Say Nothing: A True Story of Murder and Memory in Northern Ireland

Though the Troubles often appears to be a sectarian conflict between Catholics and Protestants in cities like Belfast and Derry, the book reveals the role the British State in England continually played in the Troubles. How do the Troubles fit into a larger context of British imperial conflict?

Is violence necessary in independence struggles? Is it justifiable? Use specific testimony from characters in the book as you weigh these questions.

Keefe and several of the historical actors he depicts lament the post-war peace process’ focus on the future at the expense of pursuing understanding and closure about the past. What are the most important State responsibilities in facilitating reconciliation after a conflict (such as sectarian warfare) ends? Your answer should include specific references to the McConville story.

The title, Say Nothing, communicates the importance of silence in this story of personal and social tragedy. Silence functions as a powerful force in 20- and 21st century Northern Ireland. What were some of the specific roles of silence in both the wartime tactics and in the public aftermath of the Troubles? Think about the issue from the perspective of State and armed forces and unarmed civilians.

Violence from all sides claimed civilian lives in Northern Ireland. IRA soldiers claimed that their intention was never to kill people, but events like Bloody Friday proved to be lethal. Would you classify the IRA as unqualified terrorists? Why or why not?

In what ways can historians rely on historical memory in reconstructing historical narratives? In what ways must they question it? Your answer should include a discussion of the open question surrounding Jean McConville’s alleged informant status.

Former IRA volunteers like Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes came to resent Gerry Adams for disowning his IRA past and former subordinates. Assuming that Gerry Adams was a member of the IRA (as Keefe does), how should we reconcile Adams’s denial of any responsibility in Troubles-era violence with his unique position to broker peace and end the conflict? Is he morally absolvable, morally culpable, or something in between?

The Belfast Project both provided a space for catharsis and also produced an incriminating body of evidence against former paramilitary volunteers. In what ways was the project beneficial and did these benefits ultimately outweigh the risks of participation? Put simply, was the Belfast Project a good idea?