Recently Chris Tribble pondered on what we should call those who have heroically introduced the Arab Spring this year- Rebels? Protesters? Campaigners? Fighters? Guerrillas? Insurgents? Dissidents? Revolutionaries? Maybe even, depending on whom you ask, terrorists?
Does it matter how we describe them? Yes, it does. How language is employed is important in determining not just how history is recorded and interpreted but also in how we may influence the present and future- there’s a mighty difference between defining someone as an ex-”volunteer” and a “terrorist”; between describing a party as “separatist, nationalist” and as “pro-independence, social democratic”. Words and language most definitely do matter in the creation of a political and historical narrative.
As an example, check out these two Wikipedia entries- this for the Kingsmill Massacre, this for the Loughinisland atrocity. Check how differently the context is dealt with. In the latter, the attack itself rightly takes prominence whilst in the former, it’s almost added as an afterthought. But more importantly, where are the names of the victims in the two cases? You could study the Kingsmills entry all night and you would be still none the wiser, in contrast the six victims of the Loughinisland shooting are (again rightly) recorded. The Loughinisland/Kingsmills juxtaposition is not an exception.
Compare Ballymurphy with Enniskillen. Only one event qualifies as a “massacre” apparently, in only one case again are we given what you would think were the historically important details of the victims’ names. Compare Bloody Sunday with the Birmingham Bombings; Milltown “Massacre” with the La Mon “restaurant bombing” and a clear pattern emerges, one which has been crafted by Republican activists who recognise the importance of moulding history to their way of thinking. This is a quote which one of their Wiki-Warriors lists on his own page:
Impartiality in Irish history writing has meant in every case a non-acceptance of the historic Irish Nation, and the result has been a political pamphlet rather than a history
Patrick Sarsfield O’Hegarty
In other words, “impartiality” must be sacrificed in the interests of the greater Irish “national good” and if that means the dehumanisation (and in some cases, even demonisation) of the victims of the Republican terror gangs, then so be it.
Of course, the value of Wikipedia as a resource tool can be argued and of course we can complain about the morality of a movement, which not only slaughtered innocents but also now attempts to whitewash their memory from history. For the purpose of this article, both debates are beside the point. If someone not au-fait with the event, googles in “Kingsmills” the wikipedia article is the first one up on the list and in that article the crime of murdering ten men solely because of their religion has been “contextualised” and ultimately trivialised for the purposes of political expediency by Republican activists*.
The point is that in this case “reality” can and is being created and this “reality” is coming from the mouths and keyboards of extremely ruthless, politically motivated and amoral users of the medium. They are proving words and language matter in the creation of a political and historical narrative and if not challenged, that will be the narrative posterity will regard as “the historical truth”.
Tomorrow in the second part of this article, I’ll expand on why pro-Union activists need to be aware of the wider Nomenclature Wars now taking place in our United Kingdom
5 comments
Ciarán Ó Maoláín says:
December 8, 2011 at 7:16 pm (UTC 1)
Wikipedia is compiled by volunteers and the articles are of uneven quality; different treatment of similar subjects does not usually indicate any political bias. I’ve added the victims’ names to the Kingsmill article.
oneill says:
December 8, 2011 at 10:32 pm (UTC 1)
Ciaran,
When did you add the victims’ names? They are not there.
Re the political bias, if you check the discussion pages of the issues I mentioned and in particular Kingsmills, Bloody Sunday, the Birmingham bombings, Ballymurphy you will see that the naming of victims in the case of Republican attrocities has been prevented generally by the very same people as who argue most vehmently for their inclusion in the event of murders caused by loyalists or the British Army.
The articles are indeed of an uneven quality and consistency but that has been brought about (imo) for the reasons of political or even sectarian expediency.
oneill says:
December 9, 2011 at 10:49 am (UTC 1)
Ciaran,
Having checked the edit history of “Kingsmills” I see there was an attempt to include the victims’ names yesterday, so apologies for not seeing that.
However, the fact that it was unilaterally removed within a very short period of time by “Republican jacobite” proves my original point surely?
Chekov says:
December 15, 2011 at 5:01 pm (UTC 1)
I’ve had experience of this myself when I attempted to change the entry for Lord Mountbatten to reflect that he had been murdered rather than assassinated. Whether this campaign is orchestrated or not, I don’t know, but Wiki is effectively the first stop for so many people now that it is hugely effective as propaganda. Is Wikipedia completely peer moderated or is there no right of appeal in instances like this? I mean it’s a huge omission if the names of victims are being removed.
oneill says:
December 15, 2011 at 9:04 pm (UTC 1)
Completely peer moderated and unfortunately presently it seems to attract the most bitter and sectarian of republicans. It’s not that I’m wanting a Unionist or British version of history, merely an impartial, objective one- fortunately there a few wiki (impartial) enthusiats left who see the danger to wiki’s credibility. with what is happening
But as none of the bigots involved feel even the need anymore to “justify” why they constantly delete the victims of republican terrorists, i fear the battle has been lost.