Read on Twitter
Had a chance to catch some of this this afternoon. Certainly interesting, and Phoenix always tells a very compelling story. But it behoves me, once again, to take issue with the pre-eminence of historians in discussing the issue of memory/commemoration. https://twitter.com/FeileBelfast/status/1291358368121139200
Talking about what happened in the past is important, but that is not the same thing as talking about how and why it is 'remembered'. Which is to say, talking about the revolutionary decade (1912-1923) is not the same thing as talking about the Decade of Centenaries (2012-2023).
But too often, the former is seen as sufficient in explaining the latter. But in so many ways, what happened a century ago is distinct and even removed from the centennial Decade which is shaped by very contemporary political concerns and forces.
Understanding what happened and why one hundred years ago is important, in and of itself, but it does not help to explain how and why the Decade of Centenaries has unfolded in the way that it has. For that, we need to look to politics, sociology and cultural studies.
End of rant. For more (and a more eloquent defence of this position), I defer to @Domsball - https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/34838527/Bryan_comemoration_rituals.pdf
PS. NI is not deeply divided because different understandings of the past prevail across the two 'communities': different understandings prevail *because* NI is deeply divided. 'Correcting' understandings of the past is not sufficient to overcome that division.
(PPS. The two 'communities' aren't really *communities*, but that's a different rant for a different time)
