Irish independence

poisonated

Just thinking there. What are the English thought in schools about the Irish independence? Do they teach their students that they were the good guys or do they tell them the truth?

migozarad

I doubt they delve too much into the "Irish Question";not their finest hour methinks.As an aside,I'm always astounded when so many television presenters,personalties etc. refer to Ireland as being British or Irish people as British:mad:

Morlar

migozarad wrote: »

I doubt they delve too much into the "Irish Question";

Apparently they brought us civilisation and built us some railways and it was all a tellytubby paradise till we repaid them with bloodshed. Seriously from speaking with even educated english people while living in england they have a completely ignorant and warped perception of colonial rule in Ireland. It's not that they don't cover it in their schools it's just that their version is from a paralell but opposite universe where we all invited them over - they did no harm and we turned out to be ungrateful.

BostonB

Anyone I've asked, didn't know a thing about it.

Manach

Technically, didn't we invite them over: i.e. Stringbow et al ?

migozarad

I was informed this morning that we still mimic the UK justice system in that our lawyers wear 'wigs' as is the norm in British courts-this is perverse in this day&age.
A country of our size isn't logically gonna occupy too much space in British history text books as an India,USA etc.It is the norm in Austrian&Russian schools to 'whitewash' unpalatable incidents such as the fromer countries complicity in Nazi crimes&the Stalinist purges of the 1930's.Turkey won't acknowledge their genocide in Armenia post WW1,so our neighbours aren't alone in being selective with their history.I would just like to state for the record,that I"m not an Anglophobe.

migozarad

Manach wrote: »

Technically, didn't we invite them over: i.e. Stringbow et al ?

The former King of Leinster (Dermot McMurrough) had a grievance with the Ard-Ri/High King Rory O" Connor& consequently asked the English King Henry II for assistance in regaining his kingdom& as a quid pro quo he pledged his loyalty&subservience.Henry II asked Richard De Clare (Strongbow),Earl of Pembrokeshire,to go over& help Dermot McMurrough out.The rest as they say is history.If your surname is O'Connor you may be heir to the throne!!

Manach

All hail Queen Sinead O'Connor I.

BostonB

Morlar wrote: »

...It's not that they don't cover it in their schools it's.....

Any one I talked to never really covered Irish History and they were people who were interested in it. So it not like they missed that lesson or anything. I expect Ireland isn't really a big thing in UK history in the grand scheme of things. Considering they ruled half the planet and then fell out with most of it at some time or another.

MarchDub

Manach wrote: »

Technically, didn't we invite them over: i.e. Stringbow et al ?

"Technically" no, actually. Dermot MacMurrough had no legal standing in Ireland when he went to Henry II for help in regaining his Leicester throne. He had been ousted from his Leinster Kingdom and was a deposed outcast when he got his bright idea. But anyway, he never bargained for a take over style invasion. He had dreams of being the High King of Ireland himself.

ejmaztec

I was educated in England donkey's years ago, and my history teachers were critical of a lot of what Britain got up to in the past. They had the same opinion of the B&Ts for instance as people have here. One English history teacher described them as nothing more than a "band of cut-throats".

One chap even had an explanation as to why the Irish got a reputation for drinking and fighting. He explained that, when the navvies worked on the railways, on more than one occasion when it came to pay-day, a foreman or some other railway official, took off with the cash, leaving behind an angry Irish workforce that wasn't prepared to leave empty-handed. When they did get paid, they enjoyed themselves. With all of the stories spreading round the the UK, the stereotype was created.

As the British Empire was dead in the water, it was easier for teachers to criticise it, probably in the same way that Kruschev dished the dirt on Stalin, or the way the Germans deal with their nazi past.

I don't know what they teach in the UK now, but with many descendants of immigrants from the "Dead Empire" countries in the class-rooms, the syllabus can't pretend that everything was a bed of roses for their ancestors under British rule.

Rebelheart

Manach wrote: »

Technically, didn't we invite them over: i.e. Stringbow et al ?

Likewise "the English" invited the Normans to England. Odd that nobody seems to know that when this old chestnut comes up.

Tostig Godwinson, earl of Northumbria and brother of Harold Godwinson, earl of Wessex and the last Anglo-Saxon King of England, travelled to Norway and Normandy seeking the help respectively of King Harald Hardrada and William, Duke of Normandy in the 1060s for an invasion of England in order to recover his position as earl of Northumbria from Harold and his allies. In September 1066 Tostig arrived with Harald Hardrada as part of the Norman invasion force of William the Conquerer.

Next we'll be told that the Pope authorised the invasion of Ireland in his Laudabiliter in 1155 without being told that the Pope in question was Adrian IV, otherwise known as the only Englishman ever to become Pope, Nicholas Breakspear.

jill_valentine

migozarad wrote: »

I was informed this morning that we still mimic the UK justice system in that our lawyers wear 'wigs' as is the norm in British courts-this is perverse in this day&age

There's actually a very good reason for this, and I suspect that legal types would be very upset if anybody proposed eliminating them now. The wigs and gowns aren't just a weird little traditionalist quirk, they make it a lot harder for lawyers and such to be identified outside of a court setting.

You could swap the wigs and gowns out for clown suits, I suppose, but I think that might be a bit too unsubtle a statement.

Rebelheart

jill_valentine wrote: »

There's actually a very good reason for this, and I suspect that legal types would be very upset if anybody proposed eliminating them now. The wigs and gowns aren't just a weird little traditionalist quirk, they make it a lot harder for lawyers and such to be identified outside of a court setting.

You could swap the wigs and gowns out for clown suits, I suppose, but I think that might be a bit too unsubtle a statement.

With all due respect that is nonsense as every single judge has appeared in newspapers numerous times without a wig and on RTÉ News going into and coming out of courthouses without it.

Wigs have one primary purpose: to make members of the legal profession feel that they are still an elite in an Ireland which has very many people far more educated than these mere barristers with their affectations to be more English than the English themselves. Wig-wearing also has the obvious purpose of intimidating and encouraging sycophancy in the courts of this republic - e.g. Paul Carney's behaviour on the Bench (for which he has been chastised on several occasions so far).

It is preposterous to think that by wearing a wig a judge is safer. This is a tiny society. You don't need to be a genius to target somebody in it.

donaghs

There is at least a strong self-analytical and self-critical streak in the UK. Hence you'll often hear people publically criticizing the wrongs of Empire and colonialism.

On the other hand in Russia Putin et al want to give a more positive view of Russia's past and its actions: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article6937923.ece

And in France, Sarkozy's party got a law passed to teach French colonialism in a more positive light:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_colonialism

Looking at a BBC revision site for the GCE, I get the impression that Ireland in general is referred to in asides when telling the general story of Britain. There is a separate module for Northern Ireland though. Also, I notice that the Irish language is also taught as a GCE subject.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/

cheeeesecake

We never covered Irish history at all at school. Everything I "knew" about Irish history I got from the British media, the majority of which is completely biased and totally untrue. I grew up thinking that the Irish were terrorists. I suppose it didn't help that the town I lived in was bombed by the IRA and being very young at the time I didn't understnad what was going on. Needless to say, my views and opinions have changed vastly! My bf (who is a Republican) has changed my thinking on the subject totally and Irish history is definitely something I'm really interested in now.

salutations

I lived in London for 3 years and lent The Wind That Shakes The Barley to a colleague there who had no idea of what England had got up to in Ireland. She was completely shocked and said she had no idea this type of thing went on. She even told me she found it so harrowing she was in tears. I said this was bad but the English had far more horrific feathers in their cap like the famine, 1798, Cromwell etc. She had no idea, and she was very well educated. I guess its just not covered in school over there.

As regards the above film I remember it got panned by papers like the Daily Mail etc in England, its main complaints that the english soldiers were always shouting, swearing and violent characters. It was therefore unrealistic. They just didnt want to believe, although not a biopic, this was exactly what went on during the war of independence. To be honest, they prob believe themselves to be the good guys (especially after WW2) but if my country had this much bloodshed on its hands (remember Ireland is only one small chapter of their colonialism)i'd be very reluctant to drag any of it up.

And to echo someone above I'm very fond of England and English people and lived there for 5 years in total. There's nothing they can do about their history.

cheeeesecake

I watched The Wind That Shakes The Barley for the first time on Sunday night and I also didn't really know that stuff like that (and much worse) went on. I think the Daily Mail said the film was promoting the IRA so they didn't really review it in a good light. My bf bought me the Michael Collins dvd at the weekend, so I'll be watching that sometime soon.

donaghs

Generally the 1919-1921 Irish conflict gets squeezed in between WWI, and the 1926 Strike, or the 1930s Great Depression. In these dumbed-down times its unlikely to be covered in any detail. Also having a global Empire, there is lots of imperial repression to cover. Ireland is just one of many independence struggles.

Paolo1982

I am from Scotland and we never got taught anything about Ireland and their history in School. Again what another poster said anything i learned was from the media.

getz

my schooling in england in the 1950s ireland was never mentioned in history ,but half of my class mates were irish or had irish parents or granparents,scotland wales of northern ireland wasent in our history either so why would they mention the irish republic?

salutations

cheeeesecake wrote: »

I watched The Wind That Shakes The Barley for the first time on Sunday night and I also didn't really know that stuff like that (and much worse) went on. I think the Daily Mail said the film was promoting the IRA so they didn't really review it in a good light. My bf bought me the Michael Collins dvd at the weekend, so I'll be watching that sometime soon.

I would expect as much from that paper tbh. Anyone who draws comparisons to the IRA then to what came in the more recent past is way off. They were two entirely different things, that is prob the main thing people in England dont undertstand.

SlabMurphy

MarchDub wrote: »

"Technically" no, actually. Dermot MacMurrough had no legal standing in Ireland when he went to Henry II for help in regaining his Leicester throne. He had been ousted from his Leinster Kingdom and was a deposed outcast when he got his bright idea. But anyway, he never bargained for a take over style invasion. He had dreams of being the High King of Ireland himself.

Yes " we " did not invite the Normans over, I mean the reputation of the Normans would have been quite well known. It's like saying some country invited Genghis Khan or Attlia the Hun to invade it.

SlabMurphy

Rebelheart wrote: »

Likewise "the English" invited the Normans to England. Odd that nobody seems to know that when this old chestnut comes up.

Tostig Godwinson, earl of Northumbria and brother of Harold Godwinson, earl of Wessex and the last Anglo-Saxon King of England, travelled to Norway and Normandy seeking the help respectively of King Harald Hardrada and William, Duke of Normandy in the 1060s for an invasion of England in order to recover his position as earl of Northumbria from Harold and his allies. In September 1066 Tostig arrived with Harald Hardrada as part of the Norman invasion force of William the Conquerer.

Next we'll be told that the Pope authorised the invasion of Ireland in his Laudabiliter in 1155 without being told that the Pope in question was Adrian IV, otherwise known as the only Englishman ever to become Pope, Nicholas Breakspear.

Interesting point. William the Bastard/Conqueror ( in France he is still known as Guillaume le Bâtard ) had some kind of tenuous claim to the English throne.

goose2005

Manach wrote: »

Technically, didn't we invite them over: i.e. Stringbow et al ?

I don't know who "we" are, and all Irish people have some Norman ancestry anyway.

migozarad wrote: »

The former King of Leinster (Dermot McMurrough) had a grievance with the Ard-Ri/High King Rory O" Connor& consequently asked the English King Henry II for assistance in regaining his kingdom& as a quid pro quo he pledged his loyalty&subservience.Henry II asked Richard De Clare (Strongbow),Earl of Pembrokeshire,to go over& help Dermot McMurrough out.The rest as they say is history.If your surname is O'Connor you may be heir to the throne!!

Irish kingship didn't automatically pass to the dead king's son, all the family leaders got together and chose a king (as in modern Saudi Arabia)

CDfm

I worked in the Uk and elderly colleagues would have been fairly anti Irish. That Ireland left the UK and didnt fight in WWII etc would have been fairly weird for them and they couldnt link their own anti Irishness with it.

purplepanda

The Normans are in fact responsible for most of the origins of the English & Irish legal systems and also put in place both nations Houses of Commons & Lords.

In fact the English had very little say in the running of their own country until the late 1300's as they were ruled over by a French speaking Norman elite since 1066.

An actual serious invasion of Ireland by the English did not happen until Tudor / Reformation times.

Normans, Flemish, Bretons, & Welsh were much more numerous in the Cambro - Norman invasions & campaigns starting in Ireland from 1167 onwards. Most real English (from Anglo Saxon extraction) would have been mere footsoldiers.

English history does teach some Irish history, because I remember doing O' / A' Levels essays / exams myself, particularly the Home Rule campaigns. Important in a British context because of the decades of dispute / debate in the Westminister Parliament over the issue.

However the 1916 Rising & Anglo Irish Treaty 1921 only gets mentioned in the context of WW1, the industrial unrest of the 1920's / Ramsay MacDonalds's 1st Labour Government / Treaty of Westminister & the start of the Great Depression.

History taught in English schools doesn't even include Welsh or Scottish events (before the 1707 Act of Union)

Growing up in London in the 70's / 80's I was told by older English people about what the Black & Tans had done in Ireland, many English people are aware of certain historical events that don't get seriously taught in school, & that the establishment want to push aside.