nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

History forum general discussion

CDfm

>> EDIT- I have changed the title of this thread as it has developed into a more general discussion than original title was.
Jonniebgood1<<

This topic is bring bandied around - if not on the forum itself then by pm.

I brought it up with Johnnie here

Originally Posted by CDfm
It seems odd that this discussion is on the history forum and not in humanities.

Maybe there needs to be a subforum for threads like this because it hardly really fits here.

Who replied

I would listen to this line of thought but wouldnt really agree at this point.

So the invitation is there to discuss it.

Now I am not a history snob , but, I like my facts . My primary qualification is in economics and when I see " political economics " being bandied around my feeling is conjecture and waffle not backed by facts. (
Its the why I dont post in the economics forum BTW).

I am not right all of the time and think my entertainment and movie history has an equal right to get a place with the more serious issues of the day.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055964448

So there is no right or wrong here just that there has been a general discussion on "real history" going on off-line.

Serious "real history" heads like me don't do the other stuff much and are in to source backed material. Now a political history guy wont see it that way and will want debate as opposed to discussing facts.

I know from the quality of the material we get here that there are some highly qualified historians and serious history buffs posting as well as fans ( my feet are firmly in both camps ) and then politcal types.

I myself have been known to go on the odd rant that Irish Women in History are not given anywhere near the prominence that they deserve on merit and if someone suggested a Womens History sub-forum I would be against it for that reason .

What I am saying is that threads like "Reds under the bed" may have a certain political ideology behind them and they really are not a fit with real history. A real history thread would discuss the origans of the socialist movement in Ireland as a political movement versus the other political parties and its adversity to the church. I know that in my own home town one of the local trade union leaders was best buddy of the local Canon and saw no incompatibility between his religious beliefs and his political beliefs and had issues with some politicians saying what his religious beliefs should be.

So I am saying that the political history IMO maybe a tad revisionist , take Jack Murphy TD, a man who deserves a thread in his own right but from a Jack Murphy POV and maybe his family.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Stuckist and proud of it.

http://www.stuckism.com/

The idea of getting the basics right also raised its head in the art world. Stickism was a movement instigated by the artist Billy Childish whose former girlfriend Tracey Emin accussed him of being "Stuck, stuck,stuck".

Oh cripes...not that photo of me again.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

Bannasidhe while we have you on a roll what are your thoughts on Irish Historiography.

Theory import is a bit of a pet hate especially when the theory obscures the facts.

CDfm - I don't think you want to get me started on Irish Historiography! In brief I think we need to tear it up and start again...

Essentially, pre-1922 there were two main branches -Unionist (prime example H.T Knox's 1909 History of the County of Mayo - outrageous justifications for the actions of Richard Bingham combined with stunningly good research) and Nationalist (the treatment of Hugh O'Neill and Oliver Cromwell are the most obvious examples of the evidence being interpreted according to the dictates of a political ideology).
As the Free State and later Republic began its nation building programme it needed a historiography which supplied both legitimacy and antecedents. The result was what I have long advocated is a pseudo-history which claimed ancient nationhood for Ireland plus demonstrated a continued adherence to Rome (Phillip O Sullivan Beare's Catholic History of Ireland (Lisbon 1626) was one of the foundations.

The state and the Catholic church joined forces to produce an orthodoxy which is simply not borne out by the evidence from Gaelic Ireland. The result was a historiography which focused on Church/ English primary sources and ignored the Gaelic ones. It had to - Gaelic Ireland was not the stuff of Celtic Twilight romanticism. It was sexually promiscuous, even less Catholic than contemporary Ireland, made up of 90 autonomous 'countries' and women had a level of self determination (and sexual liberation) not to be repeated until the late 20th century. Our founding fathers couldn't let that be widely known. Our Gaelic ancestors were far from being devout Catholics who were crushed under the Tudor yoke due to their inability to get on with each other. They were hard drinking, hard fighting, cattle stealing, multiple partner shagging snobs. Our founders seem to believe this was a bad thing...

For the pre-Norman period we get fed a load of nonsense about Saints and Scholars plus vicious Vikings (Round towers as watch towers for Vikings? hmmmm....anybody ever consider how many round towers are very very far from the sea? Perhaps it wasn't Vikings they were watching for...).

The Gaelic church's lack of subservience to Rome (cause of the 5th century Synod of Whitby) is glossed over, and the success of Patrick's missionary work is widely overstated (see Daithi O'Croinin's work) plus the secular nature of Gaelic society ( Donnacha Ó Corrain is good on this) is ignored.

Things get really tricky after the Norman invasion - where we allegedly ended up with two distinct cultures. Yet - we know that not just the first wave of Cymbro-Normans (Strongbow, de Lacy, FitzGeralds) but also the second wave of Anglo-Normans (Butlers, de Burghs) all formed marriage alliances with local Gaelic clans. Even Gerald of Wales complained of the Gaelicisation of the 'Englishmen'. Ken Nicholl's Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland in the Middle Ages is excellent on this. The14th Century Statutes of Kilkenny were a belated effort to halt the Gaelicisation of the by then Hiberno-Normans from overwhelming the Pale. They were never aimed at the Gaelic Irish (except those who lived in the Pale) but at those of 'English' descent (BTW - they were written in French!!)

The orthodox historiography likes to focus on Mac Murchada, Strongbow and the 'foolishness' of Ruadhrí Uí Conchobhair but privileges English sources over the Gaelic ones. For example, The New History of Ireland refers to the de Burgh earls of Ulster (and 'Lords of Connacht') as being in control of Connacht and the Uí Conchobhair's as a spent force - yet even a cursory reading of the Annals tells the opposite tale. On at least 3 occasions the Red Earl of Ulster bravely ran away when confronted with Uí Conchobhair power. The de Burgh's who did later acquire control of much of Connacht were the Gaelicised á Búrcs - the products of continual intermarriages with the Uí Briains of Thomond (Galway Burkes) and the Uí Máilles of Umhall and Uí Flaithbhertaighs of Iar Chonnacht (Mayo Bourkes).

When we get to the Early Modern period Hugh O Neill is portrayed as the uncrowned king who valiantly tried to stem the Tudor tide - in fact he was loyal to the crown for most of his life and 'rebelled' only when he fell out of favour with Elizabeth (see Hiram Morgan's Tyrone's War)...
At the Irish parliament held in the 1540s to declare Henry VIII King of Ireland (first time the island was 'officially' a united country) James Butler had to translate the relevant Act into Irish for the assembled 'English' nobles.
According to the orthodox historiographies nothing much happened under fundamentalist Catholic Mary I... few mention that the Papacy confirmed Mary as Queen of Ireland and that she began the plantations.

I could go on and on...Cromwell's massacre at Drogheda? - It was an English Royalist garrison! He was only here for 9 months and pardoned more Catholics than Protestants (see Micheál Ó Siochrú, God's executioner) . The 'Irish' opposition was led by the Duke of Ormonde - one of the Butlers who had always been loyalists to the crown of England (Black Tom Butler, earl of Ormond was Elizabeth I's cousin). Cromwell hated Royalists - not Catholics. Yes, there were atrocities - but they were committed by both sides (the 1641 Depositions on the massacre of protestants are now available on-line).

Battle of the Boyne? A Dutch prince fought his half Scottish/half French father-in-law for the throne of England...

The Famine? The sources from Westminster show a genuine horror at the living conditions in Ireland - after the Act of Union in 1801 London worked frantically to get some form of structure in place (within the confines of the prevailing political ideology of the time) to aid the poor - free infirmaries and dispensaries, workhouses, employment schemes, education, elections, removal of local power from the landlords. Letters written c 1840 by administrators appointed by London state that baring a disaster they were making real progress in easing the plight of the poor ...things would be ok as long as the food supply held...
We are led to believe that this was all the fault of absentee English landlords ... like the O Briens?

Soup? Little evidence to support contention it was widespread (article in History Ireland but can't remember details off hand - found it! http://www.historyireland.com//volumes/volume14/issue6/features/?id=337 ) that people were forced to convert...also little evidence to show Catholic church providing relief.

All Catholics poor?...hmmm Daniel O Connell...barrister...large family estate...

Anti-Catholic Penal Laws... Penal Laws were also in force in England, Scotland and Wales and were equally anti- Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Methodist, Quaker etc etc.

The work is out there - it has been published. The problem it that within the school system we are still pushing the pseudo history ...hence the often heard 'but I learned in school'...yeah? well. It was B***sh*t!

...deep breath...see...told you not to get me started.....

Irish historiography has mostly been spared the importation of theories that infected a lot of European historiography after Durkheim blurred the boundaries between history and sociology. The main areas I have found this to occur is Women's Studies where feminist ideology too often takes precedence over the evidence and Marxist Historiography which is dominated by theories of the dialectic.

I do like to tease sociologists by saying that Historians build the foundations so Sociologists can build castles in the sky. :P

Nhead

Which primary and secondary school texts (specifically) do you find the worst for teaching this bull?? Just out of curiosity.

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

CDfm - I don't think you want to get me started on Irish Historiography! In brief I think we need to tear it up and start again...

I do like to tease sociologists by saying that Historians build the foundations so Sociologists can build castles in the shy:P.

Thats my kinda history.;)

Where have you been hiding

Bannasidhe

Nhead wrote: »

Which primary and secondary school texts (specifically) do you find the worst for teaching this bull?? Just out of curiosity.

Nhead - I'm fortunate in that when I teach Modern History it is to mature students only who are returning to education after many years absence. They are less bound by the orthodoxies and more open to genuine discussion of the evidence contained in the primary sources. I do know that colleagues who teach Modern Irish history to recent school leavers begin by telling them to forget everything they learned in school. Perhaps this will change with the new syllabus.

I wouldn't know the text books used for the Leaving Cert - we 'forbid' the use of them as citable sources for essays which tells you all you need to know.

When I am 'unleashed' on post- Leaving cert college students it is to lecture on topics such as the Reformation, Renaissance, Tudors, Gaelic Irish, Piracy and Slavery, First Phase Imperialism, and Irish Historiography of the Early Modern Period - all to 2nd and 3rd years. The only 1st year topic I teach is Race and Race theory - NEVER mentioned in Leaving Cert texts.

Although the Leaving cert syllabus allows the study of Early Modern (new syllabus largely written in UCC by Hiram Morgan) I have yet to encounter anyone who studied this option (besides myself and my class mates 100 year ago).

I do find there is an insidious level of 'everybody knows ...' misinformation which is lodged deep in our national psyche and tends to pop out in essays. When students are challenged about these (and there are without exception the post-Leaving certers) the reaction is usually a passive aggressive 'everybody knows that...'

Things like Henry VIII introduced the Protestant Reformation - No, he broke with Rome but remained utterly faithful to Roman Catholic doctrine all his life.
Cromwell was a responsible for... well, everything bad before the famine really. No. Cromwell acted in Ireland AFTER an Irish army arrived in England to support the Royalists and against the backdrop of the Massacre of Protestants in Ulster. His opposition in Ireland were the Royalist forces led by the Anglican Duke of Ormonde and the Catholic Confederacy led by Eoghan Ruadh Uí Neill - the latter being those same folk guilty of what can only be described as a concerted attempt at ethnic cleansing in Ulster.
ALL the Irish nationalists were Catholic - Emmett? Tone? Mitchel? Indeed, the very concept of Irish republicanism came from the Presbyterians of Ulster.

Irish = Good. English = Bad. Ok children - lets examine John Mitchel's actions during the US civil war and his support for the Confederacy and watch his 'fans' squirm as we discuss his views on slavery...

There is a huge level of resistance to having the orthodoxy questioned among the 18 - 23 age group. Discussing this with colleagues we have pondered if perhaps it is because the Leaving Cert rewards mindless regurgitation and punishes independent thought. Our secondary schools do not teach students to question, if they did the contents of the text books wouldn't matter as much as the students would challenge them. As far as I (and many of my colleagues working in 3rd level)are concerned, at the moment the texts are being used to brainwash.

To demonstrate the insidiousness of this brainwashing all one has to do is read some of the knee-jerk Nationalist posts on threads here and marvel at the level of aggression when the posters are challenged.

Then, of course, we have the literacy issues ... a high proportion of Third level students are semi-literate at best...

Nhead

Cheers but surely the blame for this must be spread across the levels since the majority of teachers of history have a degree from a third level institution? I must have been very lucky with my secondary teacher as he was very open to challenges to orthodoxy and he was better than many third level lecturers i had but i suppose a doctorate doesn't automatically confer a person with the tools to teach. I have found that at all levels, each blames the other for any shortcomings. Personally, I have found orthodoxy in all strands regardless of age. One of my best students was an eighteen year old that had never studied history whilst many matures relied on the fact that they had 'experience' or were simply older and therefore spoke a lot ( lest I be accused of bias I returned to university as a mature).

Whilst I agree with the vast majority of what you say, I am also aware of Fratton Fred's post where he mentions that it can be difficult, not to mention time consuming, to find sources to back up every claim made. I have a wealth of primary sources in my home that are not available online and as a consequence I tend to avoid posting on topics that interest me as it would take me ages to type up and answer a post.

Nhead

I hope this post is taken in the right way especially by the people that post regularly but it would be a terrible shame if this thread put people off (a) this site and (b) history. While there is a lot to be said about the short-comings of our education system, as a history teacher i have never tried to brainwash people to think a,b or c and I have met and taught many fine students at both the junior and senior cycle. Independent thought should never be the reserve of those that attend third-level only. History, like all walks of life, has it good, it bad and it's ugly.

MarchDub

Nhead wrote: »

I have a wealth of primary sources in my home that are not available online and as a consequence I tend to avoid posting on topics that interest me as it would take me ages to type up and answer a post.

I'm in exactly the same situation - I have primary sources to hand [tons of them] but they are not on line. So I have to type out a lot of my answers myself - or try to find an article that includes a legitimate source on line. And they are hard to find. You know when all's said and done - this an internet forum after all.

CDfm

Bannasidhe isn't implying that Pearse is disappointed in you

As a teacher ,Nhead, your key job at leaving cert is to get people thru the Leaving Cert and applying themselves to the course materials is part of that for the best grade.

Nhead

CDfm wrote: »

Bannasidhe isn't implying that Pearse is disappointed in you

As a teacher ,Nhead, your key job at leaving cert is to get people thru the Leaving Cert and applying themselves to the course materials is part of that for the best grade.

Oh Jaysus, I don't mean my post as an attack on Bannasidhe, as I said, I'd agree with a lot of what she says. You'd be surprised how many teachers want the LC reformed. The project component allows students to engage with primary material more than they used to. For me, if I haven't instilled a love of the subject at some level then I have failed.

CDfm

Originally Posted by Nhead

I have a wealth of primary sources in my home that are not available online and as a consequence I tend to avoid posting on topics that interest me as it would take me ages to type up and answer a post.

MarchDub wrote: »

I'm in exactly the same situation - I have primary sources to hand [tons of them] but they are not on line. So I have to type out a lot of my answers myself - or try to find an article that includes a legitimate source on line. And they are hard to find. You know when all's said and done - this an internet forum after all.

I always enjoy your posts and would love to see more.

Its not an academic paper here so why dont you guys cut yourselves some slack just say it in your own words and if you feel the need to reference do a short reference.

Or you can say you are posting ex-catherdra and that would be good enough for me.

CDfm

Nhead wrote: »

Oh Jaysus, I don't mean my post as an attack on Bannasidhe, .

I am sure Bannasidhe knows my SOH

Bannasidhe

Nhead wrote: »

I hope this post is taken in the right way especially by the people that post regularly but it would be a terrible shame if this thread put people off (a) this site and (b) history. While there is a lot to be said about the short-comings of our education system, as a history teacher i have never tried to brainwash people to think a,b or c and I have met and taught many fine students at both the junior and senior cycle. Independent thought should never be the reserve of those that attend third-level only. History, like all walks of life, has it good, it bad and it's ugly.

Nhead - I hope I didn't offend you. I know many secondary and primary school teachers who are utterly frustrated by the system - which lets be honest does reward regurgitation - and who genuinely try and impart a passion for their subjects and provide students with the tools needed to question and explore ideas (in my own case it was my French teacher).

Third level institutions must also accept their share of the 'blame' - as indeed should primary schools (children should be literate and numerate when they enter post-primary). I know of too many lecturers (all either senior or professor level) who couldn't teach a dog to pee never mind impart complex ideas. When they do deign to actually give a lecture it is often in the form of mumbled incoherent meanderings from lecture notes so out of date they have become historical documents in their own right. I have been told that 'first years don't matter', seen students be hammered for lack of citations in essays when no one has bothered to teach them how to write a blasted history essay in the first place!

Our university system is falling down around us, student numbers are increasing - how can lecturers hope to give over 400 first years the attention they deserve? Part-time lecturing hours are being cut- never mind tutorial hours (yet I recently heard that UCC has as many admin staff as teaching staff). University presidents are jetting off to attract 'foreign' (i.e. high fee paying) students and staying in 4 star hotels - in the case of UCC's president he even had the audacity to claim the tips he gave in restaurants back in expenses!!!!

Our whole educational system is not fit for purpose and doing a grave disservice to our youth - yet still every year I encounter minds of such shining ability, students of all ages who thirst for knowledge and live for the cut and thrust of debate that it makes it worth while.

I love my subject, I genuinely love teaching it and get a great kick out of the moment a student's eyes widen as they grasp the meaning of what they just heard - you can see the mental wheels begin to turn as they join the knowledge dots. I also think it is a crime all my colleagues do not feel the same way.

HellsAngel

Nhead wrote: »

Whilst I agree with the vast majority of what you say, I am also aware of Fratton Fred's post where he mentions that it can be difficult, not to mention time consuming, to find sources to back up every claim made. I have a wealth of primary sources in my home that are not available online and as a consequence I tend to avoid posting on topics that interest me as it would take me ages to type up and answer a post.

Well the thing about providing info from a book or whatever, is that anyone can attribute to a source and it's open to abuse. Some clown could come on and say, " Martin Lurther King thought that the KKK were nice guys" see page 271 in such and such a book. Not saying you would do it, but it's a tatic I have seen before.

HellsAngel

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nhead - I'm fortunate in that when I teach Modern History it is to mature students only who are returning to education after many years absence. They are less bound by the orthodoxies and more open to genuine discussion of the evidence contained in the primary sources. I do know that colleagues who teach Modern Irish history to recent school leavers begin by telling them to forget everything they learned in school. Perhaps this will change with the new syllabus.

I wouldn't know the text books used for the Leaving Cert - we 'forbid' the use of them as citable sources for essays which tells you all you need to know.

When I am 'unleashed' on post- Leaving cert college students it is to lecture on topics such as the Reformation, Renaissance, Tudors, Gaelic Irish, Piracy and Slavery, First Phase Imperialism, and Irish Historiography of the Early Modern Period - all to 2nd and 3rd years. The only 1st year topic I teach is Race and Race theory - NEVER mentioned in Leaving Cert texts.

Although the Leaving cert syllabus allows the study of Early Modern (new syllabus largely written in UCC by Hiram Morgan) I have yet to encounter anyone who studied this option (besides myself and my class mates 100 year ago).

I do find there is an insidious level of 'everybody knows ...' misinformation which is lodged deep in our national psyche and tends to pop out in essays. When students are challenged about these (and there are without exception the post-Leaving certers) the reaction is usually a passive aggressive 'everybody knows that...'

Things like Henry VIII introduced the Protestant Reformation - No, he broke with Rome but remained utterly faithful to Roman Catholic doctrine all his life.
Cromwell was a responsible for... well, everything bad before the famine really. No. Cromwell acted in Ireland AFTER an Irish army arrived in England to support the Royalists and against the backdrop of the Massacre of Protestants in Ulster. His opposition in Ireland were the Royalist forces led by the Anglican Duke of Ormonde and the Catholic Confederacy led by Eoghan Ruadh Uí Neill - the latter being those same folk guilty of what can only be described as a concerted attempt at ethnic cleansing in Ulster.
ALL the Irish nationalists were Catholic - Emmett? Tone? Mitchel? Indeed, the very concept of Irish republicanism came from the Presbyterians of Ulster.

Irish = Good. English = Bad. Ok children - lets examine John Mitchel's actions during the US civil war and his support for the Confederacy and watch his 'fans' squirm as we discuss his views on slavery...

There is a huge level of resistance to having the orthodoxy questioned among the 18 - 23 age group. Discussing this with colleagues we have pondered if perhaps it is because the Leaving Cert rewards mindless regurgitation and punishes independent thought. Our secondary schools do not teach students to question, if they did the contents of the text books wouldn't matter as much as the students would challenge them. As far as I (and many of my colleagues working in 3rd level)are concerned, at the moment the texts are being used to brainwash.

To demonstrate the insidiousness of this brainwashing all one has to do is read some of the knee-jerk Nationalist posts on threads here and marvel at the level of aggression when the posters are challenged.

Then, of course, we have the literacy issues ... a high proportion of Third level students are semi-literate at best...

Ah yes, the enlightened once again sneering at the ignorant Irish masses, Conor Cruise O'Brien or Ruth Dudley Edwards couldn't put it better. Quite clearly our friend here's view of historical accuracy and ' balance' is -

Irish = Ungrateful, illogical peasants who needed a firm hand to put them in their place

British/unionists - Benign, benevolent, charitable civilisers.

I'm sure if say, John Mitchell had been an officer in the British army and had defended the empire by mass murdering the fuzzy wuzzy's with the aid of the gattling gun and the best of British pluck, he'd be a right little hero now wouldn't he.

Here's a good example of the above's ' balance '. " Cromwell acted in Ireland AFTER an Irish army arrived in England to support the Royalists and against the backdrop of the Massacre of Protestants in Ulster. His opposition in Ireland were the Royalist forces led by the Anglican Duke of Ormonde and the Catholic Confederacy led by Eoghan Ruadh Uí Neill - the latter being those same folk guilty of what can only be described as a concerted attempt at ethnic cleansing in Ulster. "

Well ethnic cleansing in Ulster or others parts of Ireland certainly wasn't started by Eoghan Ruadh Uí Neill, it was going on decades and centuries before - something which our friend would like to overlook of course. Indeed if those who were lucky enough to survive went out and hung some of those invovled in previous campaigns of ethnic cleansing against them - who could blame them ?

And also for the record, there has always been a serious question mark over the "the Massacre of Protestants in Ulster" - though our friend here accpets the unionist/British version without question, just like he seems to regarding good British intentions during the Famine etc (from an earlier post #63) "The sources from Westminster show a genuine horror at the living conditions in Ireland - after the Act of Union in 1801 London worked frantically to get some form of structure in place (within the confines of the prevailing political ideology of the time) to aid the poor ".

Maybe this might enlighten him and open up his mind on the subject " How lies about Irish 'barbarism' in 1641 paved way for Cromwell's atrocities - A two-day academic conference (18-19 February) will expose unsubstantiated propaganda within the 31 handwritten volumes of witness statements that provided Oliver Cromwell with justification for his subsequent slaughter of defeated garrisons at Drogheda and Wexford. Described as a prototype "dodgy dossier" featuring allegations of cannibalism, the 17th-century accounts of atrocities committed against Protestant settlers have been put online for the first time. "That image is drawing on biblical prophecy ... and contemporary accounts of European massacres. While these depositions were being taken, they were being leaked and published in London with the clear intention that they would elicit the sympathy of English Protestants."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/18/1641-irish-rebellion-anti-catholic-propaganda

slowburner

CDfm wrote: »

I always enjoy your posts and would love to see more.

Its not an academic paper here so why dont you guys cut yourselves some slack just say it in your own words and if you feel the need to reference do a short reference.

Or you can say you are posting ex-catherdra and that would be good enough for me.

I agree.
Maybe such posts could be prefaced with a shorthand note to indicate that they originate in a primary source but are not posted verbatim.
If the post warrants it, a correct reference could be given later.

It would be such a shame if we were denied the sense of these primary sources (the likes of which I don't have access to) just because they don't comply with the format of academic papers.

Bannasidhe

HellsAngel wrote: »

Ah yes, the enlightened once again sneering at the ignorant Irish masses, Conor Cruise O'Brien or Ruth Dudley Edwards couldn't put it better. Quite clearly our friend here's view of historical accuracy and ' balance' is -

Irish = Ungrateful, illogical peasents who needed a firm hand to put them in their place

British/unionists - Bening, benevolent, charitable civlisers.

I'm sure if say, John Mitchell had been an officer in the British army and had defended the empire by mass murdering the fuzzy wuzzy's with the aid of the gattling gun and the best of British pluck, he'd be a right little hero now wouldn't he.

Mitchel -only one 'l'. Can you deny Mitchel's support for the Confederacy? Can you disprove that this fighter for Irish freedom believed in the enslavement of black people?

Where did I say the British were benevolent or charitable civilisers (I am not sure what 'bening' is) ? Or that the Irish were illogical, peasants who needed a firm hand? Although as Diarmuid Ferritter has amply demonstrated this is exactly the viewpoint held by the founders of the state.

I must thank you HellsAngel for perfectly demonstrating two of my points:

1) The dangers of extrapolation beyond that which is supported by the evidence. You have no idea what I have to say about the actions of Richard Bingham in Connacht for example but have concluded from a few paragraphs that I have nothing to say while neglecting to consider that I was talking about how Irish Historiography deals with Cromwell so a discussion of Bingham wasn't relevant. I could also have gone into great details about the genocidal actions of Henry Ireton, but Irish Historiography is strangely silent on him - even though he was the one who carried out many of the actions Cromwell is blamed for.

2) The knee jerk reaction when Nationalist orthodoxy is challenged. Note how instead of debating by citing any evidence to demonstrate I am incorrect in my statements (I did mention the main text/historians who deal with the points I raised) the reaction is instead to engage in a personal attack on what HellsAngel perceives (incorrectly as it happens) are my political beliefs.

HellsAngel

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Mitchel -

Where did I say the British were benevolent or charitable civilisers (I am not sure what 'bening' is) ? Or that the Irish were illogical, peasants who needed a firm hand? Although as Diarmuid Ferritter has amply demonstrated this is exactly the viewpoint held by the founders of the state.

I must that you HellsAngel for perfectly demonstrating two of my points:
1) The dangers of extrapolation beyond that which is supported by the evidence.
2) The knee jerk reaction when Nationalist orthodoxy is challenged.

The target for your sneering and one sided criticism has been Irish nationalism, I would have thought that clear enough.

slowburner

HellsAngel wrote: »

The target for your sneering and one sided criticism has been Irish nationalism, I would have thought that clear enough.

Certainly wasn't clear to me.

Bannasidhe

HellsAngel wrote: »

The target for your sneering and one sided criticism has been Irish nationalism, I would have thought that clear enough.

I was discussing my view of Irish Historiography. If I had been asked to discuss English historiography I would have gone to town on the likes of David Starkey and his idolisation of the Tudors. Or US historiography and its treatment of Thomas Jefferson.

When ANY political ideology is allowed to subvert the historiography I will object. I notice you had no issue with my comments on Feminist and Marxist historiography.

I made no reference whatsoever to Irish Nationalism as a political movement - sneering or otherwise.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

I always enjoy your posts and would love to see more.

Its not an academic paper here so why dont you guys cut yourselves some slack just say it in your own words and if you feel the need to reference do a short reference.

Or you can say you are posting ex-catherdra and that would be good enough for me.

Well we've had these discussions on the forum before - many times - about sources. This is not a new topic by any means. And like I said, seeing as how it is an internet forum it's really not practical to expect everyone to post with original source material.

The problem we've had - as I've experienced it - is the quality of the sources and say someone challenging original source material with a dubious web site as a source - or just posting their opinion as a source.

But a nod to mod JonnieB he has tried to ask for sources when someone posts an opinion.

But again, it is an internet forum - and it would be a great pity if posters felt they couldn't post without a trip to the national archives.

MarchDub

HellsAngel wrote: »

Well the thing about providing info from a book or whatever, is that anyone can attribute to a source and it's open to abuse. Some clown could come on and say, " Martin Lurther King thought that the KKK were nice guys" see page 271 in such and such a book. Not saying you would do it, but it's a tatic I have seen before.

Actually I think that’s a fair point and one that I have dealt with. Proof is needed that the source is genuine if it's not available on the web. If I have original source material at hand that’s not available on line I often just type in a paragraph or two to support the fact that it is a genuine quote and then name the document. I can remember typing out large tracts from the Statutes of Kilkenny or Parliamentary Acts – just to support what I am saying.

But as Nhead says – it’s a bigger effort than just cutting and pasting from a web site.

But CDfm offered Nhead and me ex cathedra status! I might just remind CD of that sometime!:D

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Well we've had these discussions on the forum before - many times - about sources. This is not a new topic by any means. And like I said, seeing as how it is an internet forum it's really not practical to expect everyone to post with original source material.

The problem we've had - as I've experienced it - is the quality of the sources and say someone challenging original source material with a dubious web site as a source - or just posting their opinion as a source.

I really do get your point here and I have posted some fun heritage and lore threads.

When I tackled Pearse there were some very good sources from trade and geneological sources that I was able to find after I did Jinks who was mentioned in a few lines by FSL Lyons ISTF .

So some subjects have ready sourses if a person knows where to look and that takes practice.

For example, this wiki on Lord Haw Haw has linked sources and really it is sometimes possible to cross check an otherwise unreliable source even from the links to the wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Joyce

^ Beckett, Francis. "'My father was a traitor but he was kind and loving to me'", The Guardian, December 5, 2005.

Then if need be discuss the quality of the source.

But a nod to mod JonnieB he has tried to ask for sources when someone posts an opinion.

I often post my sources as sometimes I may have picked something up and there may be doubt as I am not afraid of being proved wrong. To me its a new(to me) fact.

But again, it is an internet forum - and it would be a great pity if posters felt they couldn't post without a trip to the national archives.

Don't think you or Nhead are going to wheedle out of posting from your collections of primary sources with a glib throwaway line like that.

I get the whiff of a conspiracy here

And it is possible to scan and attach images on boards

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

Don't think you or Nhead are going to wheedle out of posting from your collections of primary sources with a glib throwaway line like that.

I get the whiff of a conspiracy here

And it is possible to scan and attach images on boards

That's the trouble with you tech heads

- I don't know how to 'scan and attach images'. I only recently learned how to put stuff in the quote box!
It's typing out for me, each time.

Back over to the conspiracy theory -

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

When ANY political ideology is allowed to subvert the historiography I will object. I notice you had no issue with my comments on Feminist and Marxist historiography.

+ 1 on these and I have tried to muddle my way thru data on the evolution of suffrage at local and parlimentary level for both men and women.

Some sample posts

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65785339&postcount=24

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65917929&postcount=42

Ideologies get in the way of getting at the facts.

Fratton Fred

Typing out a section from source material is fine and helps us all with our ongoing historical learning, but only if we get to see the whole thing.

There was a good advert a few years back for the Grauniad I believe.

Young man (shved head, bleached jeans etc) walks out of a shop clutching a bag, shopkeeper appears behind him and young man starts running. Immediate reaction is that he has stolen from the shop and is running away.

Camera angle changes and the point at which the young man starts running shows that he is running across a road in front of a car. This all then looks somewhat harmless.

Roll on a bit further and change the camera angle and he is running across the road and is seen grabbing an old lady and wrestling her to the ground and it now looks like he is mugging an old dear.

Roll on further and you see a lorry rush past them both.

When you see the whole thing, a young man walks into a shop, buys something and forgets his changes. Shopkeeper follows him out to give him his change, but the lad sees an old lady about to be run over by a lorry, so he sprints across the road saving her life.

My point? There is only one story here, but it can be cut up to portray different things and unless the whole story is shown, it is easy to mislead people.

We had a discussion on here a while back with an excerpt in which the Irish were described as new Irish and Mere Irish. This was used to demonstrate attitudes to the native Irish and the term "Mere" was seen as derogatory. It wasn't until the actual 13th century definition of the word Mere was discussed that it proved to be nothing of the kind and was more a reference to being "Pure" Irish.

I think we all need to agree that linking or quoting material should be used to further discussion and not simply prove a point, after all, if we search hard enough I'm sure someone on the internet can prove the existence of Santa, Fairies and Lizard men from outer space.

Fratton Fred

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was discussing my view of Irish Historiography. If I had been asked to discuss English historiography I would have gone to town on the likes of David Starkey and his idolisation of the Tudors. Or US historiography and its treatment of Thomas Jefferson.

When ANY political ideology is allowed to subvert the historiography I will object. I notice you had no issue with my comments on Feminist and Marxist historiography.

I made no reference whatsoever to Irish Nationalism as a political movement - sneering or otherwise.

I wouldn't worry about our resident republican. Unless your version of history includes the nasty Brits coming over, enslaving the poor Irish and committing genocide against them every other generation until the glorious Padraig Pearse sacrificed his life, then you are a west Brit, Kevin Myers, Jackeen etc etc.

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about our resident republican. Unless your version of history includes the nasty Brits coming over, enslaving the poor Irish and committing genocide against them every other generation until the glorious Padraig Pearse sacrificed his life, then you are a west Brit, Kevin Myers, Jackeen etc etc.

No need for this type of goading. Republican views have many forms and are naturally enough going to be common on a history forum with a '.ie' at the end of it.

As previously stated if there is a problem with a post report it. There is a good discussion here and it should be kept impersonal. This warning can be taken as directed jointly at Fred and Hellsangel who who have refered to one another. Any issue with this should be PM'd to me, not posted here.

MarchDub

HellsAngel wrote: »

Maybe this might enlighten him and open up his mind on the subject " How lies about Irish 'barbarism' in 1641 paved way for Cromwell's atrocities - A two-day academic conference (18-19 February) will expose unsubstantiated propaganda within the 31 handwritten volumes of witness statements that provided Oliver Cromwell with justification for his subsequent slaughter of defeated garrisons at Drogheda and Wexford. Described as a prototype "dodgy dossier" featuring allegations of cannibalism, the 17th-century accounts of atrocities committed against Protestant settlers have been put online for the first time. "That image is drawing on biblical prophecy ... and contemporary accounts of European massacres. While these depositions were being taken, they were being leaked and published in London with the clear intention that they would elicit the sympathy of English Protestants."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/18/1641-irish-rebellion-anti-catholic-propaganda

Just to add to this information on the 1641 project - the discussion is going on about the documents. Even the expert linguistic insights into the documents are enlightening – Barbara Fennell of Aberdeen University claims that the depositions are ‘all mediated testimony’ i.e. not direct. The Conference also stressed the importance of the propaganda aspects of the depositions.

But a very important thing to note - and as was pointed out by Prof Jane Ohlmeyer - is that the actual depositions record only the Protestant side of these events. No depositions were taken by the authorities from the Catholic side - so atrocities against Catholics have no similar record. Yet other evidence from archeology and other sources suggest similar atrocities committed against Catholics.

slowburner

MarchDub wrote: »

........is that the actual depositions record only the Protestant side of these events. No depositions were taken by the authorities from the Catholic side - so atrocities against Catholics have no similar record. Yet other evidence from archeology and other sources suggest similar atrocities committed against Catholics.

This issue of Catholic/Irish illiteracy and its effect on the written record keeps coming up. It would be interesting to see a thread discussing it.