irish history boring?

acontadino

anyone find it the worst part of history in school?

dont get me wrong i love ireland in many ways but the history is not one of them.

dubtom

History was one of my favourite subjects in school ,although I learned later it was a watered down biased view I was learning, certainly where the war of independence etc was concerned. I remember being shocked to hear when I left primary that 70 IRA men were executed by the provisional government, never a mention of it in school. I suppose though ,where enjoyment was concerned, it all depended on the teacher. Looking back I suppose mine was good, because he got me interested in history. Pity it didn't work for any other subject:o

Lizzykins

Irish history as we were taught it consisted mainly of Lamd Wars and Home Rule! Yawn!

Crumble Froo

i hated european history actually, thought that was a right snorefest. loved irish history from about 5th class onwards. had a really good teacher then, and she just stirred up a love of it for me.

i did find the land wars a bit boring in secondary, but that's just cos of all the learning off i had to do, and i got constantly mixed up by it.

Acacia

I liked it, but I generally prefer ancient history to recent/ 20th century stuff. The worst part of the history course in secondary school for me was the history of the E.U.- snore!:rolleyes:

acontadino

Acacia wrote: »

I liked it, but I generally prefer ancient history to recent/ 20th century stuff. The worst part of the history course in secondary school for me was the history of the E.U.- snore!:rolleyes:

lol really? i feel sorry for you. sounds really boring.

i just liked the romans if im being honest and nazi germany..well acutlla ynopy all irish history is borig but the home rule crap is boring, but it was good to understand the history of the country. i really liked learning about pre-historic and middle ages ireland.

Acacia

acontadino wrote: »

lol really? i feel sorry for you. sounds really boring.

i just liked the romans if im being honest and nazi germany..well acutlla ynopy all irish history is borig but the home rule crap is boring, but it was good to understand the history of the country. i really liked learning about pre-historic and middle ages ireland.

Yeah, I like World War 2 as well. What I'm really interested in is ancient civilizations, like in Asia, Latin America, etc, which they don't really explore at all in secondary school.

I suppose I'm more interested in social history rather than political history. That's why I found more recent Irish history very snooze-worthy because it's all about treaties and parliamentary acts. Quite dull. And Home Rule? Gah! So. Boring. :pac:

walrusgumble

ya learn nothing in primary and secondary school with regard to history. it only gets interesting as an educational subect by third level. ya need to read the books etc yourself.

irish history - post ww2 is relatively interesting, church v state. rise and fall of charlie, the north, the rise and fall of the economy, change in irish perspective towards the world and its place in the international scene, cultural and social changes

BossArky

I agree with warlus grumble

HIstory evolves. You cannot sit there and poke it with a stick and expect the same result every time.

If you poke it as an 18 year old you will get a much differenet response to a random poke as a 40 year old ..... queue many a dispute.

Personally (born in the midst of 1981) I discovered my secondary education ....i.e. "taught" history....... to be very much at odds with what I found in various other libraries..

brianthebard

TBH the whole secondary school education system is alienating from the subject matter, but you have to separate the subjects you rote learn from the things you are genuinely interested in. I read tons of history and literature books as a teen that weren't ever discussed in school, and ended up studying English and History. That's not to say that you have some undiscovered love for Irish history OP, obviously people have different tastes, but have a think about what interests you in history and look for a book in the library on that topic, and see how it works out. There's plenty written on Irish cultural and social history, it doesn't have to be all political.

Mushy

Must say I'm not the biggest fan of Irish history, although from mid-1910 onwards, I don't find it too bad. Maybe I'm more suited to military style history. The stuff I'm doing in college now(16th and 17th century church and state relations) is the most horrible thing to sit through. Despise it!

Denerick

Don't know how anyone can find Irish history boring. Especially the 1913-1923 period. When this is studied intensely its surprising the new things you always pick up. These are also the formative years of this nation so there is that incentive to learn as well.

Also, 17th/18th century Irish history is fascinating. Hell, all of it is!

Though I must confess I find medieval Irish history a little dull.

McArmalite

Denerick wrote: »

Don't know how anyone can find Irish history boring. Especially the 1913-1923 period. When this is studied intensely its surprising the new things you always pick up. These are also the formative years of this nation so there is that incentive to learn as well.

Also, 17th/18th century Irish history is fascinating. Hell, all of it is!

For once I agree with you.

getz

BossArky wrote: »

I agree with warlus grumble

HIstory evolves. You cannot sit there and poke it with a stick and expect the same result every time.

If you poke it as an 18 year old you will get a much differenet response to a random poke as a 40 year old ..... queue many a dispute.

Personally (born in the midst of 1981) I discovered my secondary education ....i.e. "taught" history....... to be very much at odds with what I found in various other libraries..

i found the problem with irish 20century history that it has been watered down -[by the church] because of the churches special influence with the state not eveything is as seen-ie the republic for at the time for good reason was anti brit- ant-semitism even to the point of giving a safe house to nazi war criminals like yann goulet yet at the same time they balked at taking in jewish children , they was also one of the last western countrys to recognise the jewish state -and as far as yann goulet ,charles haughey proclaimed he would drink with anyone as long as he was a enemy of england -and for yann goulet instead of saying friend of facism,traitor of brittany - the republic made him a professor of sculpture-this isent taught in school history lessons in ireland you have to like i did, find out for yourself

Denerick

The anti semitism garbage appears in a lot of places, mainly scurrilous websites with a remote claim to accurate history. What you have seemed to 'water down' was the commonly accepted pro-British nature of our neutrality. Has it never occured to you that when allied fighter pilots where shot down, they were hurried over the border, but when the same happened with a Nazi he was interned?

Jewish schoolchildren were allowed into Ireland eventually.

As for recognising the 'Jewish state', thats an argument on its own merits, but I would like to think an enlightened people, grounded in humanitarian and democratic conceptions of natural rights and political economy, whould reject on moral grounds the usurption of a people on the grounds of a biblical title deed. I'm sick of the crap that surrounds the argument that if you are anti-Isreal then you must be anti semitic.

getz

Denerick wrote: »

The anti semitism garbage appears in a lot of places, mainly scurrilous websites with a remote claim to accurate history. What you have seemed to 'water down' was the commonly accepted pro-British nature of our neutrality. Has it never occured to you that when allied fighter pilots where shot down, they were hurried over the border, but when the same happened with a Nazi he was interned?

Jewish schoolchildren were allowed into Ireland eventually.

As for recognising the 'Jewish state', thats an argument on its own merits, but I would like to think an enlightened people, grounded in humanitarian and democratic conceptions of natural rights and political economy, whould reject on moral grounds the usurption of a people on the grounds of a biblical title deed. I'm sick of the crap that surrounds the argument that if you are anti-Isreal then you must be anti semitic.

i am not trying to rub your fur up the wrong way but there is a good irish web site that you should look at its www.reform.org go into articles then historical perspective, and then you may understand -please then tell me if i am wrong

walrusgumble

read brian maye's book on arthur griffith. he had personal friends who were of the jewish faith

Denerick

getz wrote: »

i am not trying to rub your fur up the wrong way but there is a good irish web site that you should look at its www.reform.org go into articles then historical perspective, and then you may understand -please then tell me if i am wrong

Just so everyone knows, this is what the reform website has on its 'about' section:

ii) Rethinking Ireland’s relationship with the United Kingdom. This should reflect the deepening social, cultural, and political bond between the two nations;
iii) Promoting membership of international bodies such as the Commonwealth;


Talk about fringe agenda pushing. Show me the scholarship mate or we're both wasting our time.

P.s- Eoghan Harris writes for them. I'll leave that to your own interpretation.

Gingy

On a personal level, Irish history was always the most interesting in school. Even in college, I still find Irish history better. There's a certain level of, 'we're studying this here and they're not doing it in other countries', but we're also studying what happened over there.

Unfortunately, most schools still elect to do the Parnell/Land War section, rather than the post-WW2. Purely because they don't know enough about it. The later sections would definitely generate more interest amongst students.

getz

Denerick wrote: »

Just so everyone knows, this is what the reform website has on its 'about' section:

ii) Rethinking Ireland’s relationship with the United Kingdom. This should reflect the deepening social, cultural, and political bond between the two nations;
iii) Promoting membership of international bodies such as the Commonwealth;


Talk about fringe agenda pushing. Show me the scholarship mate or we're both wasting our time.

P.s- Eoghan Harris writes for them. I'll leave that to your own interpretation.

two books irish people should read 1-the story of lucy gault by william trever listed for both booker and whitbread prizes the other book is by canadian peter harte -the ira and its enemies-you will be very shocked on the things that went on in the republic from 1920,

Denerick

Yeah, I've read Harts book but haven't read the other one you mentioned. Hart's a decent scholar but I'd reccomend anyone to read Meda Ryans book on Tom barry as well. Hart is more of an 'international relations' type (Thats what he did his MA on I think) and not in my eyes a great historian. A decent scholar yes, but not a great historian. He blatantly overlooks a lot of facts in the primary material in his work. His mentor though, David Fitzpatrick is one of the most eminent living Irish historians.

IIMII

Denerick wrote: »

Just so everyone knows, this is what the reform website has on its 'about' section:

ii) Rethinking Ireland’s relationship with the United Kingdom. This should reflect the deepening social, cultural, and political bond between the two nations;
iii) Promoting membership of international bodies such as the Commonwealth;


Talk about fringe agenda pushing. Show me the scholarship mate or we're both wasting our time.

P.s- Eoghan Harris writes for them. I'll leave that to your own interpretation.

I just can't help seeing this joining the commonwealth as threachery, as in the undermining of this state ( I know that can be argued etc). Ruth Dudley Edwards was on the Pat Kenny show, 0 support. He praised her for raising such a pointless objective and said that she deserved credit for doing something which was obviously a complete waste of time. Not verbatim but thats the gist

MarchDub

walrusgumble wrote: »

read brian maye's book on arthur griffith. he had personal friends who were of the jewish faith

You are correct -in fact in his autobiography Bob Briscoe talks about Griffith's friendship with Briscoe's father, Abraham. They enjoyed games of chess together and Griffith was a frequent visitor to the Briscoe home,according to the son. The elder Briscoe was a Lithuanian Jewish immigrant into Ireland.

Bob Briscoe joined the IRA after 1916 and became the chief gun runner for Michael Collins.

Snickers Man

getz wrote: »

ant-semitism even to the point of giving a safe house to nazi war criminals like yann goulet yet at the same time they balked at taking in jewish children ,

What "war crimes" did Yann Goulet commit? And for that matter, what were the "war crimes" committed by other people who had worked with the Germans and who came to Ireland after the war, people like Luykxx and Folens whose story gets repeated every few months or so on the History Channel?


They were on the losing side in a war. They were Breton and Flemish nationalists respectively who thought that their cause would best be served by working in conjunction with the enemies of the people they saw as their own enemies. As they might have said, through clenched teeth because they didn't care much for the French language obviously "l'ennemi de mon ennemi est mon ami"

For this miscalculation they were tried by their victorious countries and given harsh sentences. Even though many of them "escaped" or evaded the full punishment, they all had to endure exile for the rest of their lives.

They came here and so far as anybody knows they all lived blameless lives, contributing to the business and artistic life of the country (or "penetrating the highest levels of Irish business" if you have a more hysterical view.)

They were not guilty of war crimes or "crimes against humanity". They were guilty of crimes against France and/or Belgium. That's a different matter.

If the French or Belgians really wanted them back, how difficult would it have been to find them and extradite them back then? How long would you have had to search through an Irish phone book to find a Luykxx or a Goulet?

So we "let" them build new lives here. So bloody what? You think the French never gave refuge to a political outcast from their own country? Think back to the likes of Pol Pot and Ayatollah Khomeini and then see how the likes of Goulet rank on a scale of tyranny against that lot.

getz wrote: »

they was also one of the last western countrys to recognise the jewish state

Apparently one of the first national leaders to visit Israel after its foundation in the 1940s was one Eamon de Valera. That's according to the memoirs of the Irish born president of Israel Chaim Herzog. Dev had been very friendly with his father who was Chief Rabbi of both Ireland and Israel at different times.

I think Ireland "recognised" Israel very early on. They didn't have a separate embassy here until quite late but there was no question of Ireland refusing to recognise it as a state. We didn't recognise Jerusalem as its capital (don't know whether we still don't) but then, neither did anybody else. Including the US.

And all this bollox about Irish nationalists/republicans being antisemitic is horse****. True, you will always get people of any persuasion who don't like Jews. But to tar a whole identity with the brush of antisemitism is just dishonest.

Some of the most ardent pro-Jewish politicians (first in favour of emancipation for Jews and later as Zionists) were Irish, including Daniel O'Connell, Michael Davitt and De Valera.


And back to the OP: How can you say Irish history is boring? There are so many undercurrents and ironies and so many fascinating parallels with the history of other countries that it never ceases to fascinate and amaze me.

Get stuck into it.

live2thewire

+1

bigeasyeah

Short answer is no and thats not being smart.
However because our history is so complex and multifaceted it has to be compacted down to be taught in schools.I always looked at the subject as taught in school as something to whet ones appetite for more detailed study.

Trafford Lad

In school I had no real interest in History, I even dropped it going into 5th year (feel bad about that in hindsight!)..but over the last few years I've really enjoyed reading about Irish History, from the obvious stuff like 1916, Michael Collins etc to Parnell and I loved reading up on Robert Emmett and I was suprised when reading up on Michael Dwyer how little I had heard of him growing up, what a great story his life was.

Driseog

I always loved Irish history but some of the books and the way things are covered in school are just terrible.
I read a great book recently covering the pioneering hunter gatherers right up to the 1940's and it doesn't get bogged down in huge detail.
It's called the Peoples of Ireland by Liam de Paor.

WindSock

I am interested in history but my knowledge is at a very primary level. I studied (if you can call it that) history up until the Junior Cert. I blame my teachers for not making it interesting. I had a bitch of a snappy teacher in first year that put me off, but the next two years I had the opposite. The teacher was laid back and not interested at all in the subject. She just read from the book and didn't engage with an already disinterested and disruptive class. I gave it up, only to go back over my heavily doodled on school history books a few years later.

I come into this forum from time to time and have what might seem like very basic and uneducated questions to 3rd level history students and/or fanatics. Often many of the posts make for excellent reading, other times some come across as condescending which can be a put off.

Serenity Now!

Denerick wrote: »

Jewish schoolchildren were allowed into Ireland eventually

There were barely 60 Jews admitted as refugees to Ireland during the war and my grandmother and daughters were 6 of them. How soon is "eventually"?

Denerick wrote: »

As for recognising the 'Jewish state', thats an argument on its own merits, but I would like to think an enlightened people, grounded in humanitarian and democratic conceptions of natural rights and political economy, whould reject on moral grounds the usurption of a people on the grounds of a biblical title deed. I'm sick of the crap that surrounds the argument that if you are anti-Isreal then you must be anti semitic.

Yes recognition of Israel is besides the point here. You are wholly correct there. However Israel was not declared a country on some "biblical deed". In fact, many knockers of the existence of the country and who continually quote illegality and UN resolutions should remember that it was a UN resolution passed that helped form it in the first place. This resolution goes strangely forgotten it would appear.

Of course, antisemitism should not be bandied about when responding to criticism of their govt. Then again, antisemitism is the very reason that most of Europe's Jews settled there too.

I've referred Prof. Dermot Keogh's excellent books on Jews in Ireland before but just in case you haven't heard of them here they are again:
"Jews in Twentieth Century Ireland" and "Limerick Boycott 1904". The former for a start will debunk with quotation and documentation the bilge that has been written about Arthur Griffith in this thread. Getz however is posting way too generalistically and obviously has not read these books.

Back on the subject of whether or not Irish history is boring, I would say not. Its very interesting be the subject Ireland in the 11th century and before or 'modern' Ireland post-1798 to now.

Serenity Now!

WindSock wrote: »

Often many of the posts make for excellent reading, other times some come across as condescending which can be a put off.

A lot of the posters whom you feel might be condescending are just wiki-addicts posting as if what they retroactively retrieve in a search in wikipedia or google is something they knew already.
What I mean is that you probably know as much as the alleged 'experts'. Its fairly easy to tell these people from the genuines.