Rachael YoungHI7109: Encompassing Modern Irish HistoryDr. Richard McMahon1/5/15

Identity in Modern Irish History:A Comparative Essay on How Irish Historians Study Identity

Identity is a term which has many different layers and is

constantly in flux; for this reason, it is unsurprising that modern

Irish historians deal with the concept in varying ways. This essay

will compare two academic works which focus on Irish identity, but

in very separate manners. The book Irish Nationalists and the Making of the

Irish Race, by Bruce Nelson, studies the concept of identity through

race in Ireland while the book When God Took Sides: Religion and Identity in

Ireland – Unfinished History, by Marianne Elliott, deals with the idea of

Irish identity through religion. These works compare and contrast

in different ways. The historians rely on different sources to make

their argument and they organize their books in differing

structures, yet their works are similar in the manner that neither

book fits into the two most established Irish historiographies. Both

of these authors attempt to understand the complex idea of Irish

identity though different structures, while similarly approaching

the topic from outside the conventions of both the nationalist and

revisionist historiographies. This essay will compare and contrast

how both Nelson and Elliott have created and supported their

arguments while also studying how both works advanced the idea of

Irish identity.

Bruce Nelson, who taught at Dartmouth College from 1985 until

2009, spent his career studying nineteenth and twentieth century

ideas of race and class in the United States and Western Europe.

Irish Nationalist and the Making of the Irish Race discusses nationalism in

Ireland from 1801 until the creation of the Irish Free State in

1922, focusing on concepts of perceived racial hierarchy. Nelson

argues that race became key to identity in the late nineteenth and

early twentieth centuries and played a large role in the concept of

nationalism. The way in which the Irish established their own

racial identity was crucial to how Ireland was seen and functioned

in the rest of the world. If the country would ever gain the

independence nationalists hoped for, Ireland had to assert is racial

identity as white to demand freedom but simultaneously associate

themselves with the oppressed black race in order to gain global

sympathy and support. Nelson's work on Irish racial identity

studies unanswered questions about Ireland and race. As stated in a

review by Cian McMahon in New Hibernia Review, Nelson's work 'succeeds

in broadening our understanding of Irish identity by digging up new

and interesting intellectual connections'.1 The work brings about

1 Cian McMahon, 'Irish Nationalists and the Making of the Irish Race by Bruce Nelson (review)' in New Hibernia Review,xvi, no. 4 (Winter, 2012), p.142-145.

new and original ideas of racial identity and its correlation and

influence on nationalism.

Dame Marianne Elliott currently holds a position in the Modern

History department at the University of Liverpool and is also the

director of Liverpool's Institute of Irish Studies. Elliott's

career has focused on religious identities, Irish political history,

and eighteenth century French, Ulster and Irish history. In her

book When God Took Sides: Religion and Identity in Ireland – Unfinished History,

Elliott looks at religious identity in Northern Ireland and studies

the sectarian division between Catholics and Protestants. Elliott

examines what creates and characterizes the Protestant and Catholic

identities, analyzing the nuances that are exaggerated in order to

build these identities. Elliott examines how these deep rooted

religious identities continue to function as a sectarian divide and

reason for violence in Northern Ireland. Dr. Chris Arthur, from the

Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of

Wales, writes that 'one of the strengths of the book - and a mark of

the author's brilliance as a historian - is that it shows how

stereotypes that had their roots in events played out hundreds of

years ago continue to impact on attitudes and actions today'.2 The

understanding that religious identity is something internally

2 Chris Arthur, 'Reviews: Religious Loyalties in Ireland' in Contemporary Review, ccxcii, no. 1698, p. 373.

created, built upon, and used to divide Northern Irish society comes

across remarkable well in Elliott's work.

One element where the two works differ is their use of primary

sources. Throughout his work, Nelson cites a large amount of

primary sources. In his references for his sixth chapter on Erskine

Childers he cites multiple documents written by Childers himself.

He uses official publications by Childers, such as the 1911 The

Framework of Home Rule, and he also cites Childers' papers at the

National Library of Ireland. He works multiple quotes from Childers

into his writing; preferring to let the Irish statesman speak for

himself when he can. These quotes come from a variety of different

mediums, including newspapers, private journals, and letters, all of

which Nelson provides detailed notes on, citing both the location

and his opinion of any issues with the source. When not citing

Childers himself, Nelson defaults to fellow historians whom he

claims have done more research on Childers' than he has. When

referencing these historians Nelson gives specific details on which

historian's work he found most useful or accurate. When a source is

lacking on a particular detail, Nelson provides another for better

clarification. Patrick Furlong of Alma College praises the

structure of the book by stating that the 'main text is free of

dense theoretical discussions, but the voluminous endnotes in

particular show familiarity with debates on race and class...and

especially racial and national identity'.3 There is also much

praise for him turning to the words of actual Irishmen to

demonstrate their opinions on racial identity as many historians

tend to over look this matter.4

Elliott's references are very different from Nelson's. While

Elliott does give a section of visual plates, ranging from political

cartoons, wall murals, banners, and photos, there are not many other

primary sources. She cites both newspapers and speeches, but when

she does it is a small portion of the text, usually a single

sentence or powerful quote. These references are used to punctuate

her arguments instead of being used to build her entire point. Her

notes are instead filled with secondary sources from other

academics. These academics are from multiple fields. Elliott cites

texts from anthropologists, sociologists, and the works of those in

religious studies. Elliott uses these works to evaluate the complex

idea of religious identity, as she uses theories from each field to

strengthen the claims she makes in her argument. She seamlessly

weaves these interdisciplinary sources together, using one field to

compensate where the others are weak. The multidisciplinary

approach taken by Elliott is incredibly well received by academics

in varying fields, as many credit her for using her chosen sources

3 Patrick Furlong, 'A Review of "Irish Nationalists and the Making of the Irish Race" in Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, xviii, no. 3, p. 380-382.4 Michael De Nie, 'Reviews of Books' in American Historical Review, cxviii, no. 2 (Spring, 2013), p. 584.

in innovate ways that have not been seen in their own field.5

Elliott also cites a wide variety of Irish historians, mainly from

the revisionist historiography, but from other paradigms as well.

This wide array of sources allows Elliott to create a detailed and

supported concept and argument of religious identity.

The two authors also differ in the manner in which they have

organized their books. Irish Nationalists and the Making of the Irish Race

follows a standard chronological organizational structure. After a

prologue of the previously studied ideas on racial and Irish

identity, Nelson divides his work into four parts, which are then

subdivided into two chapters each. These chapters move in order

through history, starting with race in Ireland from 1534 to 1801 and

the racial ideas of the Celts during the early nineteenth century.

The book then moves into Ireland and slavery, Ireland and the

Empire, and finally the Irish Revolution. While there is some time

overlap between sections, the book generally moves in a forward

progression, chronologically dividing different ideas on Irish

racial identity at different times. The epilogue section begins to

discuss Ireland after it becomes a free state in 1922, but Nelson

refrains from covering anything past this date in great detail.

This end point in critiqued by Furlong who argues it would have been

very interesting for Nelson to continue his racial identity ideas

into the mid twentieth century with Irish neutrality in WWII, the

5Maria Luddy, 'Review: When God Took Sides' in History Today, lx, no. 5, p. 58.

Irish relationship to India and the Irish views on apartheid.6 This

chronological formate makes Nelson's work easy to follow and

comprehend as it continuously explains and then builds upon ideas of

racial identity, but it's stopping point does leave some interesting

topics unstudied.

Nelson also takes a case study approach in his writing. With

a topic as large as racial identity in Ireland, the key concept of

an argument can get lost in the plethora of information. To prevent

this, Nelson uses specific individuals or events to explain the

aspects of racial identity. While his beginning two chapters are

broader as general background, the majority of the book centers on

individuals in order to simplify his argument. Nelson writes about

the specific and avoids discussing the theoretical. By focusing his

chapters on specific people, their words, and experiences, Nelson

attempts to simplify the complex topic of racial identity in

Ireland. While this may be easier for the reader to follow, it does

have the fault of generalizing. In his review Cian McMahon states

that the method of 'snapshots of Irish nationalists talking about

race' allows Nelson to cover a large time period, 'but he does leave

some things out'.7 Both McMahon and Furlong specifically have

issues with his broad grouping excluding what they see as key

elements, like the racial identity of the 'Old English' or the

6 Furlong, 'A Review of "Irish Nationalists and the Making of the Irish Race", p. 380-382.7 McMahon, 'Irish Nationalists (review)' p. 142-145.

discussion on when and how the racial debate moved from Celts versus

Saxons to blacks versus whites.8 Reviews of Nelson also state that

in some chapters the 'snapshots' get too specific in the details of

the individual, and he looses focus on the larger concept of racial

and national identity.9 The case study approach may make it easier

for the reader to grasp his arguments, but it can over simplify the

idea and muddle racial identity in a deluge of personal facts and

quotes.

Marianne Elliott's book does not follow a chronological

organizational structure, but instead a thematic one. In the

preface of When God Took Sides Elliott explains that the chapters are

structured around different lectures she has given, creating the

thematic grouping. This means that each of her eight chapters has a

different theme of religious identity in Northern Ireland. Some

chapters focus more on the idea of religious identity in general

while others delve into the specifics of Catholic and Protestant

identities. Elliot recognizes the problem her choice of

organization may present; that the thematic approach does not show

the change in religious identities over time. Elliott argues

against this criticism by stating that 'while the context [of

religious identity] may have changed...the ideas and prejudices have

been enduring, selectively preserved in aspic by interested

8 Furlong, 'A Review', p. 380-382 and McMahon, 'Irish Nationalists (review)', p. 142-145.9 De Nie, 'Reviews of Books', p. 584.

parties'.10 In his review, Arthur writes how Elliot's organizational

choices positively impact the book. He states that when reading the

book a viewer may have a 'temporal dislocation' as they may

momentarily forget if the book is about the twenty-first or the

seventeenth century.11 Far from critiquing Elliott's work, Arthur

claims this is done to prove her point about religious identity

being a concept that spans centuries of Irish history. Elliott is

aware of the possible structural issue in her work, but she defends

her organizational choices.

As demonstrated in the secondary source she references,

Elliott structures her book in a theoretical style of writing.

Unlike Nelson's case studies, Elliot speaks in broad, theoretical

concepts about religious identity. While she uses the words of

specific people or the actions of specific events to demonstrate her

theoretical concepts, these are not the focus of her work. She

discusses social theories of religious identity and then gives

examples to demonstrate or negate these ideas. While this approach

can sometimes be difficult for a reader to grasp, as they have to

first understand the theoretical ideas presented and then comprehend

how her examples do or do not support this idea, it does give the

reader a broader sense of religious identity in general. Instead of

focusing on individuals like Nelson, she attempts to focus on how

10 Marianne Elliott, When God Took Sides (Oxford, 2009), p.vii.11 Arthur, 'Reviews: Religious Loyalties in Ireland', p. 373.

religious identity effects Northern Irish society, including the

Catholic and Protestant religious communities, as a whole. While

this may lack the individual details of a case study approach, it

explains the religious identity of Northern Ireland in a way that

encompasses more of the society than Nelson's approach.

Though different in their structure, the two books are similar

in the way that neither Bruce Nelson nor Marianne Elliott fit

perfectly into the established Irish historiographies. Neither book

can be defined as nationalist or revisionist, Irish history's two

best known paradigms. The nationalist historiography attempted to

define and legitimize the history of Ireland, establishing a tool

that could be used to unite and strengthen the newly created state.

These historians justified the Irish struggle for self-determination

and freedom against the United Kingdom. The focus on nationalism in

Nelson's work may infer to many that his book belongs in the

nationalist historiography, but his work does not promote the Irish

nationalist cause without criticism. Instead of attempting to

simply promote the nationalist movement in Ireland, Nelson analyzes

its relationship with racial identity. This acknowledgment that

Irish nationalism is not a fixed concept or a concept beyond

judgment means that Nelson does not identify with the nationalist

historiography, but his analysis of racial identity and nationalism

does not fit into the revisionist historiography ideas of the topic

either. Revisionist historians claim that the nationalist

historiography was created upon myths to promote the new Irish view

of history and that nationalist historians focuses too much on

emotional topics where Ireland is portrayed as the 'victim'. This

paradigm attempted to remove the emotional 'myths' of history in

favor of a value-free description, but in the prologue of his book

Nelson makes the complaint that 'revisionist historians have tended

to airbrush other currents out of the picture [of racial identity

and nationalism] altogether, or at best to treat them as of little

consequence. The goal of this book is...to offer a different angle

of vision on the nationalist movement and its arduous work of making

race and nation'.12 It appears that Nelson agrees with Brendan

Bradshaw's critique of revisionist historians. A chapter written by

Ciran Brady discussing his and Bradshaw's ideals, argues how

Bradshaw believed that in their attempt to make a critical, emotion

free study revisionists underplay or evade the difficult topics that

are central to Irish history.13 In his book, Nelson critiques

revisionist who negate or avoid a topic simply because it was seen

as emotive or was an aspect promoted in the nationalist

historiography. Nelson criticizes how racial identity and

nationalism have been overlook in revisionism or turned into

12 Bruce Nelson, Irish Nationalist and the Making of the Irish Race (Oxford, 2012), p. 16.13 Ciaran Brady, ''Constructive and Instrumental': The Dilemma of Ireland's First 'New Historians'', in Interpreting Irish History: the Debate on Historical Revisionism 1938-1994, Ciaran Brady (ed), (Dublin, 1994), p. 9-10.

something negative due to their uncomfortable or emotional nature.

When race is discussed, Nelson states that revisionists discuss it

as an 'ethnocentric, backward-looking and stubbornly antimodern'

paradigm of racial identity and nationalism.14 For Nelson, race and

nationalism became negative topics to revisionists because of their

emotional association with other historiographies.

Irish Nationalists and the Making of the Irish Race analyzes Irish racial

identity in a new manner. It neither embraces nationalism and

racial identity without question nor does in negate or avoid the

importance of the topic for reasons of emotions or association with

other historiographies. The work is critical of the ideas of race

but does not omit or refrain from mentioning racial ideals or

racially motivated actions taken by Irish nationalists that do not

portray those involved in a positive manner. In his discussion of

Erskine Childers, the author studies how Childers' belief that as a

white nation Ireland should have its freedom, but he also writes

about the harsher racially motivated tones Childers' used when

describing non-whites in the Boer War. In his review McMahon

describes Nelson's approach as arguing that the Irish 'could be

color-blind as the compatriots were racist' but Nelson does not

ignore those that were racist.15 Nelson does not exclude the

negative or emotional words of Childers, nor does he embrace

14 De Nie, 'Reviews of Books', p. 584.15 McMahon, 'Irish Nationalists (review)' p. 142-145.

Childers' racial ideas for his nationalistic cause without critique,

thus avoiding the major issues of both the nationalist and

revisionist historiography.

For these reasons, Nelson's work would be considered part of a

new post-revisionist historiography. As stated by historian Kevin

Whelan, both Irish historiographies have been 'accused of having

political agendas which overcome their scholarship'.16 Both the

nationalist and revisionist models have flaws, and the creation of

the new post-revisionism attempts to overcome both sets of problems.

Post-revisionism attempts to study Irish history in a new manner.

Nelson's work is part of this historiography, demonstrated by his

attempts to increase understanding between global trends by

embracing comparative studies and accepting new theories.17 By

bringing in a transatlantic perspective and ideas on the racial

hierarchy of the time periods studied, as well as avoiding both

political agendas of previous historiographies, Nelson's book best

fits into the post-revisionist historiography.

Like Nelson, Marianne Elliott's work cannot be precisely

allocated into a historiographical category. Elliott is accepted as

a revisionist historian, but her work does not demonstrate many of

the issues revisionist historians are critiqued for. The author

16 Charles C. Ludington, 'Visions and Revisions: Conference at Glucksman Ireland House at New York University' in History Ireland, iv, no. 1 (Spring, 1996), p. 1-2. Ludington quotes Whelan's remarks made at the conference.17 Ludington, 'Visions and Revisions', p. 1-2. Ludington quotes Whelan's remarks made at the conference.

embraces her revisionist title, even thanking many of her closest

friends and colleagues who are some of the most notable names in

revisionism. Not only does she thank revisionists for attending her

lectures and editing her work, her references are dominated by

revisionist academic works. Elliott cites many revisionist

historians and creates her argument in a similar manner.

Elliott's work challenges the nationalist historiography's

'heroes versus villains' framework. The idea of a powerful

antagonist, the English or Protestants, versus a weak protagonist,

the Irish or Catholics, is a strong idea in the nationalist

paradigm. Elliot critiques the nationalist paradigm in the first

pages of her work by arguing against the concept that the

sectarianism and violence of Northern Ireland can solely be blamed

on Protestant England, the 'villain'. She instead argues the the

religious identities which both groups self-promote has prolonged

the violence and division. Her analysis attempts to negate the

hero/villain paradigm and instead provides a critique of both

groups; no hero or villain, just two groups who share blame. Her

work embodies the ideas which T.D. Moody, one of the founders of

revisionism, publicized about myth. Brady states that Moody

believed in the 'idea between "good history which is a matter of

facing the facts and myth which is a way of refusing to face

[them]"' and that it was these 'destructive myths which he saw as

fatal to the writing of Irish history'.18 Elliott's book negates the

myths which both Protestant and Catholic identity in Northern

Ireland are built upon. She discredits the previous myths of

division and violence caused by a 'villain' and instead analyzes the

reasons for the self-inflicted separation between the two religious

groups.

The base argument of her book fits into the revisionist

ideals, but When God Took Sides does not display the majority of the

issues many find faulty in the paradigm. The things that Nelson and

other Irish historians have critiqued about revisionism are lacking

in Elliott's book. She presents no 'political agenda which

overcomes her scholarship'. She does not simply criticize one group

or idea because it was promoted in the nationalist paradigm. A

review by Professor Maria Luddy in History Today points out that the

'book's argument is incredibly well presented' and that Elliott does

a 'spectacular job of giving equal attention and sympathy to all

groups involved while still managing to make critical judgements of

the groups' religious identity.19 Nor does she avoid a topic or

event because it carries too much emotion. On the contrary,

Elliott's work was purposely written to make readers uncomfortable,

as she attempts to debunk myths that are still used in Northern

18 Brady, ''Constructive and Instrumental': The Dilemma of Ireland's First 'New Historians'', p 7. 19 Luddy, 'Review: When God Took Sides', p. 58.

Irish culture today.20 She discusses the myths and stereotypes of

controversial topics that create negative images for both religious

identities. She explains why both Catholics and Protestants have

claimed the role of victim and how they have both exaggerated

incidents of tragedy to justify their own acts of violence. While

breaking these myths she does not 'apply the myth-criticism...as a

deliberate means of undermining [historical] credentials', something

which anti-revisionist find fault in.21 When God Took Sides is an

example of the positive type of revisionism. One of revisionisms

biggest critique, Brendan Bradshaw, stated there are 'examples of

what he stated are "good" or "constructive" revisionism...highly

critical of the Irish past, but which nevertheless shows a concern

for historical heritage and comes to terms with the darker side of

their history'.22 Elliott's type of revisionism has proven to be a

'constructive' example of the historiography.

It may be argued that if Elliott attempt to overcome the

issues of revisionism would her work not be post-revisionist? This

complicates her place in the historiography even further as her

book's core idea of sectarianism being a deeply engrained aspect of

Irish life is a topic post-revisionists themselves argue over. An

article by Kevin Whelan, a prominent post-revisionist, states that

20 Luddy, 'Review: When God Took Sides', p. 58.21 Brady, ''Constructive and Instrumental': The Dilemma of Ireland's First 'New Historians'', p. 13.22 Ludington, 'Visions and Revisions', p. 1-2. Ludington quotes Bradshaw's remarksmade at the conference.

arguments like Elliott's 'ignore the deliberate injection of

sectarianism by conservatives and ultimately by the government, as a

counter-revolutionary weapon'.23 Whelan argues that the reasons for

sectarianism, and the associated violence, is not due to the deep

rooted religious identities of Irish communities but due to its

promotion by the state to maintain control. Whelen claims that

revisionist works like Elliott's treat the divide in religious

identity as something that has always been instead of something that

was created for a political purpose. Even though Elliott analyses

how religious identities have interacted with the state, she does

not discuss the analysis of religious division as a tool used by the

state. This would appear to firmly negate her place in the post-

revisionist paradigm, but other post-revisionist historians have

argued against Whelan's claim. Historians like James S. Donnelly

Jr. who has supported the post-revisionist paradigm in order to

allow for a broader understanding of Irish history, argues against

Whelan and in favor of sectarian arguments like Elliott's. Donnelly

has written in favor of 'keeping sectarianism at the center of the

story'.24 Donnelly promotes and idea similar to Elliott's;

sectarianism has to be understood as a long standing division

23 Kevin Whelan, 'United and Disunited Irishmen: The State and Sectarianism in the 1790s' in The Tree of Liberty: Radicalism, Catholicism and the Construction of Irish Identity, Kevin Whealn (ed), (Notre Dame, IN, 1996), p. 129.24 James S. Donnelly Jr., 'Sectarianism in 1798 and in Catholic Nationalist Memory'in Rebellion and Remembrance in Modern Ireland, Laurence M. Geary (ed), (Dublin, 2003), p. 15.

created by and maintained between two groups and not simply

understood as a political tool used by the state. Thus Elliott's

argument is simultaneously critiqued and agreed upon by post-

revisionists. It is clear the Marianne Elliott does not neatly fit

into any Irish historiography.

Both Bruce Nelson and Marianne Elliott have furthered the

discussion of Irish identity. Though the two historians approached

their books in different ways, Nelson in a primary source focused,

chronological case study, and Elliott in a multidisciplinary

theoretical work organized by theme, both challenge the established

Irish historiographies. Nelson's Irish Nationalists and the Making of the Irish

Race moves beyond the issues of both the nationalist and revisionist

historiographies into the new post-revisionist paradigm. And while

Elliott considers herself to be revisionist When God Took Sides: Religion

and Identity in Ireland – Unfinished History does not appear to have the

elements the historiography is most criticized for. Elliott's

opinion that sectarianism is deep rooted in society also means she

is neither entirely included or excluded from post-revisionism.

These two works on Irish identity prove that no matter the structure

or methods used, some historical works do not neatly fit into the

historiographies of Irish history. The fact that both Nelson and

Elliott's works can be well received by their peers proves that

while an academics place in the historiography is important, a well

researched, structured, and argued idea creates an influential

historical work, no matter the label of a certain historiography.

Bibliography

Arthur, Chris, 'Reviews: Religious Loyalties in Ireland' in Contemporary Review, ccxcii, no. 1698, p. 373.

Brady, Ciaran, ''Constructive and Instrumental': The Dilemma of Ireland's First 'New Historians'', in Interpreting Irish History: the Debate on Historical Revisionism 1938-1994, Ciaran Brady (ed), (Dublin, 1994).

De Nie, Michael, 'Reviews of Books' in American Historical Review, cxviii,no. 2 (Spring, 2013), p. 584

Donnelly Jr., James S., 'Sectarianism in 1798 and in Catholic Nationalist Memory' in Rebellion and Remembrance in Modern Ireland, Laurence M. Geary (ed), (Dublin, 2003).

Elliott, Marianne, When God Took Sides: Religion and Identity in Ireland – Unfinished History (Oxford, 2009).

Furlong, Patrick, 'A Review of "Irish Nationalists and the Making ofthe Irish Race" in Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, xviii, no. 3, p. 380-382.

Luddy, Marie 'Review: When God Took Sides' in History Today, lx, no. 5,p. 58.

Ludington, Charles C., 'Visions and Revisions: Conference at Glucksman Ireland House at New York University' in History Ireland, iv, no. 1 (Spring, 1996), p. 1-2.

McMahon, Cian, 'Irish Nationalists and the Making of the Irish Race by Bruce Nelson (review)' in New Hibernia Review,xvi, no. 4 (Winter, 2012), p.142-145.

Nelson, Bruce, Irish Nationalists and the Making of the Irish Race (Princeton and Oxford, 2012).

Whelan, Kevin, 'United and Disunited Irishmen: The State and Sectarianism in the 1790s' in The Tree of Liberty: Radicalism, Catholicism and the Construction of Irish Identity, Kevin Whealn (ed), (Notre Dame, IN, 1996).