What Is Truth?

The trouble with getting to the truth is the fact that no one can agree on it. Or what can be agreed on is lacking on anything that might give the events any meaning in forming a cogent narrative. And to be honest that's what people are looking for. Not just a narrative that says, "the (insert proper group here) is (insert value judgement here)" but one around which people can come to some kind of understanding (not agreement, understanding) on just what did happen over the last thirty years in Northern Ireland. I personally don't think this will ever happen, not now, not in a hundred years. Certainly scholars will write narratives and maybe even a "definitive" text or two but there will never be an agreed upon narrative for what happened on the fringes of Europe in the latter part of the twentieth century.


That is why posts such as the ones posted by Pete Baker commenting on Fintan O'Toole's piece seem odd and out of place. I have no doubt that Pete believes what he writes. He has the zeal of a true believer, though what he believes in is beyond me. Though I digress, it is the issues I want to tackle, not the author. Or in Slugger vernacular I would like to make an honest attempt to play the ball and not the man.


As mentioned in the first paragraph I take issue with the idea that the truth is something that exists outside of people/society and is simply being hidden by the powers that be for the sake of expediency. The truth of what happened is really quite simple. On numerous occasions one group of people inflicted harm upon another group of people. This continued on for some time until it stopped (for the most part). There you go, no need for expensive inquiries, H.E.T.s or the republishing of the Stalker report. We can even deal with specific incidents that have longed plagued the peace process.


March 6,
People with no guns were killed by people with guns.

March 16,
People with no guns were killed by a man with guns.

March 19,
People with guns were killed by people with guns.


There you are, nothing to see here, move along. Nothing I have have typed is untrue but to say that I've written the truth would be somewhat disingenuous, because the truth should have a little more substance than that. Truth, like life must be made of more than the sum of its parts. What gives human life value beyond our heart and lungs is indeed the intangible, or for the spiritually/religiously inclined "the soul". I feel it must also be for the truth and that is where we run into problems. For anything beyond what I've written we must necessarily subscribe some sort of value judgement, even (and especially) if the judgement is one of all around condemnation and a sense dark night of the soul which seems to especially affect journalists.

One of the issues I take with Fintan's argument is that narrative can be confused with physical monuments to the dead. He mentions multiple monuments as examples of successful and unsuccessful ways of dealing with the past. I feel that this misses the point. the success or failure of the monuments had little to do with the monuments themselves but to the extent to which the society in which the monument resided had agreed upon a common narrative. He is right in noting that the Valle de los Caidos is little more than a monument to Franco's victory and an indictment of the Catholic Church's involvement in the Iberian peninsula (though the last part is just my opinion). An interesting article appeared in the WSJ sometime ago dealing with the fact that the Spanish Civil War is still being fought (not the right article but one dealing with the same issue) in the obituaries as the descendants still strive to make sense of what happened from 1936-39.

Three years of turmoil and now sixty plus years later we are subjected to obituaries stating that a devout Catholic (who in actuality may have also been an avid fascist) was murdered by godless heathens. Conversely we faced with obits that may state that a freedom loving, gentlemanly Republican who may have been an FAI member was murdered by bloodthirsty fascists. Both can be correct without being true or vice versa. The issue isn't so much truth but an agreed upon collective narrative. Think about it, America was founded upon the idea of liberty and justice for all based upon genocide of the indigenous population and the subjugation of black slaves, immigrant labor, and women. Though since we have an agreed upon narrative we can view those actions as an aberration rather than the norm from the establishment.

For Northern Ireland it's not quite as simple. Fintan's point that the security services were responsible for, "A little over one-tenth of the victims" is a red herring in this case. Throughout the entire struggle British government kept up the line that, "there can be no political justification for murder or any other crime"(Thatcher). Ie the law is sacrosanct and must be respected by all parties. But what happens when the law is changed to suit the needs of government or is blurred in the name of "national security"? Many of the reports and inquiries have found, stated or at least hinted at the idea that some of the worst manifestations of the Troubles have at least been given a wink and nod from security forces. This has been reinforced from investigations the government itself carried out. What is undermined is not the truth but narratives set up by one party in the conflict. This is the same reason why the killing of Robert McCartney was so devastating to SF. Certainly SF/PIRA had killed/murdered non-combatatents before but not in a way that was so damning to their narrative.

What we see every time a new report on collusion comes out or the IRA admits to killing a civilian is not "the truth" but simply another thread of the tapestry of the Troubles. I think that this is where people go wrong. They think that, "the truth will set them free" or at least give them, some sort of meaning. But what if the truth is that many people died for the wrong reason or no reason at all?

Do we as humanity have the courage to face up to that truth?