Description
This paper will investigate the relationship between geographic areas and the operational histories of non-state actors associated with them throughout the Troubles. This assessment will allow us to establish whether local reputations were earned, the result of positive or negative information campaigns, or whether they have emerged following the conflict as localities deal with their histories. This paper will build on previous work that has sought to challenge the prevailing narrative of Belfast and other large urban centres as the main sites of conflict during this period. To do so, it will identify the dominant ‘story’ or reputation of an area and test this against the operational histories to gauge levels of alignment or divergence. Preliminary findings demonstrate how internal rivalries and politics have resulted in some areas growing more dominant in the narrative than their history ought to allow while others have been awarded far less attention than deserved. Understanding how these reputations were built and maintained will assist us in explaining why certain actors and sub-units were given so much weight during negotiations or why certain areas maintains their dominance in the legacy of the Troubles. In doing so this paper will both confirm some prioritisations but also challenge others.
