What so English school books say about Ireland?

Castlebar12

I was wondering what the History books in English schools say about Ireland and how they took it over and how they lost it? And all things about Ireland. Anyone know?

Jawgap

Castlebar12 wrote: »

I was wondering what the History books in English schools say about Ireland and how they took it over and how they lost it? And all things about Ireland. Anyone know?

Probably not that much different to what the Welsh, Scottish, Channel Islands and Isle of Man history books say about it.

The 'English' didn't take over 'Ireland' because at the time of the Norman invasion Ireland didn't exist as a political entity.

Anyway, the Pope gave the island to Henry II

meh whatever 55

They probably give a less biased account of things than Irish history books...

It's something I've never wondered, exactly, but would be interested in. Henry VIII for example, I think he was the first king over all the British isles.

Ipso

Probably very little. As much as Irish people like to think differently, we're very irrelevant in the big picture.

johnny_doyle

the conquest of Ireland (Scotland/Wales) never came up in my history lessons in England. Julius Caesar's landings; the Viking and Norman invasions of England in 1066; beating the French in Canada, American Civil War and WW1 were on the syllabus along with the Industrial Revolution, the Enclosure movement, the Tudors, the Armada, the rise of Trade Unionism, Whigs v Tories, English Civil War and the French Revolution. I seem to remember the Easter Rising being touched on as a footnote in WW1 but that was about the only reference to Ireland. I don't think that it even gets a mention in the syllabus today.

While we must have done something in Geography re the British Isles, I don't remember anything. Tennessee dust bowl, the Indian subcontinent, the Port of Rotterdam, glaciation, volcanoes, rivers and oceans, South America are topics I do remember. Ireland didn't register at all.

Today, I think Ireland gets even less mention......

riffmongous

There must be something about the Act of Union though surely?

Manach

Jawgap wrote: »

Anyway, the Pope gave the island to Henry II

Or as other commentators put it, the Normans were invited over and took advantage of a disunited political system to conquer the island.

boomchicawawa

I seem to remember they used to be taught in the old days (1980s :rolleyes:) about the Famine and also about the Home rule saga. But I think their current history curriculum might be different. I'm sure there are details of the curriculum online which would have all the info. It should have advanced by now to include the 'Northern Ireland troubles' as it has in the leaving cert curriculum here. (it's a very strange experience when things you remember as current affairs are now in the History books )

On a different note, I was conversing recently with a friend in Germany about my Irish History modules and he was up to speed about 1916 and Michael Collins etc, he said he had taught some Irish history in school :eek:

Fratton Fred

The conquest of Ireland (and Wales for that matter) never came up.

With regards 1916 etc. That period was consumed with the Russian revolution and the post revolution wars, with plenty about the league of nations, treaty of Versailles etc and the effects of it that led to the rise to power of Hitler.

johnny_doyle

riffmongous wrote: »

There must be something about the Act of Union though surely?

not that I can remember.

Went to the primary school at Frongoch last year and was impressed with the work/knowledge of some of the kids there with regards 1916. Their parents showed some work they'd done re 1916 when they had been at the school. More of a local studies section in their history lessons. I'd doubt many other schools in England/Wales/Scotland would have much on the agenda re Ireland.

looksee

Sorry, no mention of Ireland in my history education (in England), or indeed in any other subject. Scotland may have got a slight mention (Mary Queen of Scots etc), I don't recall Wales getting much of a mention either, apart from possibly trades unions. Thinking about it though, after early Britain and the Romans in primary school there was not much British history either, a lot of boring stuff about the Boer War and political stuff about early 20 century Britain relating to a couple of wars. I was never that interested in wars, would much rather have learned about the Industrial Revolution!

jonniebgood1

Most countries tend to tailor their history curriculum away from negative periods of their history rather than focus on them. Reference recent controversy in Japan over the treatment of WWII. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21226068

I doubt schools in Britain give to much time to some of the acts carried out in colonies from India to Ireland or the Indies more to the point.

robp

looksee wrote: »

Sorry, no mention of Ireland in my history education (in England), or indeed in any other subject. Scotland may have got a slight mention (Mary Queen of Scots etc), I don't recall Wales getting much of a mention either, apart from possibly trades unions. Thinking about it though, after early Britain and the Romans in primary school there was not much British history either, a lot of boring stuff about the Boer War and political stuff about early 20 century Britain relating to a couple of wars. I was never that interested in wars, would much rather have learned about the Industrial Revolution!

I guess that is reasonable enough considering the enormous scale of the British Empire.

Jawgap wrote: »

Probably not that much different to what the Welsh, Scottish, Channel Islands and Isle of Man history books say about it.

The 'English' didn't take over 'Ireland' because at the time of the Norman invasion Ireland didn't exist as a political entity.

Anyway, the Pope gave the island to Henry II

The 'English' didn't take over 'Ireland' because at the time of the Norman invasion it was Eriu not Ireland, Ireland being the Norman name for the Ireland. The island didn't exist as a united political entity but it was a cultural, linguistic, legal (in that it shared a common legal system) and geographic unit. So I don't think there is any problem treating it as one entity.

WoollyRedHat

I don't think it should matter either way, like here they would just propagate old and out of date histiography while refusing to pay heed to modern discourse.

csallmighty

I remember a relative of mine living in London was giving out about a textbook his son had in secondary school. It pretty much blamed the famine on the failing of the potato crops.

To be honest I don't believe him.

riffmongous

But it's madness not to mention the different acts of union, surely someone must notice how all of a sudden they go from talking about England one sentence to Great Britain in the next?

So we get a biased history, the British skip of most of their own and the Japanese deny theirs

Peregrinus

riffmongous wrote: »

But it's madness not to mention the different acts of union, surely someone must notice how all of a sudden they go from talking about England one sentence to Great Britain in the next?

So we get a biased history, the British skip of most of their own and the Japanese deny theirs

I think the merger of the English and Scottish crowns in 1603 is probably a more signficant event than the Union with Scotland Act 1707. Sure, the legal historians and the constitutional historians - and the Scots - are probably interested in the Act of Union, but for most people living in England at the time it made little difference, and certainly was a less significant event, politically and historically, than the passing of the Tudors and the accession of the Stuarts.

Similarly, the conquest of Ireland is probably more important to British history than the Union with Ireland Act 1800. But the conquest was spread out over centuries, and it was very much an ebb-and-flow affair for much of that time. In the context of a school history syllabus where you have to study the entirety of British history and its relationship with the world, really getting to grips with the conquest of Ireland probably takes more time than you are prepared to give it. Remember, this event was much more important to Ireland than it was to Britain.

The struggle for Irish independence, now, I'd expect the to devote much more time to, if only because they're still living with the consequences. Plus, it completely dominated British politics for the second half of the nineeenth century; you really can't study that period without making some attempt to get to grips with the Home Rule movement, and you can't understand that without looking at nationalism and the separatist republican movement.

SpaceTime

I suppose most history courses tend to be focused on the home country.

I would be interested in how the course covers colonialism too.

The French history corses are now quite open about things like the bad side of colonialism and French involvement in the slave trade etc

Ireland's difficulties will be things like addressing the civil war fairly, more recent aspects of the the northern Ireland conflict and we probably will need to look at state and church abuses of power in the 20th century with regards to stuff like the industrial schools and Magdalene Laundries etc

Every country has its periods of dark history and they're difficult to deal with.

Manach

SpaceTime wrote: »

Ireland's difficulties will be things like addressing the civil war fairly, more recent aspects of the the northern Ireland conflict and we probably will need to look at state and church abuses of power in the 20th century with regards to stuff like the industrial schools and Magdalene Laundries etc

And mentioning the state's lack of economic power to implement anything but an emigation policy, the state's own long list of human right's abuses and that the Church managed to keep some form of social system going on a shoestring budget that was at least comparable to other European countries.

markesmith

But Ireland played an important role in Britain's history (I know England's not Britain and all that ), from trade in the Bronze Age, through raiding/contributing to the downfall of Roman Britain, settling Scotland and parts of Wales/Cornwall, being conquered and quelled by them several times, role in conflicts with Spain/France, 1690, 1798, the Famine, 1916.

We were a constant thorn in their side, and perceived as an enemy within. The Famine alone should be mentioned in English textbooks, if only for the persisting opinion that their laissez faire ideas contributed to the deaths of a million people so close to home...

Fratton Fred

markesmith wrote: »

But Ireland played an important role in Britain's history (I know England's not Britain and all that ), from trade in the Bronze Age, through raiding/contributing to the downfall of Roman Britain, settling Scotland and parts of Wales/Cornwall, being conquered and quelled by them several times, role in conflicts with Spain/France, 1690, 1798, the Famine, 1916.

We were a constant thorn in their side, and perceived as an enemy within. The Famine alone should be mentioned in English textbooks, if only for the persisting opinion that their laissez faire ideas contributed to the deaths of a million people so close to home...

Not compared to France, Spain, Germany or, at the time I was at school, Russia. Then there's the whole who are we question with regards Romans, Angles, Saxons, Normans etc. Bung in two world wars, slavery, the industrial revolution and the religious wars and various royal houses and there's a bell of a lot to cover.

History in English schools isn' t a compulsory subject, so a lot of people will drop it at 14 as a subject. This only gives an hour or so a week for three years to cover two thousand years of history.

My school actually touched on the Irish famine as part of the industrial revolution and the influx of navigationals (navvies) who built the canals.

johnny_doyle

I did a look up on our library system this morning looking for Ireland as the keyword. Only 12 returned from a stock of over 11000 books.

2 were about Europe; 2 were Rivers of Britain and Ireland. 1 was about Irish cooking. There was 1 about the famine but it has never been taken out on loan.

Our Year 7, 8 and 9 kids do 1 hour of history each week. After this, history is an optional subject with 2 hours per week with History of Medicine, the Revolution in Surgery, the Industrial Revolution and Germany 1919-1945 as the key topics.

tac foley

I was at school both in UK and Canada in the late fifties and early sixties, and never got taught ANYTHING about Ireland as a separate entity.

Quote - Geography of the United Kingdom and adjacent independent nations -

'The UK consists of four countries, England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Of these four, only Ireland is divided - into the province of Northern Ireland [erroneously mis-named Ulster] and the recently independent Republic of Ireland, formerly known as the Free State'.

That was it.

Needless to say, my Irish dad, four Irish aunts and three Irish uncles filled in the blank spaces for me.

tac

mickmackey1

Peregrinus wrote: »

the conquest of Ireland... was much more important to Ireland than it was to Britain.

They were a bit slow handing it back all the same :pac:

tac foley

Being the duty pedant today, please note that 'Great Britain' means England,Scotland and Wales.

No mention of any part of Ireland.

The title of the whole place is 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.

tac

HansHolzel

As Robert Kee once put it, the usual reaction of the curious English person of goodwill who decides to read up on Irish history is,

Gosh, we have been beastly to the Irish.

hands211

mickmackey1 wrote: »

They were a bit slow handing it back all the same :pac:

The north has the option to rejoin the ROI but chooses not to (and for good reason!)

johnny_doyle

hands211 wrote: »

The north has the option to rejoin the ROI but chooses not to (and for good reason!)

indeed. A few things that need to be kept hidden.

Fratton Fred

HansHolzel wrote: »

As Robert Kee once put it, the usual reaction of the curious English person of goodwill who decides to read up on Irish history is,

Gosh, we have been beastly to the Irish.

Have you ever, in all your time on boards,.engaged.in a thread without turning it in to a boo hoo feel sorry for the Irish thread?

Grandeeod

I firmly believe that had Irish history been taught in English schools, it would have helped both nations to develop healthier relations. I am gobsmacked when an English person displays a complete lack of knowledge towards Irish History. I think a lot of bigotry and ignorance could be dispelled if it was included to some degree.

I recently met an English woman who's husband refuses to visit any part Ireland based on the threat of terrorism! This kind of baloney still exists and its probably down to generations and generations of not being educated about Ireland.

Fratton Fred

Grandeeod wrote: »

I firmly believe that had Irish history been taught in English schools, it would have helped both nations to develop healthier relations. I am gobsmacked when an English person displays a complete lack of knowledge towards Irish History. I think a lot of bigotry and ignorance could be dispelled if it was included to some degree.

I recently met an English woman who's husband refuses to visit any part Ireland based on the threat of terrorism! This kind of baloney still exists and its probably down to generations and generations of not being educated about Ireland.

That's nothing to do with history classes, that's just general ignorance.

Listen to the shinners and they'll have you believe there's a "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" sign outside every hotel in England.