British TV viewers react with horror to portrayal of famine in ITV drama Victoria.

Jawgap · 05-10-2017 09:15AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Scale.
We hear so much about the great famine for the same reason everyone has heard of the shooting in Las Vegas yet few have heard of the shooting in Kansas. In one 59 people died, in the other 3 people died.

The great famine isn't well known because it played into a certain narrative. It well known because it shaped the nation st home and abroad for generations to come.

As a student of "advanced" history I am surprised you don't see this.

Well if it's a question scale why isn't the 18th century famine at least as well known given it killed off a greater proportion (30 to 40%) of the population?

History is poorly taught in Ireland......but you have to study history to appreciate that fact.

Fratton Fred · 05-10-2017 09:32AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well then again Fred you also think the Normans brought Catholicism/Christianity to the island.

Why are you deliberately misrepresenting what i said, or do you equate catholicism with Christianity? Your religion teacher would be immensely proud of you right now.

The church inIrealnd was not subject to the control of Rome. that was the excuse Henry II used to intervene, on the strength of the Laudabiliter issued by the Pope.

And you claim the Brits don't know their history :rolleyes:

steddyeddy wrote: »

I had to look up MOPE there, but I don't fit the bill. People have provided reams of historical evidence and you respond, yet again with one liners based on your uninformed narrative. Sorry you don't like me saying the British discriminated against Irish, but why should it affect you? Colonialism doesn't represent you Fred anymore than Nazi Germany represents someone born today.

aah, the old reference to the Nazis. Is that because no one suffered like the Irish did, not even the Jews?

Hoboo wrote: »

Some awful bs being spouted on this thread. If any of the denials, excuses and ignorance were on a holocaust thread it'd be permanent bans all round.

yep, more links to the Nazis.

steddyeddy wrote: »

You don't combat ignorance by silencing it. Let it show itself and reason with it.

Indeed, but what you can do, is shout down anyone with a different opinion and accuse them of revisionism, ignorance etc. It is a well known tactic used by nationalists.

Wibbs · 05-10-2017 09:40AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Most native Irish were only Catholics because the Normans brought it to Ireland in the first place.

What? No really. What?

Christianity was present in Ireland from the 5th century AD onwards. That's five centuries before the Normans. By the early medieval it had grown to such a degree that Ireland was exporting the religion and religious education back into a Europe still muddled from the fall of Rome, founding monasteries(some that became later towns and cities) even starting monasteries in Italy, the seat of the Church(Bobbio one example. A centre of learning that was the inspiration for the monastery in Eco's Name of the Rose novel). They got as far East as Kiev and as far West as Iceland and if Brendan's accounts are accurate may have nearly made it to the Americas. They did this long before the Normans were invented. The notion of the Normans bringing Christianity to Ireland would be like bringing coals to Newcastle. Indeed if one was to go further back those Vikings/Norsemen that became the Normans were very likely to have been converted to Christianity in the first place by Irish monks.

Oh and BTW "Catholics" didn't figure back then. The Irish, British, French, German etc were just Christians. Catholics as a distinction only came about with the Reformation. This is pretty basic stuff here.

Fratton Fred · 05-10-2017 09:43AM

Wibbs wrote: »

What? No really. What?

Christianity was present in Ireland from the 5th century AD onwards

I didn't say Christianity, did I.

Maybe I should have made it clearer and stated that the Normans brought "Roman Catholicism" to Ireland.

Wibbs · 05-10-2017 09:48AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why are you deliberately misrepresenting what i said, or do you equate catholicism with Christianity?

Eh because back then they were one and the same.

The church inIrealnd was not subject to the control of Rome. that was the excuse Henry II used to intervene, on the strength of the Laudabiliter issued by the Pope.

And you claim the Brits don't know their history :rolleyes:

Nope. The Church in Ireland was subject to Rome and always had been and had always looked to Rome and the pope as the head of the church. As far back as the 6th century Columbanus had been exchanging letters with the pope in Rome. The Pope at the time of Henry was trying to a) consolidate the various provincial Christian setups into a standard across the continent. The Irish church being but one. And b) and more importantly he was trying to get them to cough up taxes for the Church coffers. Getting Henry in was much more about exercising direct control of the tax conduit than any religious considerations. About the only real differences between the mainstream Church and the Irish one was their different dates for when Easter should fall.

Wibbs · 05-10-2017 09:56AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I didn't say Christianity, did I.

Maybe I should have made it clearer and stated that the Normans brought "Roman Catholicism" to Ireland.

No they did not. The description "Roman Catholicism" doesn't even figure until the Reformation. It didn't exist as a notion before that, unlike say the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches which have a much longer history. Your usage of "Roman Catholicism" is entirely coming from a later post Reformation Protestant worldview.

The more standardised Roman Church differed from the local Irish Church in tiny ways. They were and considered themselves to be of the same church of Rome. They were not religious isolationists. Quite the opposite in fact.

steddyeddy · 05-10-2017 09:58AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why are you deliberately misrepresenting what i said, or do you equate catholicism with Christianity? Your religion teacher would be immensely proud of you right now.

The church inIrealnd was not subject to the control of Rome. that was the excuse Henry II used to intervene, on the strength of the Laudabiliter issued by the Pope.

And you claim the Brits don't know their history :rolleyes:

It was Fred.

aah, the old reference to the Nazis. Is that because no one suffered like the Irish did, not even the Jews?
yep, more links to the Nazis.

I think you're missing the point Fred. I was using Germany as an example of a country that is honest about its history and learned from its mistakes. I find that lacking in your posts. I get you dislike nationalism, but disliking nationalism shouldn't require twisting of the facts.

Indeed, but what you can do, is shout down anyone with a different opinion and accuse them of revisionism, ignorance etc. It is a well known tactic used by nationalists.

Just as you tactically label someone who disagrees with you.

Fred in this debate I've posted paragraphs of stuff. You've replied with one liners and non-sequiturs about Catholics and Normans. If you dealt with my points I'd deal with yours, but you haven't made points. You've made rebuttals to posts without backing up your rebuttals with facts.

Fratton Fred · 05-10-2017 09:58AM

Wibbs wrote: »

No they did not. The description "Roman Catholicism" doesn't even figure until the Reformation. It didn't exist as a notion before that, unlike say the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches which have a much longer history. Your usage of "Roman Catholicism" is entirely coming from a later post Reformation Protestant worldview.

The more standardised Roman Church differed from the local Irish Church in tiny ways. They were and considered themselves to be of the same church of Rome. They were not religious isolationists. Quite the opposite in fact.

so the Gregorian reforms and the Laudabiliter is all made up then?

steddyeddy · 05-10-2017 09:59AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh because back then they were one and the same.

Nope. The Church in Ireland was subject to Rome and always had been and had always looked to Rome and the pope as the head of the church. As far back as the 6th century Columbanus had been exchanging letters with the pope in Rome. The Pope at the time of Henry was trying to a) consolidate the various provincial Christian setups into a standard across the continent. The Irish church being but one. And b) and more importantly he was trying to get them to cough up taxes for the Church coffers. Getting Henry in was much more about exercising direct control of the tax conduit than any religious considerations. About the only real differences between the mainstream Church and the Irish one was their different dates for when Easter should fall.

In fairness I always thought that the Church Of Ireland was seen as quite separate from the church of Rome. I'm not exactly sure where I'm getting that from though.

Fratton Fred · 05-10-2017 10:00AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Fred in this debate I've posted paragraphs of stuff. You've replied with one liners and non-sequiturs about Catholics and Normans. If you dealt with my points I'd deal with yours, but you haven't made points. You've made rebuttals to posts without backing up your rebuttals with facts.

because all of your posts are straight out of the Sinn Fein "Why we hate the Brits" handbook.

Hell, you even go as far as to mention a notice in a Birmingham boarding house window in the 1950s.

chrissb8 · 05-10-2017 10:03AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well we're very small. It isn't really surprising.

What do most Irish people know of Portuguese history? or of Iceland's history? Or of Belgium's history, besides the two world wars?

We learn a lot about British history in schools because our history was heavily dependant on Britain, both as a colonist, and as a European power. But their history wasn't even nearly as reliant on Ireland, apart from the odd occasion when there was a hung parliament.

Irish politics just never had have the same impact on the British; although it does seem wrongheaded that their curriculum (or, what I know if it from friends) is so skewed in terms of its apparent apologism for imperialism, including the Famine/ An Gorta Mór.

Except Ireland and England have a relationship spanning back hundreds if not millennia together. The history goes right up until very recent with the IRA etc. So it is surprising to me that alot of English do not know very little about our shared histories. Even the recent stuff.

I've seen how history is taught in England and it is extremely skewed and lacks a complete view. The empire obviously being talked as a good thing when infact we all know otherwise.

05-10-2017 10:11AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As is the simple fact that "Dissenters" were just as much victims of the penal laws as Catholics were, which is why most of the 1798 leaders were protestants.

First of all, this sentence lacks any logical consistency. The word 'dissenter' is not a synonym of 'protestant', which you seem to acknowledge at the beginning of the text I quote, yet you have forgotten by the time you finish.

My own religious background, the Religious Society of Friends, is one of those which would have been classed as 'dissenters', and yet we cannot accurately be called 'protestants'.

Secondly, the leaders of the 1798 rebellion were probably 50:50 = Protestant:Catholic. It is simply inaccurate to imply that economic-religious penalties were their motivation. Most of them seem to have been inspired by the Age of Revolution generally, and particularly, the revolution in France and the Rights of Man. After all, many of the senior figures in the Irish Rebellion of 1798 were not only anti-clerical, and probably atheist/ dechristianizers, they were also French!

Between the French and the Anglican Protestant leaders, most of the leaders had nothing to lose from the economic-religious sanctions imposed on Catholics & Dissenters.

I would argue that it was the progressive political philosophy of the era that inspired these (mainly young) men who were the senior figures in the Rebellion

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Whatever suffering there was in Portugal's history, it is unlikely that Britain has such a central role in inflicting it.

chrissb8 wrote: »

Except Ireland and England have a relationship spanning back hundreds if not millennia together. The history goes right up until very recent with the IRA etc. So it is surprising to me that alot of English do not know very little about our shared histories. Even the recent stuff.

Of course, but I don't think you got the point that I was making.

It isn't that the historical ties between Ireland and Britain are equivalent to those between Portugal and Britain. I said that Ireland just didn't have an economic or political impact on Britain, unlike the reverse; Ireland has always been far more politically reliant on Britain than Britain, a major global power, has been on Ireland.

Jawgap wrote: »

We hear so much about the Great Famine because it plays into the narrative of developing 19th Century Irish nationalism.

This is farcically simplistic.

The tragedy of the potato famine in question isn't merely its scale, but, more specifically, the scale of the fuck-up. One cannot treat two famines, 100 years apart, as being equivalents. For goodness sake, the 1740 famine took place prior to the Industrial Revolution! By 1845, Britain and Ireland had the infrastructure and the resources to decisively intervene to prevent such colossal loss of life. Not so in 1740, when Ireland was a far less organised, and was, by mid-19th century standards, infrastructurally and economically primtiive.

The major tragedy of this particular potato famine is not the scale per se, it's that it was, in large parts, genuinely avoidable -- if there had been a political and establishment will to avoid it.

Wibbs · 05-10-2017 10:14AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so the Gregorian reforms and the Laudabiliter is all made up then?

Jesus. *heads desk*.

Me. Earlier. wrote:

The Church in Ireland was subject to Rome and always had been and had always looked to Rome and the pope as the head of the church. As far back as the 6th century Columbanus had been exchanging letters with the pope in Rome. The Pope at the time of Henry was trying to a) consolidate the various provincial Christian setups into a standard across the continent. The Irish church being but one. And b) and more importantly he was trying to get them to cough up taxes for the Church coffers.

Nothing to do with being "made up". And certainly precisely nothing whatsoever to do with your notion that the Norman's brought "Roman Catholicism" to Ireland. The very idea is the definition of anachronistic.

steddyeddy · 05-10-2017 10:19AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

because all of your posts are straight out of the Sinn Fein "Why we hate the Brits" handbook.

Hell, you even go as far as to mention a notice in a Birmingham boarding house window in the 1950s.

Two sentence reply. At least it tops the other ones. Right at least we can enlarge on this.

because all of your posts are straight out of the Sinn Fein "Why we hate the Brits" handbook.

The quote above is a statement of opinion. You made it in relation to statements of facts. Can you back up what you're saying as fact. I'E can you suggest that my posts were a random attack on British the British people or detailing British policy in Ireland rather than a rebuttal of points your rasied?

I can make a start on this. You maintained the hypothesis that the British higher ups seen no distinction between the Irish and English (and presumably other ethnic groups), and the penal laws were simply aimed at Catholics. Not Irish Catholics. I attempted to counter that argument by saying:

There is a history of anti-Irish sentiment in the British parliament as evident in statements, treatment of people of Irish descent and laws passed specificaly targeting Irish. The fact that Anglo-Irish Protestant were seen as distinct from the local population by parliament. Some posters complain that the Anglo-Irish are just as Irish as Catholics. I'd certainly agree, but the British government at the time didn't and passed laws to maintain that division. The passing of laws such as the popery act/Gavelkind act that

Jawgap · 05-10-2017 10:27AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

.....

This is farcically simplistic.

The tragedy of the potato famine in question isn't merely its scale, but, more specifically, the scale of the fuck-up. One cannot treat two famines, 100 years apart, as being equivalents. For goodness sake, the 1740 famine took place prior to the Industrial Revolution! By 1845, Britain and Ireland had the infrastructure and the resources to decisively intervene to prevent such colossal loss of life. Not so in 1740, when Ireland was a far less organised, and was, by mid-19th century standards, infrastructurally and economically primtiive.

The major tragedy of this particular potato famine is not the scale per se, it's that it was, in large parts, genuinely avoidable -- if there had been a political and establishment will to avoid it.

You know, if you read the totality of what was written, rather than just the last statement your posts might move away from having an acquaintance with being ill-informed.

I wasn't arguing they were equivalent, merely that the rhetorical context was different and that as a result the Great Famine is more prominent in the narrative of the "nation" than previous, arguably more devastating, famines.

The question of scale was raised by another poster, I simply pointed out that larger scale events had occurred without being treated as significant as the Great Famine, which would suggest, to me anyway, that scale is not a determining factor.

There's a narrative - much like the "Irish slaves narrative that people seem willing to believe - and it doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny, but it is simplistic and that's why people grasp at it.

Wibbs · 05-10-2017 10:27AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness I always thought that the Church Of Ireland was seen as quite separate from the church of Rome. I'm not exactly sure where I'm getting that from though.

The medieval Irish church like many scattered throughout Europe always saw Rome as the seat of the Holy See, the axle around which their religious world turned, but because of some isolation small local flavours had crept into these various churches around Europe. In the Irish church the differences included a different way of monks shaving their heads, a different date for Easter and a different way of hearing confession; namely privately, a practice that the Roman Church actually brought into their fold. The exchange went both ways.

The Gregorian Reforms had sought to consolidate and standardise(and control) the Christian faith across what had once been the Western Roman Empire(The Eastern empire was still around in Byzantium and they had their own separate thing going on).

Where you might be getting the idea from is another post Reformation notion that sometimes sees the early Irish Church as being closer to later Protestantism, rather than Roman Catholicism and that those papists invaded the "purer" Irish Church and subjected them to the heel of Rome. I suspect that's partly where Fred is getting that from. The notion that pre Reformation was "Roman Catholic" another one. I have heard similar from rellies of mine(one line of the family is Church of Ireland). The thing is it's pretty much nonsense and historically and theologically inaccurate to say the least.

Pinch Flat · 05-10-2017 10:27AM

We were doing a project with some consultants that travelled over from the UK a few years ago. They all went for a pint after a meeting in a pub in Dublin, and met a bloke sitting at the bar, having a quite pint. The conversation went something like this.

"So, what do you do for a living", one of them says.
"I'm the Toaiseach", says he, supping on his pint
"You what? Whats a tee-shock" enquired our English friend.
"It's like the Prime Minister of the country, you know - like David Camerson (the them UK prime minister)"
"You're 'aven a laugh", they chuckled.
"No, here's my business card", which they produced the next morning. It said Enda Kenny - An Taoiseach. "and see that fella over there, he's my body guard, fella gives them a nod while holding his pint.

05-10-2017 10:39AM

Jawgap wrote: »

The question of scale was raised by another poster, I simply pointed out that larger scale events had occurred without being treated as significant as the Great Famine, which would suggest, to me anyway, that scale is not a determining factor.

Scale is a vital factor, when seen in the light of the economic and physical infrastructure of Ireland (but more importantly, Britain) post-Industrial Revolution.

05-10-2017 10:41AM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

"No, here's my business card", which they produced the next morning. It said Enda Kenny - An Toiaseach. "and see that fella over there, he's my body guard, fella gives them a nod while holding his pint.

Was his mobile number on it?

Wibbs · 05-10-2017 10:43AM

To illustrate the above Steddyeddy, take this opening line of a letter.

To the Holy Lord and Father in Christ, the fairest Ornament of the Roman Church, as it were a most honoured Flower of all Europe in her decay, to the distinguished Bishop, who is skilled in the Meditation of divine Eloquence, I, Bar-Jonah (a poor Dove), send Greeting in Christ.

That's from one Columbanus(St. Columba), Irish scholar, writer, missionary and general hardcore monk writing to the Italian and Roman born pope(Gregory the first) in the late sixth century. Does that sound any way separatist to you? Does it sound like he sees "his" Irish church as different to the Roman one? Of course it doesn't. He and the Irish church looked to Rome and the western Christian church as the centre of their religious universe. Even if later in that and other letters he respectfully suggests the pope's advisors have their heads up their arses on the matter of the date of Easter.

That bone of contention remains the biggie for centuries.

In a later letter to another pope(he went through a few) he writes and states his church's allegiance very clearly:

We Irish, though dwelling at the far ends of the earth, are all disciples of Saint Peter and Saint Paul. we are bound to the Chair of Peter, and although Rome is great and renowned, through that Chair alone is she looked on as great and illustrious among us. On account of the two Apostles of Christ, you are almost celestial, and Rome is the head of the whole world, and of the Churches.

Jawgap · 05-10-2017 10:46AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Scale is a vital factor, when seen in the light of the economic and physical infrastructure of Ireland (but more importantly, Britain) post-Industrial Revolution.

So then why doesn't a famine that killed a proportionally larger number of people than the Great Famine not get taught on the curriculum in schools or feature in commemoratives events?

Indeed, given the island's long history of famines why not have events that commemorate all famine deaths?

I'm not downplaying the social, economic and political significance of the Great Famine, I'm just pointing out that other famines (indeed other events such as the Cromwellian deportations) don't get the same billing despite being comparable in respect of their impact on the population.

blue note · 05-10-2017 10:52AM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Did they put up the usual message on screen at the end where if you've been affected by any of these issues to call a phone number

There might have been an ad for Domino's at the end if that's what you're referring to?

server down · 05-10-2017 10:59AM

Jawgap wrote: »

So then why doesn't a famine that killed a proportionally larger number of people than the Great Famine not get taught on the curriculum in schools or feature in commemoratives events?

Indeed, given the island's long history of famines why not have events that commemorate all famine deaths?

I'm not downplaying the social, economic and political significance of the Great Famine, I'm just pointing out that other famines (indeed other events such as the Cromwellian deportations) don't get the same billing despite being comparable in respect of their impact on the population.

Because

1) they were probably actual famines.
2) populations quickly recovered.

Not sure why this point is trotted out in defence of the British administrations. If the British or Anglo Irish administrations were responsible equally for all those famines the the culpability was even higher, if not then there is something unique about 1840 in terms of bad administration

05-10-2017 11:12AM

Jawgap wrote: »

So then why doesn't a famine that killed a proportionally larger number of people than the Great Famine not get taught on the curriculum in schools

It does. I don't know what kind of history teacher you had, I distinctly remember learning that famines and hungers were fairly common every generation or so, up until the Industrial era. I would genuinely question the historical education of any student who studied the Cromwellian invasion of Ireland, and doesn't know about the associated Famine, for example.

The simple fact is that historical tragedies must be surveyed in light of the prevailing conditions at the time.

If millions of people were dying in 2017, in developed countries, of a viral equivalent of the Spanish Flu, that would be an unacceptable tragedy, far, far more egregious than the relatively comprehensible loss of life 100 years ago, prior to the widespread availability of paracetamol and IV fluids.

Similarly, the 100+ years that separated the 1740 Famine from the Great Famine saw a titanic growth in economic and physical infratsructure in these islands, and it is in that context that the scale of the 1845 - 1852 famines has been judged as having been reasonably avoidable, and therefore, especially worthy of commemoration.

I mean this is really basic stuff. Your notion that the 1740 Famine and earlier famines don't get the same attention because "'unfortunately' in that case we couldn't blame the Brits and the Prods were charitable" is profoundly ill-informed and simplistic.

Fratton Fred · 05-10-2017 11:13AM

server down wrote: »

Not sure why this point is trotted out in defence of the British administrations. If the British or Anglo Irish administrations were responsible equally for all those famines the the culpability was even higher, if not then there is something unique about 1840 in terms of bad administration

I don't think anyone is questioning the British Administrations role, more the motives as to why the 19th century famine(or whatever you want to call it) became so politicised.

Jawgap · 05-10-2017 11:23AM

server down wrote: »

Because

1) they were probably actual famines.
2) populations quickly recovered.

Not sure why this point is trotted out in defence of the British administrations. If the British or Anglo Irish administrations were responsible equally for all those famines the the culpability was even higher, if not then there is something unique about 1840 in terms of bad administration

I'm not defending the role or lack thereof of the British administration, or the Church, just pointing out how the rhetorical context and the associated attributes influence how an event is perceived.

Jawgap · 05-10-2017 11:25AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It does. I don't know what kind of history teacher you had, I distinctly remember learning that famines and hungers were fairly common every generation or so, up until the Industrial era. I would genuinely question the historical education of any student who studied the Cromwellian invasion of Ireland, and doesn't know about the associated Famine, for example.

The simple fact is that historical tragedies must be surveyed in light of the prevailing conditions at the time.

If millions of people were dying in 2017, in developed countries, of a viral equivalent of the Spanish Flu, that would be an unacceptable tragedy, far, far more egregious than the relatively comprehensible loss of life 100 years ago, prior to the widespread availability of paracetamol and IV fluids.

Similarly, the 100+ years that separated the 1740 Famine from the Great Famine saw a titanic growth in economic and physical infratsructure in these islands, and it is in that context that the scale of the 1845 - 1852 famines has been judged as having been reasonably avoidable, and therefore, especially worthy of commemoration.

I mean this is really basic stuff. Your notion that the 1740 Famine and earlier famines don't get the same attention because "'unfortunately' in that case we couldn't blame the Brits and the Prods were charitable" is profoundly ill-informed and simplistic.

....probably just as well I don't lecture/teach on that aspect of history

Fratton Fred · 05-10-2017 11:26AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

First of all, this sentence lacks any logical consistency. The word 'dissenter' is not a synonym of 'protestant', which you seem to acknowledge at the beginning of the text I quote, yet you have forgotten by the time you finish.

My own religious background, the Religious Society of Friends, is one of those which would have been classed as 'dissenters', and yet we cannot accurately be called 'protestants'.

Secondly, the leaders of the 1798 rebellion were probably 50:50 = Protestant:Catholic. It is simply inaccurate to imply that economic-religious penalties were their motivation. Most of them seem to have been inspired by the Age of Revolution generally, and particularly, the revolution in France and the Rights of Man. After all, many of the senior figures in the Irish Rebellion of 1798 were not only anti-clerical, and probably atheist/ dechristianizers, they were also French!

Between the French and the Anglican Protestant leaders, most of the leaders had nothing to lose from the economic-religious sanctions imposed on Catholics & Dissenters.

I would argue that it was the progressive political philosophy of the era that inspired these (mainly young) men who were the senior figures in the Rebellion

I use protestant merely in the way it is often used in common parlance, that anything that is non Roman catholic or Orthodox is protestant.

To a Presbytarian, an Anglican is not a protestant either, because Anglicanism is catholic (small c). it was simply for convenience.

I'd agree with the latter part though, it was an age of revolution and the leaders were led by ideology as much as anything. It was a rebellion full of contradictions. Generally considered to be Protestant v catholic, but led by a "Number" of protestants and condemned by the Catholic clergy.

Wibbs wrote: »

Jesus. *heads desk*.

Nothing to do with being "made up". And certainly precisely nothing whatsoever to do with your notion that the Norman's brought "Roman Catholicism" to Ireland. The very idea is the definition of anachronistic.

don't bang your head Wibbs, I am trying to understand the make up of the church.

If the church in Ireland recognised Rome, then what was the purpose of the Laudabiliter? surely there was more to it than getting Monks to shave their heads the right way, was it about tithes as well?

Obviously it was just an excuse by Henry II, but why did the Pope go along with it?

server down · 05-10-2017 11:45AM

Jawgap wrote: »

....which lends weight to Sen's thesis - ''No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy".....

....it kind of comes as surprise to most people, but the concept of 'nationalism' is very much a late 18th Century and 19th Century construct - so I'd suggest there's an argument for viewing how the history of the Great Famine is taught/discussed through the lens of the need to develop those constructs, and in particular the need to identify the 'shared events' which bind 'nations' together.

I think the idea that nationalism is a 19C construct is itself a post WWII construct.

National sentiment was always there. Obviously with an increasing franchise and rise of a new middle class that’s locally rooted (unlike intermarrying aristocrats) it gets more powerful but the sentiment was always there.

Jawgap · 05-10-2017 11:49AM

server down wrote: »

I think the idea that nationalism is a 19C construct is itself a post WWII construct.

National sentiment was always there. Obviously with an increasing franchise and rise of a new middle class that’s locally rooted (unlike intermarrying aristocrats) it gets more powerful but the sentiment was always there.

So you disagree with Heather and his research on the topic then?

British TV viewers react with horror to portrayal of famine in ITV drama Victoria.

Comments