What so English school books say about Ireland?

tac foley

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Plus, of course, the bull**** taught about Irish history in English schools would be contradictory to the bull**** taught in Irish schools.

Have Irish schools.started covering the civil war yet?

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely NOTHING taught in schools in the UK about Irish history. What is taught about Irish history in schools in Northern Ireland?

tac

TheHighest92

tac foley wrote: »

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely NOTHING taught in schools in the UK about Irish history. What is taught about Irish history in schools in Northern Ireland?

tac

war of independence/civil war, the troubles and a bit on the normans and ulster. the difference is that it is our history we learned about whereas the english would just view it as the neighbouring islands history even if it was in the same kingdom

pedroeibar1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And yet people still refer to eeverything east of Howth as England.

Howth? Is that the place at the end of the Dort north of the Liffey? It look soooo booring! Anyway, the Dort is coastal south of Dawkey so east of that is ......well, wet.:P

SpaceTime

It's a pretty huge part of their history in the sense that :

1) The UK actually quite literally broke up. That's a huge deal in any country's history and should have as much significance for them as it does for us.

To put it into a social history context, I would actually argue that the 19th century UK Government was completely incompetent. It had allowed British (and Irish) society to fall into a state where the social class divide was so bad that it was pushing people over the edge. There was mass emigration from Britain too but it tends to be swept under the carpet as colonialism. The reality is that many, many poor people and people seeking better lives left the UK and went to Canada, Australia, NZ, the USA, South Africa and all sorts of other places.
We tend to classify it correctly as emigration. They tend to classify it quite incorrectly as 'moving to the colonies'. Most of their emigrants didn't go there for the craic. They went because they'd no opportunities in Victorian Britain or even in 20th century Britain.
The ex-colonies and the United States have always been a handy pressure-relief valve for the UK (and Ireland after independence).

The Irish uprising could be seen in the context of social history in so far as the UK Government basically didn't run the country properly and it resulted in mass starvation in what was the wealthiest country on the planet and that lead to a nationalist movement and an actual armed revolution.

The clearing of the glens in Scotland was a similar horrendous situation and many of the people of industrial Britain lived in totally unacceptably low standards of housing, had very limited rights and often were basically living in near serf-like situations where they were defined by their class and very little else until the 20th century.

Britain changed radically in the 20th century, but until that change happened, the reality of life was quite harsh for a lot of people.

2) In modern history, and certainly since the troubles began Northern Ireland is *THE* big story of UK modern history other than WWI and WWII. Part of the UK basically had an on-going very nasty civil war which spilled over into England with terrorist attacks.

Yet, that's somehow just swept into "the Irish Question". It's quite weird the way they can sort of separate Northern Ireland from the UK in discussions when it's actually very much part of the UK in every other aspect. It's like, they find it awkward and embarrassing so suddenly it's Irish and not the UK when it suits them. Yet, if you're not talking about the conflict situation, it's very definitely the other way around. Quite hypocritical when you think about it.

I do think that the UK tends to bury its head in the sand about Ireland and I don't think that anyone could possibly argue that it's the history of a neighbouring country.

The reality of the situation is that what is now the Republic of Ireland *was the UK* and Northern Ireland *still is the UK* so ignoring the history of the place is like pretending that your ex-wife doesn't exist.

(And I'm not saying that with a political ideology. I would prefer if we'd had a clean break with the UK fully in 1921 and never had partition but the reality we're stuck with is the reality we have to make work)

It's a completely bizarre and selectively blinkered approach to history if Irish 19th and 20th century history isn't on the syllabus over there in a big way. I wouldn't expect UK students to learn about modern Republic of Ireland (post independence) history but, they absolutely should know all about the run up to that independence and about modern-day Northern Ireland and how it got to the state it's in.

I would be like the US course just skipping that whole awkward civil rights movement in the 1960s or pretending the civil war was some nasty blip down south that doesn't deserve mentioning.

I just find it incredible the way some people can 'box off' Irish issues as nothing to do with the UK when in reality they have absolutely everything to do with the UK as it was actually running the place and making all the policy decisions that caused the situations to develop in the first place.

If you're British or Irish, this is absolutely part of your history. There's no way of avoiding that.

I also find that a lot of British commentators tend to 'box off' conservative attitudes in Ireland as 'catholic' and this totally alien to hippy dippy liberal Britain (when they're usually thinking of modern Britain vs 1950s Ireland). The reality in until the 1960s in England was not much different. Being a single mother was a massive issue, being a divorcee was a massive issue, being gay was illegal and punishable by jail sentences and worse : see what happened to Alan Turing (the guy who pretty much invented the modern computer and decoded Nazi communications and arguably won the war for them) - Poor guy was arrested for being gay, threatened with prison and instead forced to take hormone treatments, ultimately leading to his suicide in the 1950s.

The reality in Ireland is we had a horrendous combination of both British victorian / early 20th century conservatism with another dose of catholic conservatism combined. Yet, that's usually not really understood by commentators over there and it's always just 'conservative, catholic Ireland'.

tac foley

SpaceTime wrote: »

Part of the UK basically had an on-going very nasty civil war which spilled over into England with terrorist attacks.

Sir - as somebody who was involved at the time, there is no way on earth that what happened in Northern Ireland could be described as a civil war. It was a terrorist war - with terrorists on both sides of the religious/political divide.

Had it been a civil war, as a civil war is understood by definition, then the UDR, RUC and the entire population of Northern Ireland with handy guns would have taken on the IRA and their supportesr, and had a go at clearing out those they had seen as the instigators of the trouble. The British Army, at the time many thousand strong, would no doubt have gotten involved at some point - probably VERY early on. The slaughter of the Roman Catholic population of Northern Ireland by Unionist-motivated terrorists, or members of the UDR [th largest infantry regiment in the British Army, if you count the reserves as well] who, because of their perceived loyalty to the Union and to the maintenance of a British Northern Ireland, would have made the Irish Civil War look like a sunday-school outing. Had they been left unchecked, then Northern Ireland would now be entirely protestant, and occupied by far more than a token number of British troops.

Of course, a real long drawn-out civil war would never have happened, as the Irish Armed Forces would no doubt have been drawn into the conflict early on, as the contingency plans of that time showed. The two governments of the time would have brokered some kind of a truce, but it leaves me in no doubt that the RC population would have been the ones to have suffered most in the resettlement when all the shooting stopped.

It wasn't pleasant, but it definitely WASN'T a civil war.

tac

SpaceTime

If the same kind of conflict had occurred in a less 'respectable' country, like I don't know somewhere in Latin America or part of Africa somewhere you can be 100% sure it would have been described as a civil war.

It has absolutely all of the hallmarks of it.

It was resolved and has become a political dispute, but it was far from just a minor little troublesome period. It was extremely nasty and you'd a large % of the population who were supporting forces that were aiming to overthrow the state. That's not a minor glitch and meets all the definitions of a civil war, even if it wasn't a particularly balanced one and it eventually became resolved through political action.

One could easily classify the exit of the current Republic of Ireland from the UK as a civil war that ended in a large region of what was then the UK exiting and declaring independence.

It seems when one talks about the UK, because it was a world power that the whole Irish event (which was deeply embarrassing to the establishment in the 1910s/20s and 19th century) is classified completely differently to other broadly similar conflicts.

So, technically speaking the UK had a civil war in the early 20th century which resulted in its partial break up.
That's just not a definition that anyone in the UK would like to admit to so it's spun as 'the Irish Question' etc etc.

There's a lot of British and Irish exceptionalism goes on in how things are defined.

I really think when you take off the Irish green tinted or British rose tinted spectacles and look at the situations that developed in Ireland in the 1900-1920 period and in the 1970s Northern Ireland troubles period, they are pretty nasty civil war type situations.

Also, the Irish-British situation looks rather dramatically different when you look at it through the rather cold lens of economic and social history rather than taking in the politics. It doesn't paint a very nice picture of Victorian or early 20th century UK governance which led to a really unbalanced, socially unjust oligarchy running everything. This was supported by rigid social class structures and very conservative values being pushed by society and religious groups. It all restricted social mobility and opportunity and aimed to keep people in their place. Ireland was an extreme example of the system but, the system was very, very badly broken right through the 1800s and up until after WWI really.

Thankfully, the UK and Ireland are both now pretty much models of postwar European liberal democracies in almost every respect and I think that's where we've found common ground to resolve NI. The two countries are pretty much unrecognisable in many respects and have a lot more in common now than they would have had even in the 60s and 70s. I think that change rather than anything else has been what's laid the basis for resolving Northern Ireland's mess.

Jawgap

I'm not minded to read through several pages, but has anyone posted up the curriculum on history from the UK DfE?

The different histories and changing relationships through time of the peoples of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales: This includes studying the histories of the different parts of the British Isles and their impact on each other, and developing an understanding of the historical origins of the UK. Pupils could explore both the separate histories and identities of Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England and their interrelationships, for example through English colonisation and/or their economic and political interdependence. This can be linked with the study in citizenship of recent constitutional changes in the UK.

tac foley

SpaceTime wrote: »

If the same kind of conflict had occurred in a less 'respectable' country, like I don't know somewhere in Latin America or part of Africa somewhere you can be 100% sure it would have been described as a civil war.

Sir - I'll simply reiterate my viewpoint, and also that of the government of the United Kingdom not only at the time, but right now.

The recent troubles in Northern Ireland were NOT a civil war.

tac

SpaceTime

tac foley wrote: »

Sir - I'll simply reiterate my viewpoint, and also that of the government of the United Kingdom not only at the time, but right now.

The recent troubles in Northern Ireland were NOT a civil war.

tac

Okay.. I'm not actually aiming to have an argument with you or anyone else. There's also no need to call me sir! (I don't think I've been knighted recently)

I'm just expressing my opinion about the period. You're perfectly entitled to disagree. It's a forum!

elfy4eva

I think it's a bit mad that there's shag all references to Ireland. I would have thought Irish history is British history, at least up until the formation of the state.

Ireland is a big enough area to merit being covered. I'm sure they cover Falklands in their history, and their media certainly make a big fuss about Gibraltar.

tac foley

SpaceTime wrote: »

Okay.. I'm not actually aiming to have an argument with you or anyone else. There's also no need to call me sir! (I don't think I've been knighted recently)

I'm just expressing my opinion about the period. You're perfectly entitled to disagree. It's a forum!

I'm not disagreeing with you, simply stating a known fact

'The Correlates of War, a dataset widely used by scholars of conflict, classifies civil wars as having over 1000 war-related casualties per year of conflict. This rate is a small fraction of the millions killed in the Second Sudanese Civil War and Cambodian Civil War, for example, but excludes several highly publicized conflicts, such as The Troubles of Northern Ireland and the struggle of the African National Congress in Apartheid-era South Africa.[3]'

tac

Fratton Fred

elfy4eva wrote: »

I think it's a bit mad that there's shag all references to Ireland. I would have thought Irish history is British history, at least up until the formation of the state.

Ireland is a big enough area to merit being covered. I'm sure they cover Falklands in their history, and their media certainly make a big fuss about Gibraltar.

In my day, there was zilch about either of those.

Budawanny

"Mostly Harmless"

pedroeibar1

Is much/any of French history covered? A far bigger, more relevant and important place. The politics of the ‘Irish Question’ are far too nuanced and complex for the average schoolkid to understand and that would also extend to many British history teachers.

As a regular visitor to Britain I am astounded by the average British person’s (and I mean white English Protestants, not recent immigrants) ignorance of history and events even in their own country. To watch the confusion when their balloon of superior attitude is pricked is amusing , particularly when done by a Mick who is bold enough to correct them.

For a non-academic foreigner to fully understand Irish history properly is not worth their effort, a bit like a South African learning Xhosa – the input : reward ratio is not there. The time investment is huge – to start to understand the Northern Irl. ‘Troubles’ you need to understand the Truce, that requires the War of Independence, then1916, that needs the Fenians, to put them in context you need to understand the Land Wars, that needs the Act of Union/1798. Put those in context you need the Cromwellian era, that needs the Confederation of Kilkenny, which needs Old Irish /Royalist Irish and you then are back to the Normans. Now over all that place several layers of various religions each with its own tone of bigotry.

There is plenty of work for future historians of Britain and Ireland’s economic history, I have for a long time advocated the negative role of UK managers in Ireland’s recent economic woes – working internationally I have seen far too many UK managers have the attitude ‘We’ll go over and show Paddy /darkie/ froggie how to do it’ whereupon they lose their shirts (and often do untold damage to the local economies.) Remember that the ‘race to the bottom’ was initiated primarily by the British banks over here. (not that I excuse the then Irish regulator or all Irish banks.)

Fratton Fred

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

As a regular visitor to Britain I am astounded by the average British person’s (and I mean white English Protestants, not recent immigrants) ignorance of history and events even in their own country. To watch the confusion when their balloon of superior attitude is pricked is amusing , particularly when done by a Mick who is bold enough to correct them.

For a non-academic foreigner to fully understand Irish history properly is not worth their effort, a bit like a South African learning Xhosa – the input : reward ratio is not there. The time investment is huge – to start to understand the Northern Irl. ‘Troubles’ you need to understand the Truce, that requires the War of Independence, then1916, that needs the Fenians, to put them in context you need to understand the Land Wars, that needs the Act of Union/1798. Put those in context you need the Cromwellian era, that needs the Confederation of Kilkenny, which needs Old Irish /Royalist Irish and you then are back to the Normans. Now over all that place several layers of various religions each with its own tone of bigotry.

There is plenty of work for future historians of Britain and Ireland’s economic history, I have for a long time advocated the negative role of UK managers in Ireland’s recent economic woes – working internationally I have seen far too many UK managers have the attitude ‘We’ll go over and show Paddy /darkie/ froggie how to do it’ whereupon they lose their shirts (and often do untold damage to the local economies.) Remember that the ‘race to the bottom’ was initiated primarily by the British banks over here. (not that I excuse the then Irish regulator or all Irish banks.)

I could, hand on heart, say the exact thing about Ireland.

The general lack of understanding of history here is surprising, especially for a country with such a blatant nationalist approach to everything from a night out at a dance, to the local sporting association.

HansHolzel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The general lack of understanding of history here

i.e. all Fred's posts

Jawgap

I'm not sure the English (I use that word deliberately) fully understand how their history interacts or impacts other countries' histories.

Con Houlihan said it best - When Scotland play England at Murrayfield, the English think they are there to contest the Calcutta Cup - the Scots, however, think the English are there for re-run of Bannockburn!

johnny_doyle

The teaching of History in English schools is going through some major changes at the moment. Plans put forward by the Dept for Education include sample topics for Key Stage 3 (the first 3 years at secondary school) which touch on Ireland

Ireland and Home Rule
the Interregnum (including Cromwell in Ireland)
Elizabethan conflict with Catholics (Scotland, Spain and Ireland)

the Act of Union with Scotland is cited but not the Act of Union with Ireland

Doesn't mean these topics will be studied.

Fratton Fred

HansHolzel wrote: »

i.e. all Fred's posts

Ha ha, you're so funny.

You should try something other than Tim Pat Coogan to learn about history, you're a classic example of not understanding history, just learning enough to support your own political view point.

800 years!

Fratton Fred

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not sure the English (I use that word deliberately) fully understand how their history interacts or impacts other countries' histories.

That is probably a pretty fair statement. Something I have realised since moving to Ireland.

Con Houlihan said it best - When Scotland play England at Murrayfield, the English think they are there to contest the Calcutta Cup - the Scots, however, think the English are there for re-run of Bannockburn!

I think most now would swap Bannockburn for the Calcutta Cup, it's been that long since they saw it!

johnny_doyle

My youngest has brought his Options book home outlining the courses he can study at GCSE in Key Stage 4. Attached is the outline for the history course at his school.

Grandeeod

Going by some posts here, it appears that the UK are attempting to introduce Irish history into the curriculum. That's a good thing and I hope it reaps dividends, in particular to the historical references to Irish people as being as thick as **** and portrayed by the English media as being dumb as ****. It gets a bit tiresome.

I'm in my early 40s. I visited and lived in England. I got abused on the streets of Liverpool as a 10 year old. I was humiliated in Bristol when I was in my early 20s. Repeatedly referred to as a stupid Paddy in my late 20s in Norwich. (the complaint went nowhere and I was working for the BBC!) I had decent English friends who treated me like a human being, but there was a very evident dislike of being Irish. I got the whole IRA thing as if it only started in the 1980s/90s. No amount of explanations or attempt at explaining the history cut the mustard. It was one of the most sickening experiences of my life that left me thinking that the English are an ignorant bunch of twats. That's not right, is it?

Speaking of the BBC, Des Lynam in 1993 referred to the location of the Eurovision song contest in Ireland (Millstreet) as being a cow shed. Why? Because it was in a rural area, despite being a really fabulous showcase and TV production. More ignorance and stereotypical BS. A year or two later the great English tradition of Horseracing was embarrassed in Aintree when a Grand National had a false start. That didn't stop some obnoxious trainer spouting off on the BBC about how this wouldn't happen in a point to point in a backward country like Ireland. A compliment and insult all in one!

Honestly, I hope a bit of education can help you lot, because as a professional working with English people in the 1990s, my experiences were not good at all. Even now in a social context, I meet English people that are completely devoid of any semblance of reality. It's all Paki this and Paddy that. History could teach them a thing or two about why they feel that way. Not saying they are all like that, but it's there. I believe the Poles and Portugese are the latest targets according to the link below. No blacks, no dogs, no Irish. May not have been widespread, but it happened and England has welcomed it again.

http://www.the-latest.com/landlords-return-no-blacks-no-dogs-no-irish

HansHolzel

And Des Lynam's from fu*king Clare!

who the fug

Grandeeod wrote: »

Going by some posts here, it appears that the UK are attempting to introduce Irish history into the curriculum. That's a good thing and I hope it reaps dividends, in particular to the historical references to Irish people as being as thick as **** and portrayed by the English media as being dumb as ****. It gets a bit tiresome.

I'm in my early 40s. I visited and lived in England. I got abused on the streets of Liverpool as a 10 year old. I was humiliated in Bristol when I was in my early 20s. Repeatedly referred to as a stupid Paddy in my late 20s in Norwich. (the complaint went nowhere and I was working for the BBC!) I had decent English friends who treated me like a human being, but there was a very evident dislike of being Irish. I got the whole IRA thing as if it only started in the 1980s/90s. No amount of explanations or attempt at explaining the history cut the mustard. It was one of the most sickening experiences of my life that left me thinking that the English are an ignorant bunch of twats. That's not right, is it?

Speaking of the BBC, Des Lynam in 1993 referred to the location of the Eurovision song contest in Ireland (Millstreet) as being a cow shed. Why? Because it was in a rural area, despite being a really fabulous showcase and TV production. More ignorance and stereotypical BS. A year or two later the great English tradition of Horseracing was embarrassed in Aintree when a Grand National had a false start. That didn't stop some obnoxious trainer spouting off on the BBC about how this wouldn't happen in a point to point in a backward country like Ireland. A compliment and insult all in one!

Honestly, I hope a bit of education can help you lot, because as a professional working with English people in the 1990s, my experiences were not good at all. Even now in a social context, I meet English people that are completely devoid of any semblance of reality. It's all Paki this and Paddy that. History could teach them a thing or two about why they feel that way. Not saying they are all like that, but it's there. I believe the Poles and Portugese are the latest targets according to the link below. No blacks, no dogs, no Irish. May not have been widespread, but it happened and England has welcomed it again.

http://www.the-latest.com/landlords-return-no-blacks-no-dogs-no-irish

give I am the roughly the same age as you and have been in the UK for 25 years, I would like the point out my experience has been completely different and any abuse I have got has been from Scots.(That was as recent as two weeks ago for daring to wear a London Irish top)

Grandeeod

who the fug wrote: »

give I am the roughly the same age as you and have been in the UK for 25 years, I would like the point out my experience has been completely different and any abuse I have got has been from Scots.(That was as recent as two weeks ago for daring to wear a London Irish top)

Glad your experiences were different to mine. As for the Rugby, that's a different kettle of fish.

Unfortunately my experiences were as outlined.

riffmongous

Grandeeod wrote: »

Speaking of the BBC, Des Lynam in 1993 referred to the location of the Eurovision song contest in Ireland (Millstreet) as being a cow shed. Why? Because it was in a rural area, despite being a really fabulous showcase and TV production. More ignorance and stereotypical BS. A year or two later the great English tradition of Horseracing was embarrassed in Aintree when a Grand National had a false start. That didn't stop some obnoxious trainer spouting off on the BBC about how this wouldn't happen in a point to point in a backward country like Ireland. A compliment and insult all in one!

Remember that Eastenders special where they visited Ireland a few years ago?

HansHolzel

As Samuel Beckett replied, when he got famous and someone asked him, "Mister Beckett, are you English?" ...

Au contraire.

Explains a lot of arguments on Boards.

tac foley

I never encountered any comment of any kind, nor did my dad, or any of his brothers and sisters. I DID face a lot of unpleasant remarks when going over to Ireland as a child, because I didn't speak the same ways as my relatives there did. That is because I was brought up for my very early years by my Welsh-speaking grandfather, and my English/French and Hebrew-speaking grandmother, so what do you expect?

tac

Judgement Day

I have to say that having been born in England, lived most of my life in Ireland, but have also lived and worked in England I've never had any problem with English people or most Irish people. Regarded as a Paddy in England and a Brit here, it probably explains why my years on the Isle of Man were the most satisfying and relaxing to date.

Incidentally, despite having gone to school in Ireland I learnt only British history from 1066 to 1914 with the only Irish bits being the famine, Daniel O'Connell and CS Parnell.

johnny_doyle

Grandeeod wrote: »

Going by some posts here, it appears that the UK are attempting to introduce Irish history into the curriculum. That's a good thing and I hope it reaps dividends, in particular to the historical references to Irish people as being as thick as **** and portrayed by the English media as being dumb as ****. It gets a bit tiresome.

I'm in my early 40s. I visited and lived in England. I got abused on the streets of Liverpool as a 10 year old. I was humiliated in Bristol when I was in my early 20s. Repeatedly referred to as a stupid Paddy in my late 20s in Norwich. (the complaint went nowhere and I was working for the BBC!) I had decent English friends who treated me like a human being, but there was a very evident dislike of being Irish. I got the whole IRA thing as if it only started in the 1980s/90s. No amount of explanations or attempt at explaining the history cut the mustard. It was one of the most sickening experiences of my life that left me thinking that the English are an ignorant bunch of twats. That's not right, is it?

Despite multiculturalism, legislation etc, there are sadly still too many English that fall into your category "an ignorant bunch of twats". UKIP, BNP and Tories spring to mind. There are quite a few Irish that fall in the category too unfortunately. Every country probably has it's quota.

My mothers aunt Ida Shepley appeared in the 60's with Irish actor Shay Gorman in a TV production called Beards and Turbans looking at racism directed at Irish, Indians, Jamaicans etc. It will be a while yet before these sort of issues are finally resolved.