English education system - gaps?

Dirty Frank

Just wondering if anyone knows if the plantation and 1916 etc are taught in schools in England?

I do not want to start another "900" years argument.

Nevyn

Huge chunks of what when on in "The Empire" gets glossed over.

looksee

Not so much 'glossed over' as there is not time for everything. Afair we covered ancient and Roman British history in primary school and the Boer war /South Africa for O level, also something else to do with Europe. I know I was not desperately interested

We did not cover any of the Royal history of England, internal/civil wars, the Industrial Revolution, either of the World Wars. And a lot of other things.

I rather doubt that anyone said 'don't mention Ireland, we'll keep quiet about it'.

smcgiff

looksee wrote: »

I rather doubt that anyone said 'don't mention Ireland, we'll keep quiet about it'.

Surely the loss of approx a third of its territory is worth a footnote at least

From when I dated an english girl (not today or yesterday) - she said the famine got a brief mention, but that was about it.

Ickle Magoo

Don't know about england but we did the potato famine in ireland when we did the highland clearances in history class....we also did seamus heaney, etc, in english class... :cool:

Eliot Rosewater

The main question this topic poses is: should English students be actually taught Irish history beyond the bare minimum of "this is when they became independent"?

Eve_Dublin

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The main question this topic poses is: should English students be actually taught Irish history beyond the bare minimum of "this is when they became independent"?

I´m guessing they´re not taught this as I´ve never met an English person who was aware of either historical event in my 3 years of living there.

I´d like to think that English children should know that we became independent from THEM. Seems like something you would want to know and should know. Not as if these aspects of our history are completely irrelevant to their own. I know I´d be somewhat curious if it was the other way round.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Crazyivan 1979

I did my GCSE's in '95 in England. We did absolutley nothing about Ireland in secondary school, although I aready knew a bit, by having an Irish mother and a lot of family over here. Only knew anything about 1916, the war of independance and the civil war when I did my Leaving cert here 2 years later.

The only thing I remember about my english history class was: The english civil war, the enclosures act, the corn laws. I don't remember doing much about the world wars.

smcgiff

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

All were covered in our primary school. Although, not hugely surprising considering how big the UK is compared to us.

However, my original point stands - From a UK point of view the loss of a third of its territory is arguably more important than WW2.

looksee

smcgiff wrote: »

However, my original point stands - From a UK point of view the loss of a third of its territory is arguably more important than WW2.

When the age of Imperialism came to an end, countries became independent - either fought for it or were just granted it. Fighting not to become a subject country of an empire led by a madman was way more important than hanging onto land whose inhabitants did not want to be part of that country (and who would have got a nasty shock if the madman had succeeded).

Why should it matter if there are or are not gaps in the UK education system? Ireland is independent, has its own education system to organise, its own business to attend to. Why continue to be obsessed by the fine detail of what is going on in a different country? Why does it matter to you?

Its a bit like some guy sitting in front of the television, griping about soaps and sport and complaining that he never had a chance, and what he would do if only people would realise how talented he was....

Eve_Dublin

smcgiff wrote: »

All were covered in our primary school. Although, not hugely surprising considering how big the UK is compared to us.

However, my original point stands - From a UK point of view the loss of a third of its territory is arguably more important than WW2.

...and the fact that Irish history it still relevant to the UK as they still occupy one 5th of our country. Surely it´s right for people of that country to know the history of a proportion of their own country (NI) or the background to the London bombings or the Birmingham bombings or why their relations are going to fight in Northern Ireland or why there´s still some degree of animosity in Ireland towards them? I´d certainly be curious.

Students are in school for an average of 14 years...I´m sure the can squeeze the bits of Irish history that´s relevant to their own history in there somewhere.

BrookieD

Dirty Frank wrote: »

Just wondering if anyone knows if the plantation and 1916 etc are taught in schools in England?

I do not want to start another "900" years argument.

No they are not, and neither is a lot of other stuff in the history of the world...Next qestion please...:rolleyes:

smcgiff

looksee wrote: »

When the age of Imperialism came to an end, countries became independent - either fought for it or were just granted it. Fighting not to become a subject country of an empire led by a madman was way more important than hanging onto land whose inhabitants did not want to be part of that country

When you mention imperialism you are only confusing matters. Ireland as you know was a constituent part of the UK - and in union well before imperialism.

As I said whether losing part of your country (Irish Independence) or the potential of losing all of it (WW2) is debatable, but should it be not taught at all!!!

looksee

I was referring to general independence of various countries, of which Ireland was one. And obviously it wasn't that big a deal to England, though they did have other things to think about at the time, which was why 1916 was organised at the time it was.

And if we all agree that Irish history should be taught in English schools, what then? A delegation to the Department of Education in London? Have you any idea how pathetically insecure it all sounds?

Eliot Rosewater

But why should the loss of 22.39% (;)) of its territory matter? Culturally, England and Ireland were never linked in the way they were politically. So I don't see why a citizen of England would have lamented the loss of Ireland (culturally) because they really wouldn't have considered it to be part of themselves. On the other hand, WWII was a direct assault on a part of the UK, southern England, that they considered intrinsic.

I think it's very Irish-centric to make such a big deal of our independence.

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

...why there´s still some degree of animosity in Ireland towards them?

An answer to that question wouldn't be to the satisfaction of nationalists. Quite simply, many Irish people in the republic demonize the British (and "the prodys") even though they lost political control nearly 90 years ago. The animosity has little to do with the British and everything to do with the Irish (Irish-centric world-view, inferiority complex etc) in my opinion.

smcgiff

looksee wrote: »

Have you any idea how pathetically insecure it all sounds?

What are you talking about - what has insecurities got to do with it?

Are you seriously saying that if you look through the English history curriculum you'll not find one paragraph of less importance than losing 22.39% (Thanks Elliot) of its territory - regardless of how little they thought of it.

Again, this was not a colony - but the break up of their country.

To labour the point - it's not Irish history they would be teaching but UK history.

looksee

No. As I said, large chunks of Africa, India, and a good bit earlier, America, had all waved bye bye, like children leaving home. And if that sounds patronising, well its because I simply cannot believe this discussion. Is there anywhere else in the world that would get their knickers in a knot over what a different country was teaching? It is a different country, you wanted it to be a different country, so it is. So what business is it of yours what they are teaching?

And the insecurity bit is, well obvious. A confident, self assured population would not keep peering over the wall to see what the neighbours are doing, and then complaining about what they see.

Wait for it ... 'well if we are not confident its because....'

smcgiff

looksee wrote: »

No. As I said, large chunks of Africa, India, and a good bit earlier, America, had all waved bye bye, like children leaving home. .'

Large parts of Africa, India and America were never part of the UK!*

looksee wrote: »

well its because I simply cannot believe this discussion.

I can't either - because you're making this out to be an Irish thing and I'm saying its a UK thing. Get over your inferiority complex. This is a discussion on UK history. How a country deals with its history is extremely telling.

* Now that's patronising!

looksee

This is a conversation from an Irish point of view, on an Irish discussion board, about how another country deals with a bit of Irish history. How is that not an Irish thing?

smcgiff

looksee wrote: »

This is a conversation from an Irish point of view, on an Irish discussion board, about how another country deals with a bit of Irish history. How is that not an Irish thing?

Because it doesn't have to be... Get over your petty Irish centric view of the world:p

Eliot Rosewater

Touché!

rantyface

looksee wrote: »

Is there anywhere else in the world that would get their knickers in a knot over what a different country was teaching?

The Chinese were in the international news in the last year or two because of massive riots over the Japanese sylabus. I doubt China has an inferiority complex.

Anyway, Britian had a massive Empire. They can't learn everything about all their colonies. You probably couldn't even do that in a three year degree.

rantyface

looksee wrote: »

It is a different country, you wanted it to be a different country, so it is. So what business is it of yours what they are teaching?

A lot of people have a general interest in world history, politics and international relations, whether you think it's their business or not. The history you are taught in school makes a big difference.

I got a history text book about Palestine from the USA and the omissions were very telling. I think if citizens of former colonial powers were more interested in their colonial history, they would feel obliged to help clean up the mess colonialism created in Africa.

Greyfox

smcgiff wrote: »

However, my original point stands - From a UK point of view the loss of a third of its territory is arguably more important than WW2.

That's like saying the famine is a bigger deal then the Jewish Holocaust! WW2is correctly about 1,000 more important to the UK's history

smcgiff wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that if you look through the English history curriculum you'll not find one paragraph of less importance than losing 22.39% (Thanks Elliot) of its territory - regardless of how little they thought of it.

Again, this was not a colony - but the break up of their country.

To labour the point - it's not Irish history they would be teaching but UK history.

It was a Colony. When the British Empire was at it's peak our population would of consisted of less then 2% of the people they ruled, the British Empire fought with almost half the world and when you fight with half the world theirs LOADS AND LOADS AND LOADS of stuff you have to fit into a history book. Yes their should be a few pages on who Michael Collins was etc but a few pages at the most and if they can't fit this in I'm sure theirs loads of other important stuff with one of the many other countries they ruled that their forgetting about

I believe some Irish people need to cop on and get over themselves and accept the fact that our 800 years of opression is not all that significant from an English point of view

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

danbohan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

liberal, modernizing country ???, how exactly was life under british rule during the 1800s liberal ? perhaps they were so oppressed they had no knowledge of anything else , nobody can say that the replacement of the british by a roman catholic ditatorship was a good thing for the country . however their seems to be a lot of people on here who have no pride in been irish and long for days of empire

looksee

danbohan wrote: »

liberal, modernizing country ???, how exactly was life under british rule during the 1800s liberal ? perhaps they were so oppressed they had no knowledge of anything else , nobody can say that the replacement of the british by a roman catholic ditatorship was a good thing for the country . however their seems to be a lot of people on here who have no pride in been irish and long for days of empire

How did the 1800s get into this?

rantyface

danbohan wrote: »

however their seems to be a lot of people on here who have no pride in been irish and long for days of empire

British rule changed what Irishness is, and whether it was a good thing or not it is part of Irish history and heritage. It's no different to appreciate Georgian buildings, Norman castles and the Irish language. They are all here as a result of various invasions and migrations and we can be proud of all the influences on our culture, because they all made being Irish what it is today.

I know I find it hard to be objective, and so do a lot of people, because we still talk about members of our family who died in the conflicts. I think eventually people will stop being angry about it.

Pittens

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Lol,I do t always agree with the cultural left but clearly they are right when they call out the claptrap of "liberal imperialism". The British Empire was "liberal" at home, of course by modern standards it was illiberal - it banned books and homosexuality etc. - but ran the colonies as slave camps for the "collies".

How liberal and democratic was the response to the justified Mau Mau rebellion?

StormWarrior

I went to school in England, from the mid eighties to the late nineties, and just now I had to google1916 to find out what you were talking about, I have never heard of it. This is all the history I was taught at school: in junior school we learned about the Aztecs and Henry the eighth, in senior school we learned about the Industrial Revolution, the Poor Law and workhouses.That is it, I was never taught any other history at school at all,until I went on to do history A Level. Then we learned more about the Tudors, and German and italian fascism. That is all the history I ever learned at school. They certainly never taught us anything at all about Ireland.