1916 Curriculum

otterj

Why wasnt the rising on the National School and Junior Cert Curriculum? Instead of learing about the renaissance etc surely we should have learned about things closer to home first?

pinkypinky

I certainly learned about it in primary school (1980s) and junior cert it was briefly covered. Not mentioned at all in my leaving cert course but I understood this to be a choice by the teacher as it rarely came up on exams then.

laoch na mona

i learned about in (2000s) in both, I remember the pictures of the seven signatories were on the class room wall in primary school

donaghs

I covered it in my primary school (80s), and for the Junior Cert (not in detail due to the amount of time that course covered), and for the Leaving Cert (Ireland Since 1870).

Im sure curriculum's get updated, any evidence its not been covered in schools?

I know primary schools teachers right now you are doing 1916 project with their classes to tie in with 2016 anniversary.

Wellyd

I remember it mentioned in the Ages Ago history books of the late 90s and I studied it in great detail for my leaving cert in 05-06. Still have amazing notes on it from my amazingly passionate history teacher. Never could part with them.

byhookorbycrook

I am doing a lot of work on the Rising with my primary pupils. Some are researching Micheál O Hanrahan and his family, a few are chasing down family connections (we have a family whose great grand uncle was said to have fired the 1st shot of the Rising and another whose great grand father was the O/C of a Kerry brigade and have the original mobilization order and the Pearse brothers' memorial card) and then other Carlow connections like Nurse Farrell , Nurse Kehoe and James O' Connor. My emphasis is on commemoration and not celebration, the children need to see that the lives lost were not a cause in which we rejoice, on whatever side they fell.

laoch na mona

should you not teach them that the ideals of the proclamation are worth celebrating? especially at a time when most of Europe was embracing the slaughter of ww1

byhookorbycrook

laoch na mona wrote: »

should you not teach them that the ideals of the proclamation are worth celebrating? especially at a time when most of Europe was embracing the slaughter of ww1

What would you say were the ideals though?Blood sacrifice? A rising that could not succeed? A nation defined by territory or by culture? "Just war theory"

All a bit too abstract for primary children, to be honest. When I was in primary, 1916 was sold as Brits vs Us. The Rising was incredibly nuanced, I'd hope the children would see a less black and white version of it and not celebrate any loss of any life. I want them to be able to reclaim their family history, know the local links to the national context and have a less us v them view of the world.

Powerhouse

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

What would you say were the ideals though?Blood sacrifice? A rising that could not succeed? A nation defined by territory or by culture? "Just war theory"

All a bit too abstract for primary children, to be honest. When I was in primary, 1916 was sold as Brits vs Us. The Rising was incredibly nuanced, I'd hope the children would see a less black and white version of it and not celebrate any loss of any life. I want them to be able to reclaim their family history, know the local links to the national context and have a less us v them view of the world.

You keep mentioning the Rising but the other poster asked about the Proclamation not the Rising. The Rising itself, as we are seeing almost on a daily basis, can be 'complicated' by people for political and argumentative purposes - everyone can create their own 'nuance'. But the Proclamation talks about religious and civil liberties, equality, the happiness and prosperity of the nation oblivious to all differences between people. Surely reading the document would give a clear interpretation of its ideals?

Powerhouse

What I find interesting is that some who get angry about the relative lack of emphasis on WW1 in Irish history curricula over the years are not so quick to reference the similar lacuna in treatment of the Rising. (Two of the executed grew up within 15 miles of my home but I never heard them mentioned in school). These open-minded people wishing to recognise our WW1 heroes would never be politically - as distinct from historiographically - motivated would they?

LordSutch

Curriculum 1916-2016

According to the scale of Irish casualties in 1916.

1/ The Battle of the Somme (3500) Irish fallen.
2/ The Gallipoli campaign (3000) Irish fallen.
3/ The 1916 Dublin Rising (380) Irish/British.

1916 was indeed a bloody year in more ways than one. A proper and fully rounded curriculum should cover cover all the terrible events of that year, both of local historical interest + the raging World War which dominated everything, both at home and abroad.

byhookorbycrook

Powerhouse wrote: »

You keep mentioning the Rising but the other poster asked about the Proclamation not the Rising. The Rising itself, as we are seeing almost on a daily basis, can be 'complicated' by people for political and argumentative purposes - everyone can create their own 'nuance'. But the Proclamation talks about religious and civil liberties, equality, the happiness and prosperity of the nation oblivious to all differences between people. Surely reading the document would give a clear interpretation of its ideals?

Surely an interpretation is just as complicated and with any interpretation open to even unwitting bias?

For example in the case of religious liberties how would one explain this to a ten year old today as offering religious liberty? "We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God "

laoch na mona

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

What would you say were the ideals though?Blood sacrifice? A rising that could not succeed? A nation defined by territory or by culture? "Just war theory"

All a bit too abstract for primary children, to be honest. When I was in primary, 1916 was sold as Brits vs Us. The Rising was incredibly nuanced, I'd hope the children would see a less black and white version of it and not celebrate any loss of any life. I want them to be able to reclaim their family history, know the local links to the national context and have a less us v them view of the world.

you could teach them it was a fight for an equal society and a stand against imperialism

byhookorbycrook

laoch na mona wrote: »

you could teach them it was a fight for an equal society and a stand against imperialism

Yes, of course. Our senior children are also working on writing a Proclamation for 2016.

Powerhouse

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Surely an interpretation is just as complicated and with any interpretation open to even unwitting bias?

For example in the case of religious liberties how would one explain this to a ten year old today as offering religious liberty? "We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God "

One wouldn't. Clearly that is not the part of the proclamation which talks about religious liberty. Presumably they were referring to God as celebrated in Christianity as it was a predominantly Christian country. But very arguably that does not necessarily compromise religious liberty - i.e. the freedom to practice whatever religion you choose to practice. I see no contradiction between the two.

Of course there is unwitting (and 'witting' too) bias in any interpretation of anything. But the point I made is that there is a distinction between the Rising as a political event and the Proclamation as a document. I would argue the latter is far less nuanced and troublesome to reflect on than the former.

Powerhouse

LordSutch wrote: »

Curriculum 1916-2016

According to the scale of Irish casualties in 1916.

1/ The Battle of the Somme (3500) Irish fallen.
2/ The Gallipoli campaign (3000) Irish fallen.
3/ The 1916 Dublin Rising (380) Irish/British.

1916 was indeed a bloody year in more ways than one. A proper and fully rounded curriculum should cover cover all the terrible events of that year, both of local historical interest + the raging World War which dominated everything, both at home and abroad.

I'm not sure the number of people who died should be the sole criterion for coverage, nor indeed should the national identity of those who died.

The 1916 Rising was a significant event in the foundation of the state. The others were not.

Dinny Byrne has Angina

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Yes, of course. Our senior children are also working on writing a Proclamation for 2016.

This national call for schoolchildren to "rewrite" and "update" the proclamation is tiresomely characteristic of successive governments' apologetic attitude towards 1916, a position which reflects a vocal herd of the national population who are suspicious of, or unapologetically opposed to, the Rising and its legitimacy.

Imagine the French, the Americans, or even the British themselves wringing their hands over the legitimacy of their 'founding moments'. The American War of Independence, the French Revolution, and the endless spilling of blood in British history evince minimal anxiety in these respective populations, except, perhaps, among a tiny number of squeamish cranks, or pompous, dusty Anglophiles in France and New England.

i stop short of casting such epithets at whatever genius decided children should rewrite the Proclamation, I simply invite people to consider how serious the annoyance that would be aroused in those other republics, if someone suggested their founding documents be rewritten by the barely-literate.

Liberty, Equality and Video games, anyone?

The Chieftain

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

What would you say were the ideals though?Blood sacrifice? A rising that could not succeed? A nation defined by territory or by culture? "Just war theory"

How about the same ideals enshrined in the United Nations Charter and subsequent declarations, such as the rights to national self-determination, decolonization and freedom from alien subjugation, domination and exploitation?

The Chieftain

LordSutch wrote: »

Curriculum 1916-2016

According to the scale of Irish casualties in 1916.

1/ The Battle of the Somme (3500) Irish fallen.
2/ The Gallipoli campaign (3000) Irish fallen.
3/ The 1916 Dublin Rising (380) Irish/British.

No Irish army fought at the Somme, or in Gallipoli. The are first two are simply notional subsets of what were in reality and in fact British casualties, in the British army, in pursuit of British war aims.

The Chieftain

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

For example in the case of religious liberties how would one explain this to a ten year old today as offering religious liberty? "We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God "

What explanation is necessary? Why strain to create an issue when there is none? The situation in the US is exactly analogous. The US Declaration of Independence refers to God in several places, invoking the "Creator", "divine Providence", and "Supreme Judge". Indeed, God is identified as the very source of all inalienable rights. Yet I have never seen it asserted that those references to God are incompatible with religious freedom in the US. And the US remains, of course, "One Nation, under God".

Powerhouse

Dinny Byrne has Angina wrote: »

This national call for schoolchildren to "rewrite" and "update" the proclamation is tiresomely characteristic of successive governments' apologetic attitude towards 1916, a position which reflects a vocal herd of the national population who are suspicious of, or unapologetically opposed to, the Rising and its legitimacy.

Imagine the French, the Americans, or even the British themselves wringing their hands over the legitimacy of their 'founding moments'. The American War of Independence, the French Revolution, and the endless spilling of blood in British history evince minimal anxiety in these respective populations, except, perhaps, among a tiny number of squeamish cranks, or pompous, dusty Anglophiles in France and New England.

i stop short of casting such epithets at whatever genius decided children should rewrite the Proclamation, I simply invite people to consider how serious the annoyance that would be aroused in those other republics, if someone suggested their founding documents be rewritten by the barely-literate.

Liberty, Equality and Video games, anyone?

Could not agree more. Well said.

Jolly Red Giant

The Easter Rising IS part of the Junior Certificate history syllabus.

donaghs

The Chieftain wrote: »

No Irish army fought at the Somme, or in Gallipoli. The are first two are simply notional subsets of what were in reality and in fact British casualties, in the British army, in pursuit of British war aims.

Its worth considering though, that if the war was shorter, Home Rule granted, without 1916 and the Conscription Crisis, events like Gallipoli would have become part of the mythology of Nationalist Ireland - just like the way Australians and New Zealanders have such a strange attachment to it.


But that is still speculation. Despite very low causalities compared with the larger contemporary battles, 1916 was a decisive event which redefined the course of Irish history.

The Chieftain

donaghs wrote: »

Its worth considering though, that if the war was shorter, Home Rule granted, without 1916 and the Conscription Crisis, events like Gallipoli would have become part of the mythology of Nationalist Ireland - just like the way Australians and New Zealanders have such a strange attachment to it.


But that is still speculation. Despite very low causalities compared with the larger contemporary battles, 1916 was a decisive event which redefined the course of Irish history.

I doubt it. For the simple reason that a large part of nationalist Ireland had next to no involvement in the Great War. In my family:
- Both my grandfathers assiduously avoided any involvement,
- Not one of my great-uncles fought [for the British, anyway ]
That is 0 out of 11 eligible males.
At the first cousin level, just one (1) man out of many dozens served in the British Army (he never came back, also ignoring British cousins).
I am sure that others will point to other experiences, but there were many families like mine.

donaghs

The Chieftain wrote: »

I doubt it. For the simple reason that a large part of nationalist Ireland had next to no involvement in the Great War. In my family:
- Both my grandfathers assiduously avoided any involvement,
- Not one of my great-uncles fought [for the British, anyway ]
That is 0 out of 11 eligible males.
At the first cousin level, just one (1) man out of many dozens served in the British Army (he never came back, also ignoring British cousins).
I am sure that others will point to other experiences, but there were many families like mine.

But with Redmond's blessing, the bulk of Irish Nationalist opinion gave their backing to the war effort (This is easily forgotten with the narrow focus on 1916-1291). Abeit with some caution, as to when exactly Home Rule would arrive, and what role exactly the Ulster counties would play in it.

With the 1914 Irish Volunteer split: "The vast majority of the Volunteer membership remained loyal to Redmond, bringing some 142,000 members to the National Volunteers, leaving the Irish Volunteers with just a rump, estimated at 9,700 members". Redmond hoped after a short war the returning Volunteers would from the basis of a new Irish army.

The 1916 Rising on the other hand was planned in secret by 5 or 6 IRB men, hoping to use the remains of the much smaller Irish Volunteers.

Its true that many in Ireland avoided signing up for the British Army - its a fairly big step to sign up to take part in a foreign war with the greatest military powers in the world, which had no direct impact on your own country. Even Britain didnt introduce conscription until 1916.