The amateur historian in Ireland is often little more than a propagandist masquerading as an expert, writes David Adams
Yet very occasionally they perform a valuable service. Such was the case with RTÉ's Hidden History - The Killings at Coolacrease(broadcast on October 23rd), about the brutal murder by the IRA of two young Protestant brothers, Richard (24) and Abraham Pearson (19), at their farm in Co Offaly in 1921. This meticulously researched and studiously even-handed documentary benefited enormously, if inadvertently, from the contributions of a couple of local historians determined to lend post-dated justification to what was clearly a sectarian, land-grabbing atrocity.
Ludicrous claims delivered in blank-faced fashion, complete with pseudo-military jargon, juxtaposed perfectly with dignified contributions by descendants of the deceased to give a vivid illustration of fanaticism and people's ability to fool themselves into believing almost anything. In a magnificent display of the power of wishful thinking, one of the apologists claimed it was "impossible" for any member of the Offaly IRA to have been an informer.
The other has reportedly complained that his research was deliberately played down by the programme makers. Perhaps, for reasons obvious to everyone but himself, RTÉ thought it best to rely upon professional historians and their own impartial research team. The only thing worse in the historical field than an enthusiastic amateur with an axe to grind, is a collection of them pursuing a common agenda.
By screening The Killings at Coolacrease, both RTÉ and the producer, Niamh Sammon, reflected perfectly the maturity of a State now prepared to deal openly and honestly with its past. Despite this, or maybe because of it, since the screening of the programme, there has been an orchestrated campaign of complaint directed at politicians, RTÉ, individual journalists, newspapers and various other media outlets. Many of those involved appear to have connections to the Aubane Historical Society and/or the Irish Political Review.
These groups previously gained some prominence when, at different times, they declared Elizabeth Bowen not to be an Irish author, instigated a vicious little spat with (then senator) Martin Mansergh TD, and suggested that this newspaper was a tool of the British government. Their complaints and accusations now, as then, stand up to no examination.
Were the Pearson brothers shot in the groin or the genitals? What does it matter? The real question is, if it wasn't deliberate, how did so many gunmen (about 30) manage to shoot the men only in their lower abdomens? This can only be interpreted as a brutal comment on Protestant procreation, and a deliberate attempt to cause an agonising death. They succeeded in the latter; Richard Pearson took six hours to die and his brother Abraham 14.
Were the Pearson women forced to watch the murders or, ever so chivalrously, taken to the rear of the farmhouse? Ethel Pearson, one of the sisters, claimed only days after the atrocity that she, her mother and sisters were made to watch the shootings. Against this, an IRA man claimed they were taken behind the house. Given the perverse brutality on display that day, it isn't hard to decide which version is more believable.
Did an RIC investigation conclude that the double murder was revenge for the shooting of two IRA men who had previously been found felling a tree on Pearson land? Most emphatically, it did not. There was no RIC investigation, merely a written report from the police to a Court of Inquiry, which outlined rumours circulating after the murders.
The report mentioned land acquisition and revenge by Sinn Féin as rumoured motives. Indeed, there is still a belief locally that preceding the murders an IRA man was accidentally killed by one of his own comrades.
Were the Pearsons ever proven to be British agents? No, in fact the evidence points in the opposite direction. A surviving brother, Sidney Pearson, was turned down for compensation for the loss of the family farm precisely because he could not prove his allegiance to the Crown. Later, on advice from the Southern Irish Relief Association, and with nothing left to lose as his family was fleeing Ireland anyway, William Pearson (the father) grossly exaggerated his loyalty in order to receive a paltry £7,500 compensation for his 340-acre farm.
What reasonable person could not imagine themselves doing precisely the same thing in those circumstances? The Aubane Historical Society, their friends and fellow-travellers must surely realise all of the above. Their campaign seems designed merely to sow doubt, create confusion and muddy the waters around the Coolacrease murders. If they are lucky, it might also have the effect of ensuring that no other such programmes are made.
Journalists might well decide that forensic examination of countless similar atrocities isn't worth the trouble. Such capitulation would be a huge mistake. History deniers should never be pandered to.