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.

tac foley

I'd have to say that it might have something to do with the twenty-seven years of roadside and town bombs that took some of the shine out of a vacation in the North of the country, added to which the sight of soldiers and armed police on the streets of most towns, the road-blocks and traffic stops along rural roads run by the BA and 'others' and the intimidatory language used by the population of all pursuasions.

Who in their right mind would take a British mainland-registered car over to Northern Ireland instead of hiring one there?

Or unknowingly walk into the 'wrong' pub and speak with an obvious English accent?

You really can't blame people, given those circumstances, now, for the most part, behind us.

tac

Castlebar12

tac foley wrote: »

I'd have to say that it might have something to do with the twenty-seven years of roadside and town bombs that took some of the shine out of a vacation in the North of the country, added to which the sight of soldiers and armed police on the streets of most towns, the road-blocks and traffic stops along rural roads run by the BA and 'others' and the intimidatory language used by the population of all pursuasions.

Who in their right mind would take a British mainland-registered car over to Northern Ireland instead of hiring one there?

Or unknowingly walk into the 'wrong' pub and speak with an obvious English accent?

You really can't blame people, given those circumstances, now, for the most part, behind us.

tac

Yes and that happened in their country not ours. No excuse to avoid the south.

SpaceTime

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.

A Cork woman I know won't visit England for similar reasons. People get funny ideas about how dangerous places are.

TheHighest92

it's worth noting that they didn't lose Ireland, some would argue that they were victorious in the war in the 1910-1920's due to them still keeping hold of a large portion of the north, it could have been worse for them.

they probably were taught more about ireland in primary school than us northern ireland people were, i didn't learn anything about irish history until 1st year of secondary school

markesmith

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

That's nothing to do with Sinn Fein, that's just general ignorance.

Judgement Day

Many English people don't even know their own history let alone Ireland's, and when it comes to being parochial they are in a league of their own. That said, the same is true of many Irish people.

Ozymandiaz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

I think you are quite wrong there. Ignorance is lack of education and William Hazlitt famously said that 'prejudice is the child of ignorance'!:)

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

Shinners?! 'No dogs, blacks or Irish'?! What circles do you move in? Or are you just showing a certain degree of ignorance again?:)

For what it's worth, I don't think Ireland gets much, if any, mention in English schoolbooks. Why should it? I doubt they would be too eager to teach their rising generations about our mutual history, especially as there is a lot to cram into the curriculum. Better to concentrate on Germany, etc..

Grandeeod

Ozymandiaz wrote: »

I think you are quite wrong there. Ignorance is lack of education and William Hazlitt famously said that 'prejudice is the child of ignorance'!:)

Shinners?! 'No dogs, blacks or Irish'?! What circles do you move in? Or are you just showing a certain degree of ignorance again?:)

For what it's worth, I don't think Ireland gets much, if any, mention in English schoolbooks. Why should it? I doubt they would be too eager to teach their rising generations about our mutual history, especially as there is a lot to cram into the curriculum. Better to concentrate on Germany, etc..

Came back on to reply, but I think you have summed up my response. I don't want to get political about this issue, although it's hard not to, but I base my opinion on the English people I meet on a daily basis. While English people living and working in Ireland may find my opinion a bit strange, there is still a very ignorant English population that have some very warped views of Ireland and through conversation I have concluded that it's down to a poor education. Perhaps the powers that be, should actually establish a proper History curriculum in schools so this ignorance has some chance of being dispelled. It's a sad day when I can correct an English person on an aspect of their History, but they haven't a clue about the History of my country beyond what the media fed them about the IRA and Northern Ireland.

tac foley

As far as I know, Ireland [Republic of] is not a subject matter in ANY part of the mainland history curriculum, nor has it ever been.

History as a school subject here on the mainland is not taught in date order from the coming of the Romans - this woeful state of affairs has come about by the very title of history being segued into 'social studies' or some such ballyhoo. As you may have seen in the news - or not - in general, UK schoolkids are as thick as pigsh*te.

Watching any of the game shows where general knowledge is tested is truly painful. They know the fifteen different hairgels used by the rapper Snot O'Goblin, but think that Maui is an island in the Orkneys.......

tac

HansHolzel

tac foley wrote: »

As far as I know, Ireland [Republic of] is not a subject matter in ANY part of the mainland history curriculum, nor has it ever been.

History as a school subject here on the mainland is not taught in date order from the coming of the Romans - this woeful state of affairs has come about by the very title of history being segued into 'social studies' or some such ballyhoo. As you may have seen in the news - or not - in general, UK schoolkids are as thick as pigsh*te.

Watching any of the game shows where general knowledge is tested is truly painful. They know the fifteen different hairgels used by the rapper Snot O'Goblin, but think that Maui is an island in the Orkneys.......

tac

France is the nearest fu*king mainland.

Judgement Day

HansHolzel wrote: »

France is the nearest fu*king mainland.

Surely it's past your bedtime?

HansHolzel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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?

General: Thought I was going for a minute. But no man's put me down yet. Have you had any training in the martial arts?

Withnail: Yes, as a matter of fact I have. Before I became a journalist I was in the Territorials.

General: Do you know, when you first came in here I knew you were a services man. You can never, never disguise it.

Withnail: What were you in?

General: Tanks. Afrika Korps. A little before your time. Don't suppose you've engaged, have you?

Withnail: Ireland.

General: Oh, a crack at the Mick.

Withnail: We'll have another pair of large scotches.

General: These shall be my pleasure.

RahenyD5

The Brits are not always aware of their history, some of it is quietly brushed under the carpet like when it comes to Ireland. Take the Falklands for example, most Argentines were taught everything about the islands at school age so they would know more about them but not many British schoolkids know the islands do exist. This could explain why most Argentines are passionate about the Falklands which some Brits are indifferent about, if they did not know about them, if their relatives did not fight in the war also the long distance between the islands & UK.

This ignorance about the islands, being British territory, that the foreign Argentines seem to know so much about them can be embarrassing for Westminster.

My grandfather once told me when the war broke out that the Argentines were going to invade, this caused some panic over in Scotland that people thought the Falklands were located off Scotland near the Faroes! Some people had no idea that the islands were actually in the South Atlantic.

Fratton Fred

Grandeeod wrote: »

Came back on to reply, but I think you have summed up my response. I don't want to get political about this issue, although it's hard not to, but I base my opinion on the English people I meet on a daily basis. While English people living and working in Ireland may find my opinion a bit strange, there is still a very ignorant English population that have some very warped views of Ireland and through conversation I have concluded that it's down to a poor education. Perhaps the powers that be, should actually establish a proper History curriculum in schools so this ignorance has some chance of being dispelled. It's a sad day when I can correct an English person on an aspect of their History, but they haven't a clue about the History of my country beyond what the media fed them about the IRA and Northern Ireland.

These English people of which you speak, they were actually English weren't they?

It's just half of this country seems to think you catch the ferry to England, Scotland is part of England and Britain is somewhere inside the M25.

Maybe that's just ignorance.

Fratton Fred

RahenyD5 wrote: »

My grandfather once told me when the war broke out that the Argentines were going to invade, this caused some panic over in Scotland that people thought the Falklands were located off Scotland near the Faroes! Some people had no idea that the islands were actually in the South Atlantic.

This post about the Brits, on a thread about English schools demonstrates my previous point perfectly.

By the way, your grandfather was mistaken. That never happened.

Judgement Day

RahenyD5 wrote: »

The Brits are not always aware of their history, some of it is quietly brushed under the carpet like when it comes to Ireland. Take the Falklands for example, most Argentines were taught everything about the islands at school age so they would know more about them but not many British schoolkids know the islands do exist. This could explain why most Argentines are passionate about the Falklands which some Brits are indifferent about, if they did not know about them, if their relatives did not fight in the war also the long distance between the islands & UK.

This ignorance about the islands, being British territory, that the foreign Argentines seem to know so much about them can be embarrassing for Westminster.

My grandfather once told me when the war broke out that the Argentines were going to invade, this caused some panic over in Scotland that people thought the Falklands were located off Scotland near the Faroes! Some people had no idea that the islands were actually in the South Atlantic.

Sure, sure...when the islands were invaded it was without warning and nobody had time to panic - except perhaps your grandfather. :rolleyes:

SpaceTime

I don't know if it's changed at this stage but a huge percentage of the primary history course we did was about mythology!

I thought that equipping kids with primary research skills would be the most obvious way of starting history off.

Maybe start with local history and move on from there. Get them out exploring.

I just remember being taught about Cu Cullen and all this stuff!

I do think though there's a general ignorance about lots of major issues in all countries. I've yet to come across one where your average unintellectual type knows all that much. The BBC and discovery channel etc probably do more to give many people access to broad education then the schools do in a lot of cases.

Also because of the structure of the modern A-Level system (not used Scotland) many UK kids are actually getting very very narrow educations because they study a very small number of subjects in depth rather than what we do with the LC or the Scottish Highers or French Bac'

People with a history A Level would probably know a lot more than a LC history student though as it's such a huge % of their school work.

The bigger problem with the A Level approach is that very key skills like maths and English can be neglected with certain subject choices.

tac foley

How many of YOU know that Sweden once included Norway AND Denmark AND Poland?

How many of you know about the Thirty-year War?

Or anything about the history of the Baltic States between 1000 and 1700AD?

I know very little, I must admit, and yet they were, in their time, epoch-changing events for those regions that have echoes down to our own time.

tac

johnny_doyle

I do seem to remember something in school re the Hanseatic League/Baltic trading but not what topic it was part of.

Didn't do much about Canada and the relationship to Newfoundland, WW1 internment in Canada, Fenian Raid etc Ditto didn't do anything re Australia/South Africa and their development, apartheid, status etc. Falkland Islands were touched upon as part of the Industrial Revolution - a topic on the development, operation, demise and restoration of the SS Great Britain.

Grandeeod

Fratton Fred wrote: »

These English people of which you speak, they were actually English weren't they?

It's just half of this country seems to think you catch the ferry to England, Scotland is part of England and Britain is somewhere inside the M25.

Maybe that's just ignorance.

Yes they were English.

I lived in England for years and now live in a different part of Europe among a large English community. I'm talking about English people. When the thread refers to Scots and Welsh, I'll talk about them to.