must be pointed out that it has emerged from, as much, a widening, deepening and understanding of available source materials as any desire to throw off the shackles of received orthodoxy. In that, professional Irish historical research and writing now follow best practice. – Yours, etc,
IAN d’ALTON,
Rathasker Heights,
Naas, Co Kildare.