British History in Irish Schools

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.

riffmongous

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

Sure but does the selection have to be so limited? .If you are interested in history pre-1500 then LC history has nothing for you. It doesn't need to be a chronological slog through time since we already had that with the JC but surely those skills could still be taught without ignoring the Greeks and Romans?

Peregrinus

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

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.

Yes, but anybody taking Leaving Cert history has presumably already taken Junior Cert history. It's not as though they're taught that history starts in 1494.

Peregrinus

riffmongous wrote: »

Sure but does the selection have to be so limited? .If you are interested in history pre-1500 then LC history has nothing for you. It doesn't need to be a chronological slog through time since we already had that with the JC but surely those skills could still be taught without ignoring the Greeks and Romans?

And if the curriculum included the Greeks and the Romans, you could ask whether the skills could still be taught without ignoring the medieval period. And if that were covered, you could ask about the nineteenth century. And so on.

The bottom line is that, from the point of view of inculcating the skills and techniques of historiography, studying any period is pretty much as good as studying any other period. From the point of view of understanding your own society and culture, it makes more sense to study the history of your own region/society than it does to study, say, Chinese history, and it makes more sense to study nearer history in more detail than more remote history. But, within the constraints of a history course for secondary school students for whom it is just one subject among six, seven or eight, you're still going to have to make choices.

FWIW, at leaving cert level I think it's reasonable to assume that students are actually interested in history, and to structure the curriculum on the assumption that the specific time and place covered in the curriculum is not the only history they are ever going to encounter.

dubhthach

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but anybody taking Leaving Cert history has presumably already taken Junior Cert history. It's not as though they're taught that history starts in 1494.

There should be wider availability of the "Early Modern Curriculum" when it comes to the Leaving Cert though, for example I don't think any school in Galway city thought it when I did the Leaving Cert.

craicfiend

The question could easily be reversed .. Do you think Irish history should be taught in Britain in british schools ? l was shocked when l saw a video that showed british people didnt even know where the border in NI and ROI was , The history is certainly interconnected going both ways .they are certainly more ignorant of are history then we are of theres . l think every atrocities committed by the british to ireland and every connection should be taught in schools but there's only so much time so some things just have to be brushed over especially when irish factor of history is more important in ireland .

jonniebgood1

Please do not post on old threads unless there is a good reason to bring them back to peoples attention. In this case there is nothing of value added by your one eyed view on reversing the threads title. Refer to forum charter.
Mod