Search

In the absence of a political agreement on an overall mechanism for dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, storytelling has become a prevalent mode of addressing the legacy of violent conflict. Adopting a historiographic approach, this paper opens up two related tracks of examination: one exploring the (ideally) more comprehensive and egalitarian approach to accessing the past found in storytelling projects, understood as forms of oral history; and the other considering the process of those stories being made into records, and the dynamics of the archive. Drawing on a qualitative study of two storytelling projects in Northern Ireland, the paper argues that the stories produced there are not only subjective accounts of the past and thus sources for studies of life during conflict, but are also significantly informed by contemporary policy and funding frameworks and thus are sources for the study of the present peace process. The contested realm in which both storytelling projects and archives operate condition how they are funded, assembled, described, opened and maintained in the process of which some stories may be privileged and others marginalised or subsumed [Brown, C. (2013) Memory, identity and the archival paradigm: introduction to the special issue,Archival Science, 13, pp. 85–93]. Adopting the idea that storytelling as a form of ‘witnessing’ is also an ethico-political act [Kurasawa, F. (2009) A message in a bottle: bearing witness as a mode of transnational practice,Theory Culture Society, 26(1), pp. 92–111], the paper discusses what kind of discourses may be empowered by the online maintenance, and instant accessibility of memory in oral history archives. Crucially, the paper considers storytelling as a conduit for remembering, which is at once shaped by the absence of policies and legal frameworks, but also shapes subsequent policies to deal with the past as can be seen in the latest political accord, which includes it as a key approach. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The political functions of conflict-related commemoration have been examined in Northern Ireland, as in other deeply divided societies. However, a gap in research has persisted. In order to properly examine and evaluate local commemoration as a political activity, we should find out the size and spread of this activity, and ascertain who is responsible for its production. Accordingly, this paper presents the findings of a scoping survey of ‘Troubles’-related commemoration in Northern Ireland. We supply survey data in relation to types of commemoration; categories of actor; frequency; and location. Combining this with field observation of the forms and themes of commemoration, we examine how these data can frame our understandings of the environment of ‘Troubles’ memory. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The availability under the Thirty Years Rule of the Northern Irish and UK state papers for the start of the Troubles has made it possible to reassess what happened on 5 October 1968 in Derry. This article uses these files, other primary sources such as newspapers, and the ‘Flashpoints Model of Public Disorder’ to examine how the civil rights march and the police reaction transformed the contexts within which people in Derry and Northern Ireland as a whole thought and acted. It goes on to explore the three days of rioting that followed the violent scenes on Duke Street and the ‘collective remembrance’ of the event, which reached its climax during the Stormont general election campaign of February 1969. The article argues that the existing literature has overlooked not only the complexity of what happened on 5 October 1968 in Derry, but also the conflicting readings that were subsequently developed by contemporaries. The struggle to control the narrative helped drive the fragmentation and polarization in the second city that was encouraging certain individuals and groups to adopt violent strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In remembering critical events, history; memory; and commemoration often cause confusion and dissention. In this decade of centenaries, seminal events in modern Irish history contend for pre-eminence, but 1916 is clearly the most important. Scholars are competing with journalists and politicians for control of the agenda for establishing the meaning and importance of the Rising 100 years later. The continuing problems associated with commemorating 1916 are at least partly caused by the fact that partition has hindered nationalists from achieving their aspirations of a 32 county republic. We contend that it is this failure that accounts for much of the conflict in Ireland over the last century and which is now highlighted by the politics of commemoration of 1916. Despite the inevitable efforts of politicians and parties, the Easter Rising should be understood in the context of larger and broader movements that began decades earlier: the quest for Home Rule and the search for Irish identity. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Cheryl Lawther's article on ‘Unionists, loyalists and truth recovery’ has laid bare some uncomfortable truisms in the debate about ‘dealing with the past’, including loyalist paramilitaries' insatiable opposition to any form of ‘truth recovery’ process and the tendency to lay the blame for their violent actions at the door of ‘middle-class’ unionist politicians. However, by raising the spectre of collective responsibility, the article understates the progress made by some loyalists in advancing the wider debate on peace-building. Indeed, there is much more that could be said about loyalist scepticism of a so-called ‘truth process’ than her analysis allows. The response presented here, intended to add not to subtract from the five major points made in the article, identifies and critiques the fault-lines of a cacophony of ‘peace process’ narratives that require greater scrutiny before a serious discussion can be embarked on of the history and legacy of the Northern Ireland ‘troubles’. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]