Dear Editor,
In connection to the topic of official histories versus public histories (referenced in the letters from May 11), I question the stance of those against the idea of an official history of the Troubles. Are they suggesting that there should be governmental silence on this issue? Official histories are a significant element of any national conversation. To exemplify, look at the indispensable history of the Finance Department authored by Ronan Fanning, a commission encouraged by George Colley, the then Finance Minister, and backed by C.H. Murray, the department’s secretary. Before commencing this task, Dr. Fanning had to comply with the Official Secrets Act. The outcome was far from a cover-up; instead, it was an exemplary chronicle of the Finance Department that has withstood the passage of time successfully.
One might also regard the official history of WWI produced by the British Government. The worth and correctness of this account are still hot topics among historians, but there’s no dispute regarding its critical role as a historical resource.
The forthcoming official narrative of the Troubles will be penned by highly competent and thorough historians. Instead of instantly suppressing their work, shouldn’t we listen to their views first?
Yours Sincerely,
Peter Malone,
Clifden,
Co Galway
Additional context: Threats of murder against politicians within the far right Dublin 1 are callously being disregarded by Ireland. Sarah Moss views the potential backlash to her bike-riding, vegetarian and feminist beliefs as a sign of discord and disagreement.