History Forum discussion

slowburner

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I see your point but have a few observations to make.

Firstly - like science, history does have a methodology consisting of extensive research of primary sources, and the presentation of objective interpretations of that evidence which constantly supplies references to the source material.

I fully agree that history must have a methodology, there is no alternative but I will stick to my guns and repeat that history is not a science.
It can borrow some of the methods of science but it cannot use experimental methods or verification by repeatability.
The closest that history can come to science in this particular regard, is peer review.

Historiography without references is no more than pseudo historiography, in the end, it is dishonest.

To be honest - history writing/lecturing should be conducted in the same way as a legal trial. Evidence is gathered, evaluated and objectively interpreted to construct the likeliest scenario according to the evidence. Evidence which does not fit the scenario cannot simply be discounted - it has to be dealt with or ones colleagues (opposing counsel ) will hammer you! Yes, there will always be argument - that is why it is vital that supporting evidence from primary sources is of paramount importance.

Similarly, law is not a science. The ultimate dictat of law is that proof must be beyond reasonable doubt.

Plus - there are indisputable facts - Elizabeth I died in 1603 -fact. Spanish Armada sailed in 1588 - fact. WWI broke out in 1914 - fact.

There is no such a thing as an 'indisputable fact', all facts are disputable - you can have 'accepted facts' when they have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
To doubt that WW1 started in 1914 would be unreasonable. To question the date of Brian Boru's birth would be perfectly reasonable.
Whether it would be reasonable or unreasonable is a question of judgement and much of history is exposed to judgement in this way.
That degree of judgement is essential to history and the more informed the person, the more likely that the judgement will be sound.

One of the problems with how history was taught in Irish schools - and therefore the version of it that has seeped into the public (un)consciousness - was that a great deal of it was not based on the actual evidence, but on secondary interpretations which ignored the evidence which did not conform to either the religious (e.g.Ireland was always a staunchly Catholic country) or nationalist (e.g. Ireland was an ancient nation) polemic.

Even worse is that dreadful combination of the two -

Irish Catholic Nationalist historiography is sectarian in that it ignores or downplays the religion of the likes of Tone, Emmet, Mitchel etc, doesn't mention that Irish republicanism had it roots in Ulster Presbytarianism, ignores the actions of Catholic Mary Tudor in the spread of Anglicisation and while it may mention the Papal grant of Ireland to Henry II, is silent on the Papal grant of Ireland to Mary Tudor, downplays the role of the RCC in campaigning for the Act of Union and the excommunication of republicans during the War of Independence, plus gives the impression that the Penal Laws were nothing but an attempt by the British to keep Irish Catholics in poverty - ignoring that the Penal Laws were enacted in England, Wales and Scotland as well and was aimed at all non-Anglicans, so the Presbyterians of Scotland and the Methodists of Wales (for example) were just as oppressed by these laws.

Omissions/spin like this combine to paint a portrait of all those who struggled against Anglicisation and the loss of Irish independence as Catholic and their religion was an important driving factor in that struggle.

Unionist historiography is just as insidious in its own way (though it is rarely seen in the 26 counties after 1922, there was a huge amount of it published in the years before Home Rule was granted). It seeks to portray the Irish as barbarians who did nothing but kill each other and not only had no civilisation but were so steeped in superstitiousness and barbarity that we had to have civilisation forcibly imposed upon us for our own good.

Fair enough, so history as taught in schools, used to be filled with bias.
Who's to say that those biases have not been replaced with others?
Political correctness and anti-clericalism spring to mind.

Both of these interpretations contain kernals of 'fact' but due to their interpretations being so influenced by religious and political ideologies and their ignoring of any evidence that does not support their particular interpretations that they are highly subjective works of polemic rather then history.

People get very riled up about so-called revisionism, yet - in the case of Ireland - what we are experiencing over the last 30 years is a return to the primary sources to see if they really support 'what we learned in school' and the simple fact is - they don't. When historians publish these 'new' histories they are often vilified as they are threatening the status quo and challenging much of what was sold to us as part and parcel of our very national identity.

Now, I am not saying this does not happen in other countries too - the English, for example, are taught about the Golden Age of the Tudors - and there are many little Englander historians who make a damn fine living with books as TV programmes peddling this line. Yet, even a quick a look at the actual actions of the Tudors as described in documents from the period (including court documents) one equally quickly begins to conclude that Tudor England was not a pleasant place to live. To give one example - any one who has any interest in Elizabeth I, or seen Cate Blanchett's portrayal of her, will be familier with The Speech at Tilbury in advance of the Armada - it is considered to be one the great moments in English history as the Queen rallied her troops with stirring promises of fighting with them and how she treasured them, her people. What is rarely mentioned is that once her speech was over, Elizabeth got her royal bottom as far away from any possible battlesite a.s.a.p (tactically understandable as if the Spanish had landed they would want her in their possession as a priority) but, she also prevaricated and postponed the payment of her troops for so long (around 18 months - 2 years) that the thousands who died did so from starvation - they never having engaged the Spanish. Good Queen Bess ignored the pleas from the men she treasured to pay them their back wages. She knew they were starving. The letters telling her, and comments written on these letters by both Burghley (her first Secretary - or Prime Minister) and Elizabeth, are among the documents which can be seen in the Archives at Kew Gardens.

Do you mean that Elizabeth I procrastinated after Tilbury? Prevarication is a much misused term, mostly by politicians.
Prevarication is defined thus in the OED:
1. Divergence from the right course, method or mode of action -1701. 2. Deviation from duty; violation of trust; corrupt action, esp. in a court of law -1741. 3. Avoidance of plain dealing; evasion, quibbling, equivocation, double-dealing, deception -1655.
Please don't think that I am being quarrelsome or bitchy or nit-picking, or having a go at you, it just happens that I can't bear to see this word misused when the intent is to describe procrastination.
If it gets misused enough, its true meaning will be lost.

Because our national archives were destroyed in the 20s, it is assumed that there is no evidence - on the contrary, although the loss was enormous, there is still a lot of sources out there - one just has to ferret them out.

And herein lies the difference between true historians and wannabes. True historians actively seek out and sometimes find, new primary sources rather than regurgitate the work of others.

If it is history - there has to be supporting evidence - otherwise it is just opinion.

Can't argue with that.

I think (IMHO ) that we have plenty of forums on boards for the expression of personal opinions and it is not to much to ask in the history forum that people provide the source of their statements - basically - 'where did you read that?'. This allows for debate and discussion ('ah - you read that there, but did you read this letter written by the same person but to someone else where he says something completely different?', or 'according to General Big Mickie this was a decisive victory, but when we look at the casualty lists, despatches from the front etc it seems as if any ground gained was held for only 1/2 hour and the 1st Battalion of the Over the Toppers suffered 90% fatalities'.)

Unless people are prepared to provide the evidence for their statements, AND the Mods insist on them doing so if they are challenged to, it is all to easy for discussions to descend into polemic, rhetoric and knee jerk reactionary insult flinging. Sure, in that case we may as well be in AH.

I agree but with the caveat that there should be a degree of tolerance to new posters. The mods can use their judgement

slowburner

MarchDub wrote: »

Just to interject into this discussion - that speaking personally I do appreciate your genuine efforts to make the forum more compatible to all posters. I also want to acknowledge - fair dues- that you have reached out to me and my stated position on this.

It's a tricky situation but we do need to establish standards for an understanding of how valid history is established - otherwise we descend into nonsense discussions where personal, undocumented bias becomes paramount.

I agree with your second statement to a large extent but this is an internet chat forum rather than an educational institution.
There will always be a trade off between fostering an interest in history amongst newcomers or passers by and simultaneously retaining a degree of historical accuracy and validity.
I think it is usually pretty obvious when a new poster is here for vitriol and when one is here out of interest.

It would be a crying shame if you felt that you could no longer contribute because you felt that not enough was being done to maintain accuracy.
I well remember you blasting my warped thinking out of the water here some time ago - it hurt at the time but you were absolutely right to do it.
Rather than putting me off, it made me question the standards I came with.
And I thank you for that.
I think it is up to you and other erudite posters to introduce newcomers to the useful concept of peer review.

Dades

slowburner wrote: »

I think it is up to you and other erudite posters to introduce newcomers to the useful concept of peer review.

Good post.

Better to have people be part of the solution.

Bannasidhe

slowburner wrote: »

Do you mean that Elizabeth I procrastinated after Tilbury? Prevarication is a much misused term, mostly by politicians.
Prevarication is defined thus in the OED:
1. Divergence from the right course, method or mode of action -1701. 2. Deviation from duty; violation of trust; corrupt action, esp. in a court of law -1741. 3. Avoidance of plain dealing; evasion, quibbling, equivocation, double-dealing, deception -1655.
Please don't think that I am being quarrelsome or bitchy or nit-picking, or having a go at you, it just happens that I can't bear to see this word misused when the intent is to describe procrastination.
If it gets misused enough, its true meaning will be lost.

Definition # 3 ' 3[/B]. Avoidance of plain dealing; evasion, quibbling, equivocation, double-dealing, deception' is exactly what I meant.

As anyone who ever had the misfortune (:cool:) to have an essay corrected by me will confirm - I am pedantic about the correct use of language and terminology.

P. Breathnach

Bannasidhe wrote: »

... I am pedantic about the correct use of language and terminology.

That's a challenge to all of us nitpickers.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

that speaking personally I do appreciate your genuine efforts to make the forum more compatible to all posters.

You are not too shabby yourself when it comes to helping people with history sources and obscure stuff.

Bannasidhe

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's a challenge to all of us nitpickers.

I should qualify that by saying when it comes to history.....:D.

Rest of the time I can be so vague as to be unintelligible
(It's part of the secret code of the historian: vague mumblings while maintaining a distracted air; inability to find car, glasses, home, phone and in extreme cases socks; tendency to ranting about people dead buried and rotten at the drop of a hat - if one can find a hat; exuberant joy over spotting something 'interesting' in a mouldy document; and secret hankering after leather elbow patches.
By these signs shall ye know them)

Sure as long as no one refers to 'Germany' in the period before 1871, 'Italy' prior to 1870 and 'British' prior to (at least) 1603 we'll be grand.
I am ignoring the references to 'Celtic' Ireland but its causing me to suffer eye twitches

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am ignoring the references to 'Celtic' Ireland but its causing me to suffer eye twitches

The Re-Unification of

eye twitches

jonniebgood1

Thanks for the comments, particularly for their constructive nature.

This has been discussed between moderators on the history forum. I dont speak for other mods but it is fair to offer my summary of our thoughts on this. If a stricter line is sought on some of the more contentious subjects, we are happy to consider doing this. What we wish to avoid is moderators intervening in every disagreement so we will still seek a happy medium. In view of comments referring to previous forms of moderation I have been looking at threads from a number of different time periods.

2009 Thread where content descends

2010 Thread is moderated until discussion stops.

2010 thread descends into chaos and shut down.

I wont go on but the point is that these contentious threads have existed previously and 3 different ways of dealing with them are shown in the examples given. We have tried a tolerant attitude and will now try a tighter control by asking people to back up their expressed opinions. For this to work it is fair for us to ask regulars of the forum to help out. In other words if someone says something that is not substantiated the proper response is to ask them to back up their opinion. If they cannot back up their opinion then it follows that they are not contributing in the manner required for serious discussion. I emphasise that this is not a solution that can be implemented by moderators alone. For example I will be absent from forum soon for approx 3 weeks and it is not reasonable to expect Dubhthacht (or both of us after this) to review every comment posted in this time. Thus it is reasonable for users to question opinions and sources for these opinions. This need for sources will be inputed into the forum charter shortly. If a poster continually ignores this then the issue can be reported to a moderator at that stage. There is some leeway in this for regular users but at the end of the day if people have a problem with a post for any reason, they should report it. We have some information on what constitutes a proper source on the first page also so reference can also be made to this. A moderator may chose to ignore the report or may take action on it but at the end of the day for the forum to function properly this deciding role has to be final.

In summary we agree that to keep standards of posts at an acceptable level sources are sometimes required (particularly on contentious subjects). The moderators view is that forum users should play a role this. Most posts are subjective and it is not our role to rule on these however forum users and moderators alike can insist on sources to back up opinions if they disagree with them. If a person cannot back up their opinion then it can be be viewed accordingly as unverified and of less value than a view based on an historical source. Naturally different people will interpret events in different ways and it is not a moderators role to interpret this aspect of the forum. There will obviously be times when intervention will be required and this is normal and usually is a result of people resorting to sweeping insults as opposed to views backed up by sourced evidence.

I hope this is not overly convoluted. The opinions given have been considered in this response. As I have said previously the forum is there for the people using it, thus it is reliant on their input to keep it relevant.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Thanks for the comments, particularly for their constructive nature.

This has been discussed between moderators on the history forum. I dont speak for other mods but it is fair to offer my summary of our thoughts on this. If a stricter line is sought on some of the more contentious subjects, we are happy to consider doing this. What we wish to avoid is moderators intervening in every disagreement so we will still seek a happy medium. In view of comments referring to previous forms of moderation I have been looking at threads from a number of different time periods...

I wont go on but the point is that these contentious threads have existed previously and 3 different ways of dealing with them are shown in the examples given. We have tried a tolerant attitude and will now try a tighter control by asking people to back up their expressed opinions.

Thanks for this long response. But just to say, speaking for myself I never suggested that there were no contentious threads in the past. Of course this is not the case. But as your links suggested they were well handled - the point that many here have made. The issue now is how they are being treated now and will be treated in the future?

We just had an example on History of a mod changing the title of a thread - to reflect a more 'inclusive' topic because someone on the thread objected to the subject being discussed.

I would have had no problem with the topic being closed down if it became highly personal and contentious [and it could have] but not altering what an OP intended. At this rate any topic can be changed to reflect a more PC policy of not being offensive to anyone. That's not history - not even sure what it is.

Dades

^^ I think the sole problem with that thread came from the title.

One poster raised a major objection about the problems it would cause - but in fact only succeeded in derailing the whole thread, despite the fact that the contributors seemed to be adult enough to post in a neutral fashion. I guess the intention of changing it was to cut out all the hysteria regarding the title and allow the thread to continue. As it turned out, this wasn't good enough either and now there's a schism between the old-titlers and the new-titlers.

The talk of "airbrushing history" and whatnot is nonsense, and just as bad as the original complaint about the title.

That said, I think deleting every single post not actually addressing the OP would be what I'd do.

CDfm

I really do think that changing the thread title has made matters worse and not better because it implies now that violence was an end in itself and that is far from the case.

So the edited title is pejorative.

It also widens the scope of the thread from acts committed in the process of conquering Ireland or suppressing the indigenous population to just violence & includes battles between the Irish themselves.

Who wants to post in a thread like that , that's military stuff and not history.

It has completely changed the context of the thread.

How are we going to discuss the changing nature of Irishness in any cohesive way. Lord Edward Fitzgerald for instance , where does he fit.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

I really do think that changing the thread title has made matters worse and not better because it implies now that violence was an end in itself and that is far from the case.

So the edited title is pejorative.

It also widens the scope of the thread from acts committed in the process of conquering Ireland or suppressing the indigenous population to just violence & includes battles between the Irish themselves.

Who wants to post in a thread like that , that's military stuff and not history.

It has completely changed the context of the thread.

How are we going to discuss the changing nature of Irishness in any cohesive way. Lord Edward Fitzgerald for instance , where does he fit.

I'd have to disagree with you there CDfm.

I think a thread on British atrocities in Ireland was too narrow in that it excludes/excuses the participation of the likes of Thomond and other Irish lords who fully supported Anglicisation e.g. in that post where I referred to the execution of the 3 children. Thomond was there. He was Irish. He participated without objection - and supported via his considerable army, which he personally commanded, the brutal conquest of North Connacht.

To say the undoubted atrocities carried out during that campaign were 'British/English' only - and ignore the participation of powerful Irish Lords like Thomond - is, to my way of thinking, to continue along the old British/English Vs Irish racial theme so beloved of old-school nationalists. I, for one, am not comfortable with that.

We have to recognise that as the violence escalated and the pressure increased on both the Gaelic Irish and Old English populations that they too committed atrocities - such as the events of 1641.

To be objective - as I fully believe history should be - we need to look at both sides. Yes, to a certain extent the 'English' brought a level of terror tactics to Ireland that was largely unknown but these tactics were increasingly employed by both sides as the struggle progressed.

re: Gaelic use of terror/committing of atrocities as I cannot help but remember that actions such as raiding a settlement, killing the occupants and burning the village to the ground were happening long before a Norman ever set foot on this island - would we not call the burning of 80 houses and the killing of countless people an 'atrocity'?

in 1123 we see:

M1123.10

The Gaileanga took a house at Daimhliag-Chianain upon Murchadh Ua Maeleachlainn, King of Teamhair; and they burned eighty houses around it, and killed many of his people, on that occasion. Ua Maeleachlainn escaped being killed or burned, by the protection of Cianan.

So, how do we define 'atrocity'? Is it just murder/massacre by 'foreign' invaders ?

Yet, was that event I quoted from the Four Masters not an invasion too? Of one clan by another - each of whom perceived themselves a separate 'races'... If an army invaded a 'foreign' town today, burnt it to the ground and killed the inhabitants - would there not be an out cry at this 'atrocity'?
What is the difference?

Perhaps I have a broader definition of atrocity then others posting in the thread we are referring to- I see it as the use of terror - often in combination with other tactics : legal, economic etc.

I also think it cannot be separated from political history or social history and confined only to military history. Particularly in an Irish context.

To impose it's political will upon the people of Ireland - London employed the military. That military employed terror tactics to scare the population into obedience, at the same time legislators were bringing in legal measures to render the population powerless, and economic factors were also being brought to bare to render them penniless. So we need to look at these 'acts of atrocity' not in isolation - but as part of a pattern of conquest.
When a native population experiences the combined forces of fear, legalised disfranchisement plus poverty = conquest.

We also need to look at how the conquered population adopted terror tactics and used them against the colonisers. Because it happened. Even within our own life time atrocities were being committed in the name of Ireland and the Irish people. This did not happen in a vacuum - it's roots go back into our collective (Irish and British) past - is it not the task of history to attempt to untangle those roots?

I just posted in that thread about how I feel politics, economics and terror were used together to advance Anglicisation. It asks the question - what exactly is an atrocity? Is just killing - or can the term also refer to the use of terror as one weapon in conjunction with others such as legislation?

Is, as per the example I gave, the legal, military and bloodthirsty targeting of one extended family - deliberately designed to kill, cower or bankrupt them into submission not an atrocity?

slowburner

Dades wrote: »

^^ I think the sole problem with that thread came from the title.

One poster raised a major objection about the problems it would cause - but in fact only succeeded in derailing the whole thread, despite the fact that the contributors seemed to be adult enough to post in a neutral fashion. I guess the intention of changing it was to cut out all the hysteria regarding the title and allow the thread to continue. As it turned out, this wasn't good enough either and now there's a schism between the old-titlers and the new-titlers.

The talk of "airbrushing history" and whatnot is nonsense, and just as bad as the original complaint about the title.

That said, I think deleting every single post not actually addressing the OP would be what I'd do.

A pity this, I thought there was a hint that this schism was getting a little narrower.
There was the possibility that at the very least, they could shout at one another across it.

slowburner

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So, how do we define 'atrocity'? Is it just murder/massacre by 'foreign' invaders ?................

.....Perhaps I have a broader definition of atrocity then others posting in the thread we are referring to- I see it as the use of terror - often in combination with other tactics : legal, economic etc......

.......I also think it cannot be separated from political history or social history and confined only to military history. Particularly in an Irish context.........


.......Is, as per the example I gave, the legal, military and bloodthirsty targeting of one extended family - deliberately designed to kill, cower or bankrupt them into submission not an atrocity?

If it is of any help, the OED has a definition of atrocity which refers back to the preceding entry, 'atrocious'.

1. Excessively and wantonly savage or cruel; heinously wicked. -1669
2. Stern, fierce: extremely violent. -1733

I see no reason in this definition why an atrocity should be deemed, solely and exclusively, to be the action of one nation upon another.

Bannasidhe

slowburner wrote: »

If it is of any help, the OED has a definition of atrocity which refers back to the preceding entry, 'atrocious'.

1. Excessively and wantonly savage or cruel; heinously wicked. -1669
2. Stern, fierce: extremely violent. -1733

I see no reason in this definition why an atrocity should be deemed, solely and exclusively, to be the action of one nation upon another.

I agree - didn't Diarmuid MacMurrough order his men to rape the main contender for Abbess of some convent of other so she would be disqualified due to her newly acquired lack of virginity - all so Diarmuid's sister could get the gig?

Wasn't that an atrocity under both definitions?


I certainly would view the enactment of legislation designed to utterly destroy the culture of a specific group of people - be they Gaelic Irish, Gaelicised Old English, Native Americans , Native Australians or, indeed any native population to be heinously wicked. As I would similarly view the oppression of a people based only on religion/race/skin tone.

When one adds in an actual or de facto death sentence for failure to conform to the majority and/or powerful's world view - that would certainly qualify as Excessively and wantonly savage or cruel.

CDfm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'd have to disagree with you there CDfm.

I think a thread on British atrocities in Ireland was too narrow in that it excludes/excuses the participation of the likes of Thomond and other Irish lords who fully supported Anglicisation e.g. in that post where I referred to the execution of the 3 children. Thomond was there. He was Irish. He participated without objection - and supported via his considerable army, which he personally commanded, the brutal conquest of North Connacht.

To say the undoubted atrocities carried out during that campaign were 'British/English' only - and ignore the participation of powerful Irish Lords like Thomond - is, to my way of thinking, to continue along the old British/English Vs Irish racial theme so beloved of old-school nationalists. I, for one, am not comfortable with that.

Oh the meanness

The thread title is subjective and to me it conveyed a meaning that it referred to the subjugation of the Irish militarily and politically.

The reason they were called the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy is that they incorporated both.

Racial definitions of history are not my bag. I am really interested in those Irish that looked out for themselves.

There is lots of Norman in me 'cept my Dad married a Corkwoman & that's my heritage.

I get the British Irish dynamic and lived in the UK too so I understand it.

So how I understand the thread title was that Ireland was in terms of military force for political aims.

This being another atrocity and one of the pivotal moments in Easter 1916.

The morning a mad captain ordered the death of a pacifist and two journalists

At around 8pm on Tuesday evening, Francis Sheehy Skeffington was walking from the city centre towards his home in Rathmines. His efforts to organise a civic body to prevent looting had attracted both admirers and detractors, and as he approached Portobello Bridge a crowd followed him, some of its members calling his name. A young officer of the Royal Irish Rifles at a checkpoint on Portobello Bridge assumed that Skeffington was causing trouble and had him detained and sent to Portobello Barracks. Under interrogation, he pointed out that he was against militarism and in favour of passive resistance.

At about 11.10pm, Capt JC Bowen-Colthurst, a veteran of the Battle of Mons who had been invalided home, led a raid on the Camden Street home and tobacco shop of Alderman James Kelly, who he wrongly suspected of rebel sympathies. He took Skeffington with him as a "hostage" and ordered him to say his prayers. When Skeffington refused to do so, Bowen-Colthurst said his own prayer: "Oh Lord, if it shall please Thee to the life of this man forgive him for Christ's sake."

Coming out onto Rathmines Road with his hostage in tow, Bowen-Colthurst and his party met two youths, Laurence Byrne and JJ Coade, who were coming from a sodality meeting. After a brief interrogation, Bowen-Colthurst drew his pistol and shot Coade dead. The party proceeded to Kelly's shop and threw a grenade through the window. Kelly was absent, but two journalists - Thomas Dickson, who was Scottish and disabled, and Patrick MacIntyre - were arrested and taken back to the barracks, along with Skeffington. Neither man had any connection with the Rising.

Shortly after 10am on Wednesday morning, Bowen-Colthurst ordered that Skeffington, Dickson and MacIntyre be taken out to a yard beside the guardroom "for the purpose of speaking to them". He then summoned seven soldiers and ordered the three men to walk to a wall at the back of the yard. As the men turned to face him, Bowen-Colthurst ordered the soldiers to fire. The men fell, and the soldiers filed out. A lieutenant who heard the volley entered the yard and saw that, though the other two were clearly dead, Skeffington's leg was still twitching. When this was reported to Bowen-Colthurst, he ordered four soldiers to fire another volley into the body. The three bodies were wrapped in sheets and buried in the barrack square

http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/easterrising/tuesday/article6c.htm.

MarchDub

Dades wrote: »

That said, I think deleting every single post not actually addressing the OP would be what I'd do.

But you see the problem with doing that is the OP's stated intention/subject has been altered. The thread title was changed without the OP wanting it. That's the issue not being addressed.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

So the edited title is pejorative.

It also widens the scope of the thread from acts committed in the process of conquering Ireland or suppressing the indigenous population to just violence & includes battles between the Irish themselves.

Who wants to post in a thread like that , that's military stuff and not history.

It has completely changed the context of the thread.

Surely it is up to people posting on the thread to give context rather than relying on the thread title to do so. To call the edited title pejorative ignores the possible reasons for it being edited. I think the aim of doing that may have been to reduce the number of 'attack' type posts (by people drawn by a confrontational title), and this has happened.

MarchDub wrote: »

But you see the problem with doing that is the OP's stated intention/subject has been altered. The thread title was changed without the OP wanting it. That's the issue not being addressed.

I like Paky's threads- they are usually edgy and straight to the point. But does the removal of 1 word change the intention/subject? A case can be made that if someone actually takes the time to read the OP and not just the title then the intention/ subject is not altered. Some less dedicated posters seem to post knee-jerk answers to a thread titles.

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Surely it is up to people posting on the thread to give context rather than relying on the thread title to do so. To call the edited title pejorative ignores the possible reasons for it being edited. I think the aim of doing that may have been to reduce the number of 'attack' type posts (by people drawn by a confrontational title), and this has happened.


.

The title wasn't confrontational and was succinct.

Now I don't know who complained about the thread title but at a guess it was Fred and/or Owenc who are hardly the most chilled out or unbiased posters in the forum themselves.

I can't see why anyone would have whinged as there wasn't really any hardline nationalist posting going on.

I had some of the same on the deserters thread where some wanted to ignore the history and won't even acknowledge the contribution the Irish made to Britain in WWII.

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

The title wasn't confrontational and was succinct.

Now I don't know who complained about the thread title but at a guess it was Fred and/or Owenc who are hardly the most chilled out or unbiased posters in the forum themselves.

I can't see why anyone would have whinged as there wasn't really any hardline nationalist posting going on.

I had some of the same on the deserters thread where some wanted to ignore the history and won't even acknowledge the contribution the Irish made to Britain in WWII.

There is mixed opinion on this, that is clear. The objections to the title are open to see on page 2 of the thread.

P. Breathnach

CDfm wrote: »

The title wasn't confrontational and was succinct.

I saw two problems with the thread title:
(1) I thought it provocative.
(2) I thought that it could contribute to taking an oversimplified view of complicated relationships because many atrocities attributed to Britain involved considerable participation by Irish people. [There is an unfortunate tendency to regard those who were wealthy as British, and that can create a distortion in the way that we represent ourselves to ourselves, and a failure to recognise social class differences as an important element in our history.]

...
I had some of the same on the deserters thread where some wanted to ignore the history and won't even acknowledge the contribution the Irish made to Britain in WWII.

By expressing it in terms of your having had some of the same, you are implying a degree of ownership of a thread by its originator. I agree with you to an extent: if you start a thread, I think it right that I try to respect the agenda you set. But there is a limit to your ownership: I should be free to disagree with you, including being free to disagree with the basic premise you propose for discussion.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

The title wasn't confrontational and was succinct.

Now I don't know who complained about the thread title but at a guess it was Fred and/or Owenc who are hardly the most chilled out or unbiased posters in the forum themselves.

I can't see why anyone would have whinged as there wasn't really any hardline nationalist posting going on.

I had some of the same on the deserters thread where some wanted to ignore the history and won't even acknowledge the contribution the Irish made to Britain in WWII.

While I didn't complain - I did suggest the 'new' thread title (I also proposed that should it be decided that the original title be retained that a thread on Irish atrocities in Britain be started to provide balance within the forum - my tongue was only partially in my cheek when I said that )

Personally, I saw the original thread title and groaned. 'Here we go again', I thought, 'let the flame wars begin' :rolleyes: so was very much of the opinion that I would not post in that thread as I did see the title as inflammatory.

I eventually took the decision to post an item that set out to demonstrate that to classify events along racial lines (banging the good ol Brits Vs Paddys drum) was to oversimplify a complex issue and ignore the extent of collaboration by Irish assimilationists which facilitated the conquest. There were Irish collaborators and to allow them to hide behind a shield entitled 'British' is to me unacceptable as it lets them off the hook. Name and shame I say!

It would also be naive of us to believe that there was never an atrocity committed on this island prior to MacMorrough bringing the Normans over. Let's be honest about our past...


To my way of thinking a thread dedicated to 'British' atrocities only - which by implication ignores active Irish participation in many of those atrocities - is akin to a thread on Nazi atrocities in France which ignores the existence/actions of the Vichy Government.
It is, by its very nature, unbalanced, emotive, and far too subjective.

I also felt that a thread dedicated to all the ****e the British did to 'us' while at the same time not addressing the ****e 'we' did to 'them' in some way (perhaps in another thread) would be catering to the knee jerkers - on all sides of the political divide. I realise that were there to be 2 such 'who did what ****e to whom' threads that it would far too easily descend into competing jingos -:eek:.

I must admit I am surprised by the depth of unease the title change by the Mods has inspired in posters whose opinions and insights I have the greatest of respect for (you know who you are ) as I genuinely saw the original title as biased and an invitation to Brit bashing - not to mention how it could quickly lead to the adoption of entrenched positions among both Irish and British posters. I am perfectly willing to 'Brit bash' when the evidence shows they acted like complete b**tards but I will also bash those Irish who were equally 'guilty'.

Equal Opportunity bashing - how veh veh PC of me . (Do I get a gold star or a feed of abuse...hmmmmm?)

As for the Mods changing the title - there was a thread over in Atheism and Agnosticism last week that had it's title changed by the Mods at least twice - the first time as people complained it was inflammatory (it was a tad ), - not sure why it was changed the second time as that was essentially a 'tweak'. So, it's not like Mods changing thread titles seen as provocative is a no-no. As we saw - the original inclusion of 'British' did provoke knee jerk reactions which have nothing to do with history and, should it have continued it that vein, I, for one, would have given that thread a very wide berth.

As it stands, I think we are developing a very interesting discussion on what defines an atrocity, examining topics other then the usual Cromwell/Black and Tans that usually make up such discussions.

I am thoroughly enjoying having a look at whether the famine should be classified as an atrocity or a natural disaster- following an excellent question posed by jonniebgood1. It's been many many years since I lectured on the famine period, it's not my area of expertise so jonnieb's question sent me scuttling off to do some research (busman's holiday).

Surely, that is exactly what we all want to happen in the history forum? Question posed - we all scuttle off to research it - debate ensues.

CDfm

I like my history to be real history and don't go down the traditional route.

And I don't think the title itself was inflammatory but very descriptive.

I do think the OP should have been consulted on the change too.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

I like my history to be real history and don't go down the traditional route.

And I don't think the title itself was inflammatory but very descriptive.

I do think the OP should have been consulted on the change too.

How is it no longer 'real history'?

To be honest I saw it as very much 'going down the traditional route' of evil British Vs Irish victims. You know how much I hate the 'traditional' route...

Surely the argument can be, and is being, made that as the original title was so specific by looking for 'British' atrocities that it was not 'real' history but a very one sided, subjective example of the type of nationalist riddled 'history' we both have railed against in the past?

Was the OP not consulted? Do we know that for sure?

We did ask the Mods to 'up their game' when it came to flaming, yet here they have taken pro-active action in an attempt to prevent flaming and they are being criticised for that now.

Jeeze...who'd want to be a Mod - damned if you do and damned if you don't .

CDfm

Well lets see how we all can get along and its good to have more inclusive history on the forum.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

And I don't think the title itself was inflammatory but very descriptive.

I do think the OP should have been consulted on the change too.

+ 1 on that.

The OP has bailed out AFAIK and is no longer posting on the thread. He said so in one of the posts that has since been deleted. The OP expressed his objection after he found that the title had been changed to a more 'inclusive' subject.

It is now impossible to follow the stated objections on the thread because the record of all that has been deleted with the thread still open. Personally I think the thread should have been closed - deleting so much and leaving it open is misleading IMO.

Bannasidhe

MarchDub wrote: »

+ 1 on that.

The OP has bailed out AFAIK and is no longer posting on the thread. He said so in one of the posts that has since been deleted. The OP expressed his objection after he found that the title had been changed to a more 'inclusive' subject.

It is now impossible to follow the stated objections on the thread because the record of all that has been deleted with the thread still open. Personally I think the thread should have been closed - deleting so much and leaving it open is misleading IMO.

If that is the case it is a shame. I'm afraid I missed both the moment of change and the post deletions having popped off for 5 minutes to try and get a life. Then when I came back - it had all happened.

I would have assumed the OP was consulted - or at least informed -about the change before it happened.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

The OP has bailed out AFAIK and is no longer posting on the thread. He said so in one of the posts that has since been deleted. The OP expressed his objection after he found that the title had been changed to a more 'inclusive' subject.

I always enjoy Paky's threads and they are always well thought out.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

The OP has bailed out AFAIK and is no longer posting on the thread. He said so in one of the posts that has since been deleted. The OP expressed his objection after he found that the title had been changed to a more 'inclusive' subject.

It is now impossible to follow the stated objections on the thread because the record of all that has been deleted with the thread still open. Personally I think the thread should have been closed - deleting so much and leaving it open is misleading IMO.

Just to clarify- No post from Paky was deleted. Also he did not say that he was not posting (although he seems not to be). I think the post you are refering to is no 29 and it is still in thread. Thus his post (the full content) is there and can be judged for its self.

Posts were deleted for either being abusive or off topic. The purpose of this was to try and facilitate discussion and removing these type of posts does not mislead anyone .

*I add as a footnote that I had to check back on deleted posts to clarify this so there is no suggestion of anything more than an honest mistake which I am correcting.