British History in Irish Schools

mitchconnor16

DO you think British history is white washed from the Irish school curriculum? I think it is. It seems to be too focused on the national question, the struggle and 1169 onwards>




MOD See warning at post 30.

Arsemageddon

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

DO you think British history is white washed from the Irish school curriculum? I think it is. It seems to be too focused on the national question, the struggle and 1169 onwards>

Teaching Irish history in schools in Ireland?

Isn't that just crazy!

Peregrinus

The history curriculum at secondary level basically has two streams; Irish history and European history. British history turns up in both, obviously; it turns up in the Irish stream in so far as its material to Ireland (which is quite a lot) and it turns up in the European stream.

Between the two, students probably emerge with a better grasp of British history than they do of, say, French or American history. Which is what you'd expect, really, given that Britain is our nearest, and by far our most influential, neighbour.

pinkypinky

I had a poor understanding of how we got from Henry VIII to William of Orange until relatively recently. The histories are utterly intertwined. For example, the 1641 rebellion was happening around the same time as the English civil war and both led to Charles I trial and execution.

Daniel O'Connell is not just an important Irish politician.

bpmurray

The UK itself barely scratches the surface of their own history up to O-Level, and they don't even mention Europe/

This "poor Brits" victimhood again. In reality, there is far too much emphasis on British history - an emphasis which is entirely politically motivated. Looking at a few of the books recently they had all sorts of things about Operation Sealion/the Battle of Britain, the Blitz and other planks of the "heroic" British nationalist myth. One of the historians even claimed it was something called the "British spirit" which was central to Britain's success.

Why, for instance, do they not study the life of a Russian child in the ineffably more significant (in every respect) Battle of Stalingrad? History teachers could even use Andrei Tarkovsky's classic movie Ivan's Childhood (1962) to convey the child's life. Or a child during the far more deadly (than all actions combined in Britain in WW 2) siege of Leningrad? Although Operation Barbarossa got a very brief piece, Kursk didn't even get a mention. I checked the exam papers and questions came up about the life of a child in the Blitz but nothing at all about the life of one anywhere else in WW 2. Why is this blinkered anglocentric drivel allowed distort a truer reflection of WW 2 and thus feed into the mythmaking behind the RBL's poppy fascism today? The reason Irish kids have to learn it has absolutely nothing to do with history.

The average non-British kid, as with the average non-British adult, would be far more fascinated with the total war of the Eastern Front. It teaches far more about life, its value and human nature. It is a culture shock.

And then there is M.E. Collins' infamous description of the Fenians as "extremists" with no such adjective used to describe the presumably "moderate" sorts who ran the British Empire across 25% of this planet at the same time. Or indeed to describe the other "moderate" John Redmond's blood-curdling glorification of war after Gallipoli. Yes, the pro-British Empire prejudices are decidedly rancid in secondary school history books today.


Aside from all that you only have to read a few pages of *any* of these books before you find factual inaccuracies - as if the whole book was cobbled together in a weekend, which in reality it quite probably was.

pinkypinky

pinkypinky wrote: »

I had a poor understanding of how we got from Henry VIII to William of Orange until relatively recently. The histories are utterly intertwined.

This sounds eerily reminiscent of John Bruton's minister Avril Doyle in her notorious "The Famine was a shared experience between the British and Irish peoples" revisionism in 1997.

pinkypinky wrote: »

Daniel O'Connell is not just an important Irish politician.

As for O'Connell, would it be too much for history books to mention how in his "victory" he agreed to the disenfranchisement of 100,000 of the poorest/most radical voters as the quid pro quo for his, and wealthy anglicising Catholics, getting into the British parliament? O'Connell is justifiably the outstanding hero of the British and Roman Catholic empires in Ireland in the 19th century - which explains why there is no such thing as critical analysis of him in school books.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

As for O'Connell, would it be too much for history books to mention how in his "victory" he agreed to the disenfranchisement of 100,000 of the poorest/most radical voters as the quid pro quo for his, and wealthy anglicising Catholics, getting into the British parliament? O'Connell is justifiably the outstanding hero of the British and Roman Catholic empires in Ireland in the 19th century - which explains why there is no such thing as critical analysis of him in school books.

I have to say that my Leaving Cert history text, back in the late middle ages 1970s, made precisely that point about the tougher property qualifications that came along with Catholic emancipation, and put it in the context of the Peterloo massacre, and made the connection with the rise of the Chartist movement.

Could it possibly be, Fuaranach - now, don't get cross - could it possibly be that your perception of a "poor Brits" victimhood mentality on all sides is itself the outcome of a somewhat blinkered view?

riffmongous

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have to say that my Leaving Cert history text, back in the late middle ages 1970s, made precisely that point about the tougher property qualifications that came along with Catholic emancipation, and put it in the context of the Peterloo massacre, and made the connection with the rise of the Chartist movement.

Could it possibly be, Fuaranach - now, don't get cross - could it possibly be that your perception of a "poor Brits" victimhood mentality on all sides is itself the outcome of a somewhat blinkered view?

First time I heard of any of that..

pinkypinky

Deleted User wrote: »

This sounds eerily reminiscent of John Bruton's minister Avril Doyle in her notorious "The Famine was a shared experience between the British and Irish peoples" revisionism in 1997.

As for O'Connell, would it be too much for history books to mention how in his "victory" he agreed to the disenfranchisement of 100,000 of the poorest/most radical voters as the quid pro quo for his, and wealthy anglicising Catholics, getting into the British parliament? O'Connell is justifiably the outstanding hero of the British and Roman Catholic empires in Ireland in the 19th century - which explains why there is no such thing as critical analysis of him in school books.

I'm not familiar with Avril Doyle's quote but British and Irish history are intertwined and anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.

As to your second point, there's very little solid critical analysis of anything at secondary school level. We're too busy learning millennia of history to have any decent discussion.

pedroeibar1

pinkypinky wrote: »

I'm not familiar with Avril Doyle's quote but British and Irish history are intertwined and anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.

As to your second point, there's very little solid critical analysis of anything at secondary school level. We're too busy learning millennia of history to have any decent discussion.

Agreed. The 'quote' attributed by Fuaranach to Avril Doyle is incorrect because her words have selectively been taken completely out of context. A 'shared experience' does not imply equally shared, but some - to suit an agenda - will always infer that.

Fratton Fred

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As for O'Connell, would it be too much for history books to mention how in his "victory" he agreed to the disenfranchisement of 100,000 of the poorest/most radical voters as the quid pro quo for his, and wealthy anglicising Catholics, getting into the British parliament? O'Connell is justifiably the outstanding hero of the British and Roman Catholic empires in Ireland in the 19th century - which explains why there is no such thing as critical analysis of him in school books.

What's an "anglicising Catholic"?

Arsemageddon

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What's an "anglicising Catholic"?

It means a Catholic who likes to go fishing.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What's an "anglicising Catholic"?

Obviously it's the trade-off: O'Connell and his ilk were not going to be allowed to advance within the expanding British colonial state in 19th-century Ireland unless they became not only anglicised but promoters of anglicisation. Or, as O'Connell put it himself in 1836: 'The people of Ireland are ready to become a portion of the empire, provided they be made so in reality and not in name alone; they are ready to become a kind of West Britons, if made so in benefits and justice; but if not, we are Irishmen again.'

Arsemageddon

Deleted User wrote: »

This "poor Brits" victimhood again. In reality, there is far too much emphasis on British history - an emphasis which is entirely politically motivated. Looking at a few of the books recently they had all sorts of things about Operation Sealion/the Battle of Britain, the Blitz and other planks of the "heroic" British nationalist myth. One of the historians even claimed it was something called the "British spirit" which was central to Britain's success.

As pointed out by other British and Irish history is very much intertwined. Tens of thousands of men from the Republic served in the British armed forces during WW2 as did our neighbours in the North. Hundreds of thousands lived and worked in Britain during the war. Like it or not fella, the fact that ze Germans were not able to invade Britain saved Europe from Fascist domination.

Why, for instance, do they not study the life of a Russian child in the ineffably more significant (in every respect) Battle of Stalingrad? History
teachers could even use Andrei Tarkovsky's classic movie Ivan's Childhood
(1962) to convey the child's life. Or a child during the far more deadly (than
all actions combined in Britain in WW 2) siege of Leningrad? Although Operation Barbarossa got a very brief piece, Kursk didn't even get a mention. I checked the exam papers and questions came up about the life of a child in the Blitz but nothing at all about the life of one anywhere else in WW 2. Why is this blinkered anglocentric drivel allowed distort a truer reflection of WW 2 and thus feed into the mythmaking behind the RBL's poppy fascism today? The reason Irish kids have to learn it has absolutely nothing to do with history.

Without a doubt the Soviets played the biggest part in defeating Nazi Germany, but they needed supplies from the US and UK and the attrition of US and UK air and sea power to achieve victory on land. It was a combined effort.

When I did LC history in the 90s the war on the eastern front was taught, including Stalingrad, Kursk, Operation Bagration and the Siege of Leningrad.

The average non-British kid, as with the average non-British adult, would be far more fascinated with the total war of the Eastern Front. It teaches far more about life, its value and human nature. It is a culture shock.

I've always been fascinated by Russian/Eastern European history, but it can be very hard going due to the unfamiliar names of people and places. Then there are the cultural differences that kids can hardly be expected to get their head around such as the role of religion in the Soviet Union or how peasant society functioned before and after collectivisation. Most undergrads can't get there head around this stuff, never mind school kids

And then there is M.E. Collins' infamous description of the Fenians as
"extremists" with no such adjective used to describe the presumably "moderate" sorts who ran the British Empire across 25% of this planet at the same time. Or indeed to describe the other "moderate" John Redmond's blood-curdling glorification of war after Gallipoli. Yes, the pro-British Empire prejudices are decidedly rancid in secondary school history books today.

Like it or not the Fenians were considered extremists by most and far more Irish people served in the British army or the civilian administration of the Empire than ever joined or supported the Fenians.

You're simplistic Irish=good; British=bad narrative is ahistorical nonsense.

Aside from all that you only have to read a few pages of *any* of these books before you find factual inaccuracies - as if the whole book was cobbled together in a weekend, which in reality it quite probably was.

We're talking about school kids here, the school curriculum is about giving them a broad outline of history and giving them a taste of the subject. Most of them just want to learn enough to get a half-decent grade, some will go on to study history at third level, and many of those who don't will maintain a life long interest in the subject. Given the number of subjects school kids have to take that's pretty much all that can be expected.

The depth of analysis you seem to think necessary is what would be expected at university level. The relentless Brit bashing is just tedious.

Arsemageddon

Arsemageddon wrote: »

As pointed out by other British and Irish history is very much intertwined.

That weasel words like "intertwined" and "shared" to sum up the power dynamic between the coloniser and the colonised are being used instead of more historically accurate ones is the real issue here, as well you should know.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Tens of thousands of men from the Republic served in the British armed forces during WW2 as did our neighbours in the North.

This is fascinating news. Thank you for conveying it. Perhaps you could contact The Irish Times or Independent or Kevin Myers and maybe they'll do an article on it because they haven't written anything at all about it...

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Like it or not fella, the fact that ze Germans were not able to invade Britain saved Europe from Fascist domination.... Without a doubt the Soviets played the biggest part in defeating Nazi Germany

Well, which is it? Did the British "save" Europe, or did the USSR?

Arsemageddon wrote: »

When I did LC history in the 90s the war on the eastern front was taught, including Stalingrad, Kursk, Operation Bagration and the Siege of Leningrad.

While they would have been mentioned, as I said, the detailed study was on Britain during WW II, including a focus on the life of a child during the Blitz and the evacuation of British cities. No such detail attached to the incomparably greater events on the Eastern Front.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Like it or not the Fenians were considered extremists by most

Evidence? The idea that they were the "extremists" and the people who ran the Empire they opposed were the "moderates" is merely parroting the prejudices of the ruling elite.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

and far more Irish people served in the British army or the civilian administration of the Empire than ever joined or supported the Fenians.

Again, you say this as if it's news. Given that the British occupied the country and had garrisons in most towns, the natives didn't have much choice. What you also overlook is that the Irish were not allowed into the British Army until very late in the 18th century, and then only because the British undertakers in Ireland couldn't recruit enough Protestants. In other words, by the time the Fenians were established in 1858, it was a very recent fashion for Irishmen to be joining the British Army. The way its apologists go on, you'd swear that Catholics were trusted with guns for the duration of the Penal Laws.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

You're simplistic Irish=good; British=bad narrative is ahistorical nonsense.

Alternatively, your fashionable need to rehabilitate the British Empire and the people who served it is ahistorical, politically motivated nonsense worthy of John Bruton.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

We're talking about school kids here, the school curriculum is about giving them a broad outline of history and giving them a taste of the subject.

Yet, the "broad outline" is disproportionately focused on accentuating anglocentric history at the expense of giving students an accurate account of the relative strengths of participants in WW II, for instance. Your satisfaction with this distortion is revealing because you're talking up the comparatively minor role of the British in WW II vis-à-vis the Russian military's role, and talking down the minor role of the Fenians vis-à-vis the British military's role.

pedroeibar1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Agreed. The 'quote' attributed by Fuaranach to Avril Doyle is incorrect because her words have selectively been taken completely out of context. A 'shared experience' does not imply equally shared, but some - to suit an agenda - will always infer that.

No, they haven't, and yes in fact in Doyle's use it explicitly said it was equally shared -"it was just as much a British event". Here's the exact quote from Christine Kinealy's [url=https://books.google.ie/books?id=ZOj4AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT16&lpg=PT16&dq="The+Famine+is+not+just+an+Irish+event,+it+was+just+as+much+a+British+event,+a+shared+experience"&source=bl&ots=tR0K9QLuCB&sig=VN4-uzfiivGxE0zANxeXdiKM1EE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBz9ieiPHOAhVOFMAKHe2zC9IQ6AEIIzAC#v=onepage&q="The Famine is not just an Irish event, it was just as much a British event, a shared experience"&f=false[/url] This Great Calamity[/url]: 'The Famine is not just an Irish event, it was just as much a British event, a shared experience.'

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

No, they haven't, and yes in fact in Doyle's use it explicitly said it was equally shared -"it was just as much a British event". Here's the exact quote from Christine Kinealy's This Great Calamity: 'The Famine is not just an Irish event, it was just as much a British event, a shared experience.'

Is it possible that you are misinterpreting the phrase 'shared experience' ?

Both the coloniser and the colonised , the slave and the slave owner , the husband and wife have a 'shared experience ' in some sense .

How we interpret that experience is the question is it not ?

pedroeibar1

Deleted User wrote: »

No, they haven't, and yes in fact in Doyle's use it explicitly said it was equally shared -"it was just as much a British event". Here's the exact quote from Christine Kinealy's This Great Calamity: 'The Famine is not just an Irish event, it was just as much a British event, a shared experience.'

Emmm yes, everyone can use Google and find that 'soundbyte' in Kinealy's book. But that neither explains the context nor gives the content of the rest of Doyle's speech. Even if you read around that sentence in Kinealy's book you would get an idea - unless of course you want to pick a few words to suit a rant.

Arsemageddon

Deleted User wrote: »

That weasel words like "intertwined" and "shared" to sum up the power dynamic between the coloniser and the colonised are being used instead of more historically accurate ones is the real issue here, as well you should know.

What words would you suggest?

This is fascinating news. Thank you for conveying it. Perhaps you could contact The Irish Times or Independent or Kevin Myers and maybe they'll do an article on it because they haven't written anything at all about it...

You seemed to be deliberately ignoring the blatantly obvious. Not my problem if the facts don't suit your agenda.

Well, which is it? Did the British "save" Europe, or did the USSR?

They both did with the help of many other nations. Neither the Brits or the Soviets could have won the war on their own.

While they would have been mentioned, as I said, the detailed study was on
Britain during WW II, including a focus on the life of a child during the Blitz
and the evacuation of British cities. No such detail attached to the
incomparably greater events on the Eastern Front.

Presumably because a child in modern Ireland could more readily identify with a child from Britain. TBH I have no idea what is on the secondary school curriculum these days.

Evidence? The idea that they were the "extremists" and the people who ran the Empire they opposed were the "moderates" is merely parroting the prejudices of the ruling elite.

Again, you say this as if it's news. Given that the British occupied the country and had garrisons in most towns, the natives didn't have much choice. What you also overlook is that the Irish were not allowed into the British Army until very late in the 18th century, and then only because the British undertakers in Ireland couldn't recruit enough Protestants. In other words, by the time the Fenians were established in 1858, it was a very recent fashion for Irishmen to be joining the British Army. The way its apologists go on, you'd swear that Catholics were trusted with guns for the duration of the Penal Laws.

Despite what you seem to think Ireland was not in a constant state of rebellion against Britain. Most Irish people accepted the status quo in the 19th century (coercion played a part in this) and sought to use broadly constitutional means to achieve their goals - Catholic emancipation, land reform and Home Rule. The rebellions that did take place were relatively minor events that had little popular support.

Alternatively, your fashionable need to rehabilitate the British Empire and the people who served it is ahistorical, politically motivated nonsense worthy of John Bruton.

I'm rehabilitating the British Empire now!? Jaysus!

Yet, the "broad outline" is disproportionately focused on accentuating anglocentric history at the expense of giving students an accurate account of the relative strengths of participants in WW II, for instance. Your satisfaction with this distortion is revealing because you're talking up the comparatively minor role of the British in WW II vis-à-vis the Russian military's role, and talking down the minor role of the Fenians vis-à-vis the British military's role.

Saying the Brits had a minor role in WW2 is just stupid, very very stupid.

Talking about the "Russian military" in WW2 is quite simply wrong - you seem to be ignoring the contribution of all of the smaller nations that made up the Russian dominated Soviet Union. I'm surprised that a fearless champion of small nations such as yourself would make such an error.

Fratton Fred

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well, which is it? Did the British "save" Europe, or did the USSR?

With no British intervention, the USSR would have controlled the whole of Europe, so yeah, Britain saved Europe.

Fratton Fred

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Obviously it's the trade-off: O'Connell and his ilk were not going to be allowed to advance within the expanding British colonial state in 19th-century Ireland unless they became not only anglicised but promoters of anglicisation. Or, as O'Connell put it himself in 1836: 'The people of Ireland are ready to become a portion of the empire, provided they be made so in reality and not in name alone; they are ready to become a kind of West Britons, if made so in benefits and justice; but if not, we are Irishmen again.'

So the Catholic bit is irrelevant then, unless Catholic and Irish are the same thing.

pedroeibar1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What's an "anglicising Catholic"?

Much as I admire Arsemageddon taking the pis-catory view in #13, it’s all rather puzzling, as not only has Fuaranach muddled the views of poor old Dan O’Connell, like many of that ilk has confounded the difference between ‘Irish’ and ‘Catholic’. The quote and use of the ‘de-anglicising’ word is another bit of ‘cut-and-paste’, this time from Douglas Hyde who regularly got quite huffy about Dan’s views on Buntús Cainte, Daithí Lacha and the Irish being the “finest peasantry in Europe”. Dougie was wont to prattle on about it – see for e.g. The Necessity for De-Anglicising Ireland.

As for Fuaranach’s praise of the Fenians and diatribes against the ‘wicked Brits’ and their antics, it is conveniently ignored in those posts that Mr. Fenian Mitchell strenuously opposed the abolition of slavery seeing it as - quote – “the best state of existence for the Negro” – and was jailed by the Union to put manners on him. (sshhhh no mention of double standards for a Fenian hero, and that the Brits had outlawed slavery a half century previously!) Losing two sons fighting for the Confederate must have been rather sad for Mitchell, similar I suppose to Kipling’s loss in WW1 much later.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the Catholic bit is irrelevant then, unless Catholic and Irish are the same thing.

Good man, Fred. You'll brook no criticism of your Empire without trying to share the blame with the RCC. In the piece you quoted my reference to "O'Connell and his ilk" implicitly includes the RCC, as anybody familiar with the Church-based organisation of the Catholic Emancipation movement would gather. Or indeed anybody familiar with the role of O'Connell and the RCC in setting up national schools as vehicles to anglicise and romanise Irish cultural and religious mores. Nevertheless, if it's any further consolation, I clearly mentioned your country's 19th-century Roman allies in Ireland in the previous post, but alas for reasons best known to yourself you prefer to ignore it: 'O'Connell is justifiably the outstanding hero of the British and Roman Catholic empires in Ireland in the 19th century'.

I've never been quite sure why a recalcitrant British nationalist such as yourself is invariably anxious to condemn the RCC when any reading of Irish history since the 1790s confirms that they were the biggest allies of the British Empire in its cultural colonisation and military occupation of Ireland from then on. Is atavistic anti-Catholicism simply refusing to allow you to accept that they were on your side?

pedroeibar1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Emmm yes, everyone can use Google and find that 'soundbyte' in Kinealy's book. But that neither explains the context nor gives the content of the rest of Doyle's speech. Even if you read around that sentence in Kinealy's book you would get an idea - unless of course you want to pick a few words to suit a rant.

So, let's be very precise here. You claimed that Doyle's 'shared experience' "words have selectively been taken completely out of context. A 'shared experience' does not imply equally shared".

When it was shown that Doyle explicitly stated the experience was equally shared - 'The Famine is not just an Irish event, it was just as much a British event, a shared experience.' - instead of accepting you're wrong and moving on quietly you mumble some pathetic nonsense about her quote being a "soundbyte" (sic) and indeed, without irony, you say 'everyone can use Google'. Next time, perhaps you could do this ubiquitous googling before you embarrass yourself?

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

it’s all rather puzzling...

'Rather puzzling' would be a mild description of that disconnected, turgid irrelevant flow of consciousness on your part.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

As for Fuaranach’s praise of the Fenians and diatribes against the ‘wicked Brits’ and their antics, it is conveniently ignored in those posts that Mr. Fenian Mitchell strenuously opposed the abolition of slavery

Your posts get more, eh, "unique". Let me try, though: I note that in your latest defence of British colonialism in Ireland and your condemnations against the "savage Irish" and their deeds but you once again refuse to mention the savagery of - oh, let me see what random British imperialist totally unconnected with the discussion that I can come up with here - Charles Cornwallis in the 1790s and how he authorised the torture, pitchcapping and execution of thousands of Irish people. Why are you ignoring this? Why?

...

Arsemageddon

Arsemageddon wrote: »

What words would you suggest?... Not my problem if the facts don't suit your agenda.

"Facts" indeed. How about using the word "relationship", if your side are trying to be polite? Calling it a "shared relationship" is an obviously pathetic attempt at sanitising the reality of the power dynamic. That you're happy with that description says much more about your own agenda, ironically enough, than your interest in historical truth.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Presumably because a child in modern Ireland could more readily identify with a child from Britain.

Upon what is this "presumption" based? Any decent teacher can encourage a child in an Irish city to empathise with a child in another city - cities generally have similar things and children have similar fears. Refusing to use (far more historically significant) examples from countries beyond Britain based on such a spurious "presumption" is the reason for the closed-minded anglocentricity of the history syllabus. Again, by refusing to go beyond Britain you are in effect justifying this distortion of history teaching.

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Saying the Brits had a minor role in WW2 is just stupid, very very stupid.

Of course, I actually said 'the comparatively minor role of the British in WW II vis-à-vis the Russian military's role' but at least we know you won't allow what I actually said distort what you want to portray me as saying just so it fits into your agenda. And most people would agree that the USSR death toll of 26 million people dwarfs the UK death toll of 450,000 people. Here's a helpful chart.

Arsemageddon

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Most Irish people accepted the status quo in the 19th century (coercion played a part in this)

Wow, just wow. It's no wonder you're calling the Fenians "extremists" when you have such a distorted understanding of the 19th century. "Coercion", as you euphemistically term it, did not play a mere "part" in it. The country was under military occupation, with an accompanying plethora of emergency legislation in recurrent use against the population. This British colonial violence and eternal threat of violence was the thing that imposed the Act of Union, and everything else. It may surprise you but the Irish people didn't have a referendum in favour of British rule.

When there was any resistance that garrison was repeatedly threatened and/or utilised, be it against the civilian population in localities across the state during the tithe wars, or to prevent mass, peaceful political mobilisation as in Clontarf in 1843. That standing garrison alone never went below 24,000 people and for most of the first half of the 19th century it was double the size of the garrison in England, Scotland and Wales combined. Furthermore, between 1800 and 1902 it was official British government policy than only troops from Britain could man these garrisons in Ireland. Now, leaving aside your evident politics, why do you think such a comparatively massive garrison, and one manned exclusively from a foreign population, was used on Ireland but not in Britain?

And then there was the paramilitary armed police force - universally referred to as a standing gendarmerie - the Irish Constabulary, renamed the Royal Irish Constabulary in 1867 for violently suppressing Irish freedom. This force was used to train all Britain's armed colonial "police" forces right up to 1922 (when the RUC took over the task). In Britain, in sharp contrast, the police force was unarmed. Now, why do you think the Irish got an armed force and the British got an unarmed force if the Irish were such equal members of the British state "sharing" all those wonderful experiences? Perhaps you think that because, after decades of discrimination, the newly tamed and anglicised Catholics finally became a majority in the RIC ranks it absolves everything that loyalist policeforce did (including the almost complete exclusion of Catholics from senior positions in the RIC)? Do you also absolve other colonial policeforces from their crimes because they, too, ultimately had large numbers of recruits at the lower levels drawn from the native population?

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The rebellions that did take place were relatively minor events that had little popular support.

This highlighted bit is a myth. There were some 60,000 members of the Fenians by the time of the 1867 revolt and they had widespread sympathy among Irish nationalists. Many Fenians were elected members of the British parliament, who were often banned from taking their seats - John Mitchel, Michael Davitt, O'Donovan Rossa, John Daly, Matt Harris and very many others are in this group. The IRB, and their comparatively large financial resources, were vital enough for Parnell to make a point of allying with them in the New Departure. The reality behind the "constitutional politics" you smugly talk about was, as with most things in Ireland, very different to what constituted "constitutional politics" in Britain.

Arsemageddon

Deleted User wrote: »

"Facts" indeed. How about using the word "relationship", if your side are trying to be polite? Calling
it a "shared relationship" is an obviously pathetic attempt at sanitising the
reality of the power dynamic. That you're happy with that description says much more about your own agenda, ironically enough, than your interest in historical truth.

Crazy as it might seem I don't have a side.

Upon what is this "presumption" based? Any decent teacher can encourage a child in an Irish city to empathise with a child in another city - cities generally have similar things and children have similar fears. Refusing to use (far more historically significant) examples from countries beyond Britain based on such a spurious "presumption" is the reason for the closed-minded anglocentricity of the history syllabus. Again, by refusing to go beyond Britain you are in effect justifying this distortion of history teaching.

Blah, Blah, blah. I was just stating the bloody obvious.

If you think there exists some dastardly Anglo centric conspiracy in the Dept. of Education then there's nothing I can post here to help you.

Of course, I actually said 'the comparatively minor role of
the British in WW II vis-à-vis the Russian military's role' but at least we know you won't allow what I actually said distort what you want to portray me as saying just so it fits into your agenda. And most people would agree that the USSR death toll of 26 million people dwarfs the UK death toll of 450,000 people. Here's a helpful chart.

WW2 was about a lot more complex than just a body count.

Again with the accusation that anyone who disagrees with you has an agenda.

Arsemageddon

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow, just wow. It's no wonder you're calling the Fenians "extremists" when you have such a distorted understanding of the 19th century. "Coercion", as you euphemistically term it, did not play a mere "part" in it. The country was under military occupation, with an accompanying plethora of emergency legislation in recurrent use against the population. This British colonial violence and eternal threat of violence was the thing that imposed the Act of Union, and everything else. It may surprise you but the Irish people didn't have a referendum in favour of British rule.

When there was any resistance that garrison was repeatedly threatened and/or utilised, be it against the civilian population in localities across the state during the tithe wars, or to prevent mass, peaceful political mobilisation as in Clontarf in 1843. That standing garrison alone never went below 24,000 people and for most of the first half of the 19th century it was double the size of the garrison in England, Scotland and Wales combined. Furthermore, between 1800 and 1902 it was official British government policy than only troops from Britain could man these garrisons in Ireland. Now, leaving aside your evident politics, why do you think such a comparatively massive garrison, and one manned exclusively from a foreign population, was used on Ireland but not in Britain?

And then there was the paramilitary armed police force - universally referred to as a standing gendarmerie - the Irish Constabulary, renamed the Royal Irish Constabulary in 1867 for violently suppressing Irish freedom. This force was used to train all Britain's armed colonial "police" forces right up to 1922 (when the RUC took over the task). In Britain, in sharp contrast, the police force was unarmed. Now, why do you think the Irish got an armed force and the British got an unarmed force if the Irish were such equal members of the British state "sharing" all those wonderful experiences? Perhaps you think that because, after decades of discrimination, the newly tamed and anglicised Catholics finally became a majority in the RIC ranks it absolves everything that loyalist policeforce did (including the almost complete exclusion of Catholics from senior positions in the RIC)? Do you also absolve other colonial policeforces from their crimes because they, too, ultimately had large numbers of recruits at the lower levels drawn from the native population?

Yep, I'm aware of all this - none of which alters the fact that the Fenian's were a fringe group in 19th Century Ireland.

This highlighted bit is a myth. There were some 60,000 members of
the Fenians by the time of the 1867 revolt and they had widespread sympathy among Irish nationalists.

60,000 members and only a few hundred bothered to tog out for the rising in 1867? Makes the usual claim that they had 50-60,000 members a bit dubious.

Many Fenians were elected members of the British parliament, who were often banned from taking their seats - John Mitchel, Michael Davitt, O'Donovan Rossa, John Daly, Matt Harris and very many others are in this group. The IRB, and their comparatively large financial resources, were vital enough for Parnell to make a point of allying with them in the New Departure. The reality behind the "constitutional politics" you smugly talk about was, as with most things in Ireland, very different to what constituted "constitutional politics" in Britain.

There were 8 general elections between 1868 & 1900. That's 811 MPs for Ireland in that period not including by-elections which would increase that number. You have listed just 6 people who were elected, and Davitt shouldn't even be on that list as he was elected because of activity in the land league. That's hardly massive support.

The New Departure only came about because the IRB realised that the objective of freeing Ireland by force was doomed to fail. If anything, the New Departure serves to highlight the weakness of Fenianism. How you think referencing it supports your argument is beyond me.

Manach

MOD NOTE:
This thread in content and especially tone is veering from from the original topic. Points have been made had been addressed at this stage
so please keep on topic and avoid breaching History's forum charter on opinions and differing view points.

pedroeibar1

Deleted User wrote: »

..... Or indeed anybody familiar with the role of O'Connell and the RCC in setting up national schools as vehicles to anglicise and romanise Irish cultural and religious mores. ...... 'O'Connell is justifiably the outstanding hero of the British and Roman Catholic empires in Ireland in the 19th century'.

There is not much point in debating with you when you misquote, refuse to, or avoid, responding to valid argument, wander way off-topic and produce ‘arguments’ that have no basis in historical fact. The above snippet, for example, shows a total misunderstanding (ignorance?) of the ‘birth’ of the National School system. O’Connell had no role in its earliest ‘version’ which arguably was the launch of Kildare Place Society Schools (in 1811) which originally were non-denominational. (Yes, O’C did serve for a short while on its board of management, but soon left after a sister organisation started to proselytise.). Its role was to educate the poor. Look at the 1821 Census figures. Look at the age bands of the children. Look at the illiteracy rate of those under 15. (Less than 15% were literate!) You should also read up on the ‘Stanley letter’, the item that really launched the process for the National schools system.

The RCC was not involved, nor was O’Connell in the foundation of the National Schools. Stanley, who was Chief Secretary for Ireland in 1831 believed that the best way to promote peace in Ireland was through a multidenominational education system. O’Connell was at that time concentrating on the Tithe War. Sadly (in my opinion) the RC Church under Cardinal Cullen by the 1860’s (long after O’Connell’s death) got control of the National Education Board and the Catholic Church’s position on the system became more hard-line, banning pupils from attending the model schools and the training colleges. So the National School system that the Free State inherited dates to that era.

None of this is taught in Irish schools, where there is actually a hatchet hanging over the future of ‘history’ as a LC subject. Even today we don’t even teach our own history properly in our schools, let alone touch on British history. All that is perfectly obvious when one sees the historically inexact and venomous waffle spouted (and thanked by the usual idiots) in this Forum simply because it is ‘having a go’ at the Brits.

Ireland does not feature in any EU country’s school history program, other than reference to a few medieval monks/monasteries. Why should we be on any school curriculum on the Continent? That is because we are a pimple on the ar$e of Europe – an inconsequential place, regardless of what we think or would like to believe. That also is why we got screwed over in the (Inappropriately named) bailout a few years ago and why today we are a football in an economic war between the EU and the US on taxation.

So, putting it simply, every one of your inaccurate comments could be addressed (refuted?) one by one in this manner but I have neither the time nor inclination to be bothered to do so.

Jesus.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've never been quite sure why a recalcitrant British nationalist such as yourself is invariably anxious to condemn the RCC when any reading of Irish history since the 1790s confirms that they were the biggest allies of the British Empire in its cultural colonisation and military occupation of Ireland from then on. Is atavistic anti-Catholicism simply refusing to allow you to accept that they were on your side?

Generally speaking its only applicable to someone from loyalist Ulster. You'd find it hard to find a mainland Britisher with that kind of mindset.

Thomas_...

Deleted User wrote: »

This sounds eerily reminiscent of John Bruton's minister Avril Doyle in her notorious "The Famine was a shared experience between the British and Irish peoples" revisionism in 1997.
...

Scotland had it as well around the same time like Ireland. So, it depends on what one understands by the term "British" in relation to the Famine.

Jesus.

Thomas_... wrote: »

Scotland had it as well around the same time like Ireland. So, it depends on what one understands by the term "British" in relation to the Famine.

Oh boy

Fratton Fred

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Good man, Fred. You'll brook no criticism of your Empire without trying to share the blame with the RCC. In the piece you quoted my reference to "O'Connell and his ilk" implicitly includes the RCC, as anybody familiar with the Church-based organisation of the Catholic Emancipation movement would gather. Or indeed anybody familiar with the role of O'Connell and the RCC in setting up national schools as vehicles to anglicise and romanise Irish cultural and religious mores. Nevertheless, if it's any further consolation, I clearly mentioned your country's 19th-century Roman allies in Ireland in the previous post, but alas for reasons best known to yourself you prefer to ignore it: 'O'Connell is justifiably the outstanding hero of the British and Roman Catholic empires in Ireland in the 19th century'.

I've never been quite sure why a recalcitrant British nationalist such as yourself is invariably anxious to condemn the RCC when any reading of Irish history since the 1790s confirms that they were the biggest allies of the British Empire in its cultural colonisation and military occupation of Ireland from then on. Is atavistic anti-Catholicism simply refusing to allow you to accept that they were on your side?

How the hell did you come up with that, from what I posted?

Zebra3

mitchconnor16 wrote: »

DO you think British history is white washed from the Irish school curriculum? I think it is. It seems to be too focused on the national question, the struggle and 1169 onwards>




MOD See warning at post 30.

When I was in school, yes it was. Britain's crimes were played down, the so-called famine (famine means shortage of food) was a bit of an auld misunderstanding. There was no mention of Britain's immoral occupation of our country and no mention of the hypocrisy of Britain claiming to be fighting for the freedom of some other European countries while occupying so much of the globe outside Europe.

Ditto France, but at least France wasn't committing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Ireland.

On this "shared experience" toadying narrative, can you imagine if someone came out with that disgusting phrase to describe what Germany had done in Poland? :rolleyes:

4ensic15

Arsemageddon wrote: »

As pointed out by other British and Irish history is very much intertwined. Tens of thousands of men from the Republic served in the British armed forces during WW2 as did our neighbours in the North. .

NOBODY from the Republic served in the British armed forces during WW2. Stick to the facts.

Jesus.

4ensic15 wrote: »

NOBODY from the Republic served in the British armed forces during WW2. Stick to the facts.

Pedantry from the Jadotville Jack :rolleyes:

topper75

Irish pupils should at the very least be able to list off the monarchs in sequence from William I and group them in dynasties or houses.

The Norman thing (the most significant invasion of Ireland in all human history of the the island) began with William The Bastard's taking of the English crown.

From Henry II onwards, they were the ones running the country. Wishing they didn't is one thing. Pretending they actually didn't is quite another.

When you can list the monarchs with approximate time periods, you have a meaningful framework on which to hang events. Worth having a few lines in your head also of each monarch.

Even if Irish history ain't your cupán tae, you'll need it for Shakespeare.

pedroeibar1

topper75 wrote: »

Irish pupils should at the very least be able to list off the monarchs in sequence from William I and group them in dynasties or houses........When you can list the monarchs with approximate time periods, you have a meaningful framework on which to hang events. Worth having a few lines in your head also of each monarch.

Even if Irish history ain't your cupán tae, you'll need it for Shakespeare.

I agree that all knowledge is useful, but I’d prioritise many other issues of Irish history before the rote-learning of a list of English (and Scottish) kings.
As for Shakespeare, shur he didn’t write the half of that stuff!:P

Del.Monte

This is something like the mnemonic that I learnt at school in Bray in the 1960s - I can still remember a good chunk of it.

Willie, Willie, Harry, Stee,
Harry, Dick, John, Harry three;
One two three Neds, Richard two
Harrys four five six....then who?

Edwards four five, Dick the bad,
Harrys (twain), Ned six (the lad);
Mary, Bessie, James you ken,
Then Charlie, Charlie, James again...

Will and Mary, Anna Gloria,
Georges four, Will four, Victoria;
Edward seven next, and then
Came George the fifth in nineteen ten;

Ned the eighth soon abdicated
Then George six was coronated;
After which Elizabeth
And that's all folks until her death

topper75

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I agree that all knowledge is useful, but I’d prioritise many other issues of Irish history before the rote-learning of a list of English (and Scottish) kings.

Oh no please don't misunderstand me - of course Irish history issues are the priority for Irish curricula. Any suggestion to the contrary would be daft. I'm just suggesting that a rough outline of the monarchs is the best framework for a timeline. They were the governors of the land whether we like that or not. Long time since I was in school, but they were totally ignored. When I educated myself on them later in life, much of previously impenetrable Irish history started to clarify for me. If you don't understand Charles I, who he was, how he ruled, how he saw himself etc. etc., you cannot possibly ever hope to understand Cromwell and the civil war. If you can't understand what the English civil war was about, then any effort to understand 17th century politics in Ireland will be absurdly hopeless - like trying to understand fish without knowing what water is.

Del.Monte wrote: »

This is something like the mnemonic that I learnt at school in Bray in the 1960s - I can still remember a good chunk of it.

Willie, Willie, Harry, Stee,
Harry, Dic...

Something like that would be fine with a little paragraph and pic (however faithful!) of each to get started.

pedroeibar1

topper75 wrote: »

Oh no please don't misunderstand me - of course Irish history issues are the priority for Irish curricula. Any suggestion to the contrary would be daft. I'm just suggesting that a rough outline of the monarchs is the best framework for a timeline. They were the governors of the land whether we like that or not. Long time since I was in school, but they were totally ignored. When I educated myself on them later in life, much of previously impenetrable Irish history started to clarify for me. If you don't understand Charles I, who he was, how he ruled, how he saw himself etc. etc., you cannot possibly ever hope to understand Cromwell and the civil war. If you can't understand what the English civil war was about, then any effort to understand 17th century politics in Ireland will be absurdly hopeless - like trying to understand fish without knowing what water is.

No misunderstanding, we probably are very much on the same page. History and its teaching is a topic that arises periodically. History is now very much in decline at LC level and will soon be gone the way of Latin. (O tempora! O mores!) Ignorance of the English monarchs (apart from Henry VIII and Eliz I) is the least of the several problems besetting history in Irish schools - the way it is taught, the core curriculum, the subject options (e.g. choice of history or French), the ‘points race’, etc.. Even talking to young kids today they appear to have no grasp of ‘context’ – as in ‘”We are learning about the Reformation” but it is centred on Luther and does not impinge on what the Popes were ‘up to’ in Rome. Or, it’s Cromwell and what he did in Ireland, with no mention of what he did to the Royalists in England.When teaching us grammar my old Irish teacher used to say “Braitheann gach rud ar rud eile!” He was in the right of it.

“I don’t know who discovered water, but it wasn’t a fish!” (Marshall McLuhan). Perhaps the future of history teaching is better in the hands of those who don’t teach it?

Ipso

Isn't time constraint an issue here? With ither subjects to learn you can only scratch the surface.
A bit off topic but another part if Irish history that was very glossed over was Brian Boru, we learned that he kicked the vikings out if Ireland but it seemed to be almost like a civil war in ways.

pedroeibar1

Yes, class time has to be a constraint, but 3 hours a week (I think) should be enough . But from what I can see (at a distance) is that the curriculum is vast and much seems to be based on the post-1922 events , with a heavy emphasis on N Irl., Thatcher, etc. (Possibly because nice little soundbytes/videoclips can be used, easily found on uTube,?)

dubhthach

Personally it would have been nice to have the "alternative curriculum" for leaving cert, but wasn't taught in my school, I'm curious how many people actually do this for Leaving cert and what are the text books etc.

Than again I'm just after finishing "Richard II and the Irish Kings" so might be bit bias on my preference

Early Modern field of study
Irish history, 1494-1815
1. Reform and Reformation in Tudor Ireland, 1494-1558
2. Rebellion and conquest in Elizabethan Ireland, 1558-1603
3. Kingdom versus colony — the struggle for mastery in Ireland, 1603-1660
4. Establishing a colonial ascendancy, 1660-1715
5. Colony versus kingdom – tensions in mid-18th century Ireland, 1715-1770
6. The end of the Irish kingdom and the establishment of the Union, 1770-1815

History of Europe and the wider world, 1492-1815
1. Europe from Renaissance to Reformation, 1492-1567
2. Religion and power – politics in the later sixteenth century, 1567-1609
3. The eclipse of Old Europe, 1609-1660
4. Europe in the age of Louis XIV, 1660-1715
5. Establishing empires, 1715-1775
6. Empires in revolution, 1775-1815

https://curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/da556505-f5fb-4921-869f-e0983fd80e50/SCSEC20_History_syllabus_eng.pdf

Going by curriculum above they've expanded the more common stream to go from 1815 to 1993, when I did the Leaving Cert it was Ireland after 1870 and Europe after 1866 -- both cases ending in mid/late 1960's.

riffmongous

dubhthach wrote: »

Going by curriculum above they've expanded the more common stream to go from 1815 to 1993, when I did the Leaving Cert it was Ireland after 1870 and Europe after 1866 -- both cases ending in mid/late 1960's.

This was why I didn't do History for the LC, I was very disappointed when I found a LC history book lying around at the end of 3rd year and read it and saw how limited the focus was (and even then it barely covered WW2 compared to what I already knew)

Peregrinus

riffmongous wrote: »

This was why I didn't do History for the LC, I was very disappointed when I found a LC history book lying around at the end of 3rd year and read it and saw how limited the focus was (and even then it barely covered WW2 compared to what I already knew)

I think that's inevitable, though, isn't it? When you're studying history to a Leaving Cert. standard, it's simply impossible to study the entire range of history in every country in the world, or even begin to. You have to make some selection of places, times, themes on which you will focus, and the selections have to be narrow enough that you can focus on them in the depth that Leaving Cert. history requires. The object, I think, is to equip the student with critical, analytical and other skills that she can later employ to study other times, other places, other themes or trends.

feargale

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This sounds eerily reminiscent of John Bruton's minister Avril Doyle in her notorious "The Famine was a shared experience between the British and Irish peoples" revisionism in 1997.

An exaggeration, but don't forget that the Scottish Highlands, and the Hebrides in particular were badly affected, while the effect was comparatively mild in South Leinster and East Ulster.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As for O'Connell, would it be too much for history books to mention how in his "victory" he agreed to the disenfranchisement of 100,000 of the poorest/most radical voters as the quid pro quo for his, and wealthy anglicising Catholics, getting into the British parliament? O'Connell is justifiably the outstanding hero of the British and Roman Catholic empires in Ireland in the 19th century - which explains why there is no such thing as critical analysis of him in school books.

And not a mention in any Irish textbook of O'Connell's principled, courageous anti-slavery stance. In America his place in the pantheon of abolitionists ranks with Frederick Douglas.
Easier to vilify him as the chief killer of the Irish language and the one responsible for disfranchisement of forty shilling freeholders while ignoring the political realities which confronted him. Politics is the art of the possible, no more. O'Connell abhorred violence for the very good reason that he witnessed at first hand the lunacy into which the French Revolution descended.
O'Connell took a bunch of illiterate slaves off their knees and forged a nation out of them.
In short, there was no greater Irish leader.

pedroeibar1

Peregrinus wrote: »

.......You have to make some selection of places, times, themes on which you will focus, and the selections have to be narrow enough that you can focus on them in the depth that Leaving Cert. history requires. The object, I think, is to equip the student with critical, analytical and other skills that she can later employ to study other times, other places, other themes or trends.

That actually underscores the need for 'context' . A good initial grasp of the 'overview' is critical to understanding any topic. Broad brushstrokes first, then zone in on an item. e.g. in history, the rise of republicanism in the late 1700's, leading to uprisings in France, Ireland, America, etc.
There appears to be little emphasis on a polymath-type approach to history, it seems to be event-centric.

dubhthach

riffmongous wrote: »

This was why I didn't do History for the LC, I was very disappointed when I found a LC history book lying around at the end of 3rd year and read it and saw how limited the focus was (and even then it barely covered WW2 compared to what I already knew)

Well in case of WW2 you actually need the context back to 1866 to understand what was going on eg.

• Second Schleswig War
• Austro-Prussian War
• Franco-Prussia War
• Creation of 2nd Reich -- Bismark
• WW1 -- Versailles -- Rise of Hitler

etc.

The minutiae of Second World War could only be covered in a course dedicated solely to it. I can see why 1866 was chosen as a start point for that specific iteration of curriculum.

Going back to 1815 make some sense as well as it probably starts with the Congress of Vienna.