Why are Brits ignorant of Ireland?

[jjimm]

I'm English, and I live in Ireland. Every time I go 'home' I am amazed by the ignorance of my fellow countrypeople about their near neighbour. Stuff like "[Southern] Ireland's part of the UK, isn't it?", not knowing the difference between the Republic and the North, not realising that there are Loyalist terrorists, etc.

I could understand general ignorance about any other neighbouring country, e.g. France, but Ireland is a special case: the British electorate have a direct hand in the future of Northern Ireland, and by extension the entire island, at the ballot box.

Is there a deliberate obfuscation in Britain of the facts and history of Ireland?

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by jjimm
Is there a deliberate obfuscation in Britain of the facts and history of Ireland?

Wouldn't a deliberate obfuscation require that the misinformation you refer to be deliberately spread? Unless you know of some agency that is passing these fallacies around?

As an aside, I'd be very surprised if most mainland British could not tell you that Ireland is a separate country, and that there are indeed loyalist terrorists. It's not as if there isn't serious amount of media time spent discussing these issues, is it?

[Andy]

Originally posted by jjimm
[B]I'm English, and I live in Ireland. Every time I go 'home' I am amazed by the ignorance of my fellow countrypeople about their near neighbour.

I'm no longer amazed at the ignorance of my compatriots.
Is anybody?

To me though, Ireland is simply another separate country, just like our other close neighbours, like Scotland, Wales, France, Germany, Holland etc etc etc. Why would anyone expect me to have greater knowledge of any one of these countries at the expense of any other? Aren't we all Europeans now....?



;)

[jjimm]

Well as I inferred, this is purely anecdotal.

However, Gary Kumquat himself (I presume he's a Brit) has backed up my observation by demonstrating one of the faux pas to which I was referring: "mainland Britain".

Since no part of Ireland is part of Britain, then how can the island of Britain be the 'mainland'? Most Irish people find this term at least irritating, and at worst downright offensive.

[jjimm]

quote:
Originally posted by Andy
Ireland is simply another separate country, just like our other close neighbours, like Scotland, Wales, France

Your vote directly affects Scotland and Wales, but not France. Surely there is some difference in your need to know about these countries? Would you admit to knowing more about Scotland and Wales (which isn't a country BTW, it's a principality) than France? Similarly, your vote affects Northern Ireland and therefore (indirectly) the Republic.

In school in England, I learned all about the French Revolution, but nothing whatsoever about the Easter Rising or the Irish Civil War, both of which are more relevant to the history of Britain, and much more recent.

[Xerxes]

I think there's a big difference between English people making essentially geographical faux pas (Mainland Britain) and not knowing that loyalist terrorists exist.

I can see how the Irish would be irritated by the first. I would imagine them to be horrified (as I would be) if they thought the second was true. One is a slip of the tongue, combined perhaps with not really understanding the difference between Britain/United Kingdom/Whatever, the other would require truly mind-boggling ignorance. I know of no-one in my circle who doesn't understand the concept of loyalist terrorists. Google lists 3,840 hits for 'UVA UDF', most (of the first few pages anyway, I lost interest after that) seem to be newpaper links.

Being honest here (and no slur on your friends/acquaintances) but I can only conclude that they never watch, read or listen to the news.

[Embra]

I would be worried by it, but I can't really talk. I was completely ignorant about the constitutional makeup of the UK until I was quite staggeringly old. The only reason I had to work it out was that at the age of 14 I moved to Scotland, where such things are in general a more sensitive issue than they are in England.

I think it's a combination of a lack of education about the constitution in schools (throughout the UK) and the fact that England is more insulated from the issue of constutional change than the other "home nations" by virtue of there being nothing in the way of an English nationalist movement (I mean this in the manner of the SNP, rather than of the BNP...).

That said, I'm really only talking about the relationship of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (heh, and the neat trick of remembering when to say UK and when to say Britain). There's not really much excuse for thinking that the Republic of Ireland is part of the UK.

Mind you, regarding Gary's calling Britain "mainland", what do people in Ireland think of being part of the "British Isles"? And If the whole island of Ireland is called "Ireland", geographically speaking, how much does that get up the noses of Unionists in Northern Ireland?

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by jjimm
Well as I inferred, this is purely anecdotal.

However, Gary Kumquat himself (I presume he's a Brit) has backed up my observation by demonstrating one of the faux pas to which I was referring: "mainland Britain".

Since no part of Ireland is part of Britain, then how can the island of Britain be the 'mainland'? Most Irish people find this term at least irritating, and at worst downright offensive.

Scottish, actually. Out of interest, which phrase does encompass the inhabitants of Scotland, England and Wales but not Northern Ireland, as you'll notice I referred to the "mainland British", not (as you misquote) "mainland Britain".

[jjimm]

Sorry that I misquoted you.

Since the United Kingdom is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", I would take "British" to refer to people on the island of Great Britain.

Loyalists do indeed refer to themselves as British, but this doesn't seem to have any logic to it (then again nor does the term 'Loyalist' ;)).

I guess the Unionists in N. Ireland, should they object to being called 'Irish', would be left with "UK subject" or "Northern Irish".

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Embra
what do people in Ireland think of being part of the "British Isles"? And If the whole island of Ireland is called "Ireland", geographically speaking, how much does that get up the noses of Unionists in Northern Ireland?

The term British Isles seems to be very grudgingly accepted by more educated Irish people (after all, it was coined by the ancient Greeks) and ranted about by those who are more 'emotionally' nationalist. I've never been given a decent alternative name, though my politically correct suggestion "the North Western European Archipelago" has never gone down well...

As for the Unionists, I don't really know. It seems practical to acknowledge that Northern Ireland is a part of the island of Ireland. Indeed Ian Paisley reportedly voted for St. Patrick's Day to be a public holiday in NI because "it's an Irish holiday".

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by jjimm
Loyalists do indeed refer to themselves as British, but this doesn't seem to have any logic to it (then again nor does the term 'Loyalist' ;)).

Well as they do indeed call themselves British, perhaps you'll see why I referred in my post to "mainland British", as I do hope your OP isn't to be applied to the people of Northern Ireland, or do you believe that they don't know about Ireland as a separate country or loyalist terrorists.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
Well as they do indeed call themselves British, perhaps you'll see why I referred in my post to "mainland British"
They do, but I don't.

[geepee]

I'm not i have friends from Dublin and Belfast , but I guess i would be because there is no peace there and its been fighting and violence for decades and people just don't care anymore as in vietnam. Its nothing out the ordinary like Israeli state sponsored terrorism on the palestines.

Another is maybe because we're bitter about the cost of petrol in Ireland its alot cheaper there and the economy is doing quite well there as well.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by jjimm
Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
Well as they do indeed call themselves British, perhaps you'll see why I referred in my post to "mainland British"
They do, but I don't.

Good for you. I'd suggest though that they might have more right to decide what label to call themselves by than you.

[micilin]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
Originally posted by jjimm
Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
Well as they do indeed call themselves British, perhaps you'll see why I referred in my post to "mainland British"
They do, but I don't.

Good for you. I'd suggest though that they might have more right to decide what label to call themselves by than you.

Um, I'm not reknowned for my peacemaking skills, but...

Might I suggest that maybe jjimm meant that they refer to themselves as British, however he does not refer to himself as British.

Also:

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
I'd be very surprised if most mainland British could not tell you that Ireland is a separate country


There are plenty of Irish people who, I'm sure, will attest to the annoyance they feel when they hear the terms 'mainland Britain' or 'the mainland' when used in the context of Ireland. On reading the quoted text my first reaction was :rolleyes:, however Mr. Kumquat has more than adequately explained that this was misquoted, and taken in the wrong context.


So can you two bury the hatchet? The reason I ask is I'd really like to hear whether anybody (apart from jjimm) believes that there is either a systemic/'cultural' lack of information or actual misinformation about Ireland and Irish history in the British media and/or educational system.

[Polycarp]

Let's point out that "British" has four specialized meanings: (a) inhabitant of "Britain" (i.e., the British Isles and Brittany, (b) inhabitant of the island of Great Britain, (c) subject of the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and (d) ethnic member of the Brythonic branch of the Celtic peoples, i.e., Welshman, Cornishman, or Breton. (a) includes all Irish, (b) includes Irish living in England, Scotland, or Wales, (c) includes Irish living in Northern Ireland, and (d) not only excludes all Irish but most English (descendents of the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons) and virtually all Scots (except those in old Strathclyde and Lothian).

As for why most "Brits" are ignorant of Ireland, it's a blindness with long historical roots, and is equalled by most Americans' ignorance of Canada, most Russians' ignorance of all their neighbor republics (and former SSRs), etc. In short, most people don't care enough to be aware of what matters greatly to their distant neighbors.

[Corky]

As an Irish person what mainly irritates me is the usage of the word 'Eire' to describe the Irish Republic.
Eire is an Irish language word and thus it is on our coins, stamps etc.
If the British were to be consistent they would refer to spain as Espana, Germany as Deutchland etc.
So please, please refer to us as Ireland or the Republic of Ireland in future

[Polycarp]

Corky, what is the one-word name of the country in Irish? Eire, yes? And the actual name of the republic is Republic Eirainn?

Many of us straight-English speakers prefer to use the national language term to describe the nation when there is not a time-honored (e.g., over 100-years) English name for the nation as well. And "Eire" provides a one-word distinction between the island containing the Republic and a piece of the U.K., and the Republic itself.

For me, at least, it's never been supercilious but my impression of "correct" usage.

[sirjamesp]

Originally posted by jjimm
Loyalists do indeed refer to themselves as British, but this doesn't seem to have any logic to it

Actually, it does have logic: the people of Northern Ireland hold British passports - that is to say they have British Nationality. Thus they are, of course, British.

Originally posted by jjimm
In school in England, I learned all about the French Revolution, but nothing whatsoever about the Easter Rising or the Irish Civil War, both of which are more relevant to the history of Britain, and much more recent.

May I ask how long ago you went to school? The reason I ask is that I left secondary school in '93 (when I was 16, for non-UK people), and our history lessons covered the Troubles.

Originally posted by Corky
As an Irish person what mainly irritates me is the usage of the word 'Eire' to describe the Irish Republic.

Corky, does it really irritate you that some people use the Irish name for the Republic of Ireland? If that's the case, then kindly please stop referring to my country as the "United Kingdom", as that's an English term, you know.

[Corky]

Polycarp you are right in saying that the one word name for the Irish Republic when speaking Irish is 'Eire'
However the reality is that it is whilst speaking English that the British tend to use the word Eire.
I honestly do not accept that the length of time the state exists is relevant. Firstly neither you nor I were around 100 years ago and I suspect that the Irish Republic has existed for all your life (and mine!). Considering that Britain has accepted name changes in other former colonies such as Rhodesia (where?)it comes across as patronising to hear British people describe our country as Eire.
Having lived in Ireland for over 50 years I have never, ever, heard an Irish person describe our country as Eire when speaking English and if we can manage I'm sure the British can.
When I hear an English person refer to England as 'Sasana' which is the Irish word for England, perhaps I will accept that the conversation is bilingual. Until such a time I know that along with most other Irish people I find the use of the word Eire as patronising, irritating and simply wrong.

[Andy]

I have to say I've come across the use of Eire much more frequently among American than British friends. It seems some people think the Irish will find it more endearing. To me it sounds a little silly, as if you don't know the name in English.
I'm sure Ruadh will be along to clarify for us soon, but if we are going to use 'Eire", aren't we supposed to write it Éire. I seem to remember that she posted that 'Eire' means something different.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by Corky
Until such a time I know that along with most other Irish people I find the use of the word Eire as patronising, irritating and simply wrong.

Well I'm sorry it offends you so, but you have to admit that it's hardly the greatest mistake in the history of national relations is it?

Also, and purely from personal experience, I can't actually think of many people who do refer to Eire rather than Ireland. Are so sure it isn't a rather outdated figure of speech?

[APB]

Originally posted by Corky
Until such a time I know that along with most other Irish people I find the use of the word Eire as patronising, irritating and simply wrong.

Like Andy and Gary, I can't say I've noticed the widespread use of 'Eire' by British speakers. Indeed, to paraphrase you, I rather suspect that I've never, ever, heard a British person describe your country as Eire when speaking English. It does sometimes get used in writing, but invariably because the writer, far from showing the insensitivity jjimm complains about in the OP, actually thinks that they're respecting the cultural differences of the Irish. It is those writers who are most sympathetic to you who are most likely to make this 'mistake'. That's the thing about political correctness; so often it is just 'patronising, irritating and simply wrong'.

[freckles]

Originally posted by Andy
if we are going to use 'Eire", aren't we supposed to write it Éire.

Yes it should be éire (sorry I can't get a capital e, damn my computer skills :) ), not Eire and it is really only used when you are speaking the Irish language.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
Good for you. I'd suggest though that they might have more right to decide what label to call themselves by than you.My point was, in my OP, I referred to people who live on the island of Great Britain as British, and not those who live on the island of Ireland.

On the same topic, I think the following statement is incorrect:Originally posted by sirjamesp
Actually, it does have logic: the people of Northern Ireland hold British passports - that is to say they have British Nationality. Thus they are, of course, British.The passports they have are UK passports, not British ones. The term 'Britain' is a convenient catch-all in the way sirjamesp has used it, and not actually correct. See earlier post in this thread re. definition of United Kingdom.

Loyalists of course have the right refer to themselves as whatever they like; I however did not refer to them in the post. And herein lies part of the problem... does a Northern Irish nationalist therefore have the right to refer to themselves as a "citizen of the occupied 6 counties of the Republic of Ireland"? I personally think this is divisive and has no pragmatic use, but a lot of them would see it this way.

Finally:Originally posted by freckles
Yes it should be éire (sorry I can't get a capital e, damn my computer skills :) ), not Eire and it is really only used when you are speaking the Irish language.
My fiancée is an Irish speaker and comments that Éire is never in fact used by Irish speakers either - however, I think this dates back to the time of the Irish constitution being drawn up, and later dropped. So in this case it's bad PR by the Irish government, and not us Brits' fault, though I have heard a great many people in England who mistakenly use this term, albeit for all the 'right' (PC) reasons.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by micilin
anybody (apart from jjimm) believes that there is either a systemic/'cultural' lack of information or actual misinformation about Ireland and Irish history in the British media and/or educational system. I don't believe it - I just speculated. I was educated during the years of dear old Mrs T and Irish history was not high on our syllabus, or indeed at all. I wondered at the time if this was deliberate and wanted to know what other people thought, hence my OP.

As for burying the hatchet, I don't think there's one to be buried: I have apologised to Mr Kumquat for misquoting him, and I believe he has merely misinterpreted my terminology, and I forgive him for this.

[sirjamesp]

Originally posted by jjimm
On the same topic, I think the following statement is incorrect:Originally posted by sirjamesp
Actually, it does have logic: the people of Northern Ireland hold British passports - that is to say they have British Nationality. Thus they are, of course, British.The passports they have are UK passports, not British ones. The term 'Britain' is a convenient catch-all in the way sirjamesp has used it, and not actually correct. See earlier post in this thread re. definition of United Kingdom.
The passports are British in that they say "British Citizen" in the Nationality section.

[APB]

Originally posted by sirjamesp
Originally posted by jjimm
On the same topic, I think the following statement is incorrect:Originally posted by sirjamesp
Actually, it does have logic: the people of Northern Ireland hold British passports - that is to say they have British Nationality. Thus they are, of course, British.The passports they have are UK passports, not British ones. The term 'Britain' is a convenient catch-all in the way sirjamesp has used it, and not actually correct. See earlier post in this thread re. definition of United Kingdom.
The passports are British in that they say "British Citizen" in the Nationality section.

Because, in UK law, they are 'British citizens' and have 'British nationality'.

http://www.geocities.com/nationalite/BNA1981.rtf

[sirjamesp]

That is what I am saying. It is not illogical for someone from Northern Ireland to call themselves British since they are, in fact, British citizens.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by jjimm
I don't believe it - I just speculated. I was educated during the years of dear old Mrs T and Irish history was not high on our syllabus, or indeed at all. I wondered at the time if this was deliberate and wanted to know what other people thought, hence my OP.

Less deliberate than necessay, I'd suggest. Out of interest, how many countries include much history of other nations in their school syllabi? Schools can only dedicate a fixed amount of time to each subject, which does mean that there's going to be huge areas that they have to leave uncovered. I'd imagine that British schooling is very lacking on Irish history, but equally so with regards to France, Germany, Russia and so on.

[jjimm]

I stand utterly corrected on the nationality issue.

So there you go, if I'm that ignorant of my own nationality, how can I expect my compatriots to know about the country next door to them?

Having said that, Tony Blair is not the Prime Minister of Ireland (as was said to a colleague by a senior businessman in Basingstoke recently).

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by jjimm
Having said that, Tony Blair is not the Prime Minister of Ireland (as was said to a colleague by a senior businessman in Basingstoke recently).

Of course not - he's President, isn't he1?

1The above comment is meant as a joke at the style of Mr Blair's government, and in no way should be taken as an insult to the people of Ireland, Northern Ireland, the United States, or Burkina Faso for that matter

[freckles]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
Originally posted by jjimm
I don't believe it - I just speculated. I was educated during the years of dear old Mrs T and Irish history was not high on our syllabus, or indeed at all. I wondered at the time if this was deliberate and wanted to know what other people thought, hence my OP.

Less deliberate than necessay, I'd suggest. Out of interest, how many countries include much history of other nations in their school syllabi? Schools can only dedicate a fixed amount of time to each subject, which does mean that there's going to be huge areas that they have to leave uncovered. I'd imagine that British schooling is very lacking on Irish history, but equally so with regards to France, Germany, Russia and so on.

In Irish schools, we were taught a lot about English history, and I really do think that Irish history should be taught more in English schools as England had a lot to do with Ireland's history. I mean if it wasn't for English we could only imagine what Ireland would be like today :).

[sirjamesp]

Originally posted by freckles
In Irish schools, we were taught a lot about English history, and I really do think that Irish history should be taught more in English schools as England had a lot to do with Ireland's history. I mean if it wasn't for English we could only imagine what Ireland would be like today :).

I would guess that the discrepancy arises because Britain has had a huge effect on Irish history (hence British history finds its way into Irish schools), but Ireland has not had a huge effect on British history.

Hmmm... now that I re-read that sentence, it seems incredibly arrogant - but it isn't meant to be. I can't think of a better way of phrasing it, though.

I'm trying to get at the fact that Irish history is too tightly tied up with parts of British history for the latter to be ignored in Irish schools. These same events, however, have probably not been amongst the large factors that have influenced British history, so will struggle to find their way into British history lessons.

Mind you, as I pointed out earlier, modern Northern Irish history does feature in British classrooms now.

[APB]

Here is what the National Curriculum for England has to say on the subject.

All 7-11 year olds are required to study the following aspects of British history (for Key Stage 2):

British history
8 In their study of British history, pupils should be taught about:
a the Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings; Britain and the wider world in Tudor times; and either Victorian Britain or Britain since 1930
b aspects of the histories of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, where appropriate, and about the history of Britain in its European and wider world context, in these periods. [emphasis added]

The history taught to all 11-14 year olds must include the following (Key Stage 3):

7 In their study of local, British, European and world history, pupils should be taught about:
a significant events, people and changes from the recent and more distant past
b history from a variety of perspectives including political, religious, social, cultural, aesthetic, economic, technological and scientific
c aspects of the histories of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales where appropriate
d the history of Britain in its European and wider world context
e some aspects in overview and others in depth. [emphasis added]

One could argue that this is evidence of the British government encouraging the teaching of Irish history in English schools.

Moreover, my guess would be that Irish history is, if anything, overrepresented in English schools. The criticism which is now most frequently made about history teaching in England is that schools are concentrating on a narrowing ranch of topics, in particular, either the dictators of the 1930s or the nineteenth and twentieth century British history. Within the latter, the 'Irish problem' is almost always a major theme, not least because astute teachers realise that this is one topic which has very obvious contemporary consequences. What easier way is there to convince the kids that history is 'relevant' than to teach them about Ireland?

[jaimest]

I always thought that Éire was the official name used during the "Irish Free State" period. I know many WWII era works refer to the country as Éire.

But, as someone pointed out, we don't call other countries by their "native" name unless their government makes a concerted effort to have it changed in the foreign media. People still get confused between "Burma" and "Myanmar" for instance, even though "Burma" was officially dropped over a dozen years ago.

[ruadh]

Article 4 of the Irish Constitution:

The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.

Note that the official name in English is not "The Republic of Ireland" as many seem to believe.

And yes, I have heard numerous British people mistakenly refer to it as "Eire". In fact, as Andy referred to earlier, I've hollered at Dopers about it before :)

[Polycarp]

Gotcha, Corky. No problem, and I will use "Ireland" where there is no chance of confusion henceforth.

To clarify the "100 years" bit, what I implied by it was that the English language prior to 1900 tended to use Anglicized names for other places (Poland, not Polszka; Leghorn, not Livorno; Canton, not Kwangtung), and has not since. The Republic of Ireland dates from what, 1935? 1947?, with the Free State from 1922 -- after that date, in any case.

I took Burma as an interesting parallel. Yes, the nation calls itself Myanmar, and P.C. usage would use that name in English. But Burmah and then Burma has over 300 years of English usage, and seems to be the general usage for the land area occupied by the country of Myanmar, and often for the nation as well. Siam (vs. Thailand) seems to be a similar set of names.

[keithnmick]

I'm English, live in the US, and I'm well aware of the history of Ireland and it's status as a nation. I call Northern Ireland Northern Ireland(!), but I used to think it was correct to call Ireland "Eire" because when I was about five that was the name that was printed on the country in my (English language,) atlas. I remember it now. Nobody in the US knew what I was talking about so I switched then, and also after being educated through the World Cup, of course.

[yojimbo]

OK now that we've got nomenclature out of the way back to the OP.

Here's a few questions for the Brits.

1. Are you thought about Daniel O Connell in school?

If not I would ask why not? Catholic Emancipation (http://65.107.211.206/victorian/religion/cath2.html) should be covered IMO.

2. Are you thought at all about Charles Stuart Parnell. A Irish MP in Westminster. He caused a lot of hassle for the British Gov. and would probably merit a mention.

3. Are you thought about the The War of Independence 1919-1922 (http://homepage.tinet.ie/~tipperaryfame/independ.htm). No-brainer this one.

There are a lot more examples of Irish History being relevant to British History. Ireland and the UK have been intertwined for a very long time now. Irishmen sat in the House of Commons till early last century (and still do if you class the NI unionist as Irish ;) )

In Ireland we are thought a fair bit of British history but most of it is to help in the understanding of Irish History. Cromwell is a good example. We are thought about his actions at home as well as his little jaunt over here for a bit a sightseeing ;) He is put into context somewhat (there was a anti-Cromwell slant to the way I was thought it in Scholl but at least they did try to fill in some of the blanks)

I have meet a lot of English people who didn't have a clue about Irish History and the events that led to the recent troubles, BTW Fenian bombs in the UK are nothing new. Most Irish Joe Smoes would IMO know a lot more about British History than visa versa. This is because we have more access to British history that they do ours e.g. I turn on my TV and get CH.4 and BBC2 which carry a lot of high class documentaries about British History. Elizabeth and The Six Wives of Henry VIII being recent examples. AFAIK only some Welsh people have access to RTE1 or 2 and their output. Add to that newspapers/ books and TV news.

Reading back this post is a bit all over the place but there are too many people ringing me at the mo. to have a good editing session so I'll just post and be damned. Be nice :)

[sirjamesp]

I can only speak for my school, but:

1. Are you thought about Daniel O Connell in school?

No.

2. Are you thought at all about Charles Stuart Parnell. A Irish MP in Westminster. He caused a lot of hassle for the British Gov. and would probably merit a mention.

No.

3. Are you thought about the The War of Independence 1919-1922. No-brainer this one.

Yes! No, not really. The answer is "no" again. I just thought that three "no"s looked bad. ;)

We were not taught about any of these things at my school, for the simple reason that they do not figure hugely in British history. In our schools, Irish history is limited to those events that have affected us most - e.g. Cromwell's escapades (don't forget he wasn't too popular here, either), the Battle of the Boyne (since that affected who ruled the UK), Partition (since it affects the make-up of the UK today) and how such events affect Northern Ireland today.

Remember that school time is limited - teachers cannot cover everything that has ever happened. By and large, events are limited to those that have had a lasting impact on our nation.

The only thing in your list that some might argue should be taught in our schools is the Irish War of Independance - but, again, this isn't a big event in British history. We don't learn about the American War of Independance too; this is not due to "deliberate obfuscation" either, but, like I say, merely due to the fact that teaching time is limited.

[sirjamesp]

You'll also notice that I can't spell "independence", let alone talk about a war for it. :D

[yojimbo]

I may be looking at this from a Irish Catholic (Atheist but brought up RC) viewpoint but Catholic Emancipation was for ALL Catholics in Britain and Ireland. This surely fits goes against "We were not taught about any of these things at my school, for the simple reason that they do not figure hugely in British history."

Or is this a bias against Catholics in general :p ;) :D <= Just In Case :)

[yojimbo]

I just want to say

taught
taught
taught
taught
taught

:o

[Embra]

Ah, for survey's sake I'll add my answers:

1. Are you thought about Daniel O Connell in school?

I was.

2. Are you thought at all about Charles Stuart Parnell.

Him too. BTW I remember him chiefly because I share my first name with Ms. O'Shea...

3. Are you thought about the The War of Independence 1919-1922. No-brainer this one.

Interestingly, I don't remember being taught about this. I probably was, but I think it was the Suffragette movement which was the dominant topic for our post-WWI study. And the courses tended to end there.

However, for all of the above, I would add that I remember very little of what I was taught (and me a History graduate twice over: for shame!). These areas were covered when I was at school between the ages of about 11 and 13 (this was before the National Curriculum, I might add) in an overview course of British History between about 1800 and 1914. Interestingly, when we did look at a nationalist movement in depth, we looked at India from late 18th century to independence.

Catholic emancipation was covered later on as part of my O-grade (age 16) exam course, but not in particular depth. I think it was considered as part of the theme of the broadening of the franchise rather than anything else, and most of our energies re. that were concentrated on the Great Reform Act. Interestingly, the exam course, which I took in a Scottish school, had very little to say about Scottish politics or social history. I expect there were alternative courses the school could have chosen, but the course I followed was very "English" in its bearing.

Ireland also came up in the same course as one of the "three problems" facing the British government at the outbreak of war in 1914 (the others being Trades Unions and Suffragettes).

Personally, I agree with those who would see more of Britain's relationship with Ireland studied, particularly during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Although usually I get frustrated with people fighting about whose area of history should be studied over who else's (there is indeed only a finite amount of time in the curriculum :)), I do think that the political/constitutional set-up of the UK is still deeply affected by its relationship with Ireland and by the internal relationships of the so-called "home nations". And Northern Ireland (gads, I will never work out how to label all these places fairly: my apologies to anyone who is reading this and going "For the last time, imbecile, it's {insert favoured term here}!").

For all that, the problem of History remains: there's too much of the damned thing...

Embra, who forgets too much...

[jjimm]

Originally posted by sirjamesp
teaching time is limited.
Sir James, let me explain the reasons I disagree with the above statement.

During my secondary education (up to but not including O-level), from 1979-1982, I studied a subject entitled simply "History". This covered the following: The Tudors (though nothing about Ireland therein), Cromwell and the overthrow of the Crown (Ireland not mentioned), the American War of Independence, the French Revolution, the British Raj, and the origin of the First World War. But not the end of WWI: the curriculum ended at 1915.

I then took "Modern World History" at 'O' Level (1982-1984), which started in 1917, with the Russian Revolution, the Armistice, the Depression, WWII, Indian independence, the Chinese Communist revolution, the American Civil Rights movement, and continued to the 'present day' Cold War (1984) - with no mention of the Troubles.

In other words, the year 1916 was entirely missed out.

We had time to cover a lot of revolutions; surely there would have been time to cover the one closest to home, in which Britain played a major part, and which had relevance to events happening at the time (e.g. why had a Westminster MP recently starved himself to death, and why were nasty people blowing up McDonalds Oxford Street?)?

[manwithaplan]

If I can chime in as an Irish person who has very little problem with the level of knowledge of British people about Ireland. The key reason given in the OP for the importance of greater awareness of Irish issues amongst British people was that their votes can influence British policy in Ireland. It is true that British people (and southern Irish people for that matter) don't give Northern Ireland a thought before casting their ballot. Why should they? They have far more pressing domestic (yes, I'm a fenian;)) issues to consider. If I had the half-vote allowed to them under their wonderful electoral system, I wouldn't be wasting it on trying to meaningfully differentiate between the policies of the major parties on Northern Ireland. Some British people are outstandingly ignorant about Ireland but they are usually the ones who are also outstandingly ignorant about Britain. Does it make any difference to me? Not in the slightest. I stopped caring what the Brits thought a long time ago.

We in Ireland are the most over-sensitive bunch imaginable. We monitor the media constantly in case an Irish sportsman, musician etc. is mis-identified or mis-claimed as British. We can't wait to be insulted. While the North is a major outstanding issue, we in the South have had independence for eighty years. Isn't it about time we grew up.

I complain about Brits all the time but I quite like having the jump on them through access to their media and greater coverage of their history in our curriculum. God forbid that they become properly equipped to expose my barstool bullshit.

On a final note, many Northern Irish people don't have British passports - they exercise their rights as Irish citizens and carry Irish passports. If the rest got lost on the way home from the pub and think they're in Essex, then it's their prerogative to call themselves British.

[casdave]

Article 4 of the Irish Constitution:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


When the Irish constitution was written it also had a claim on Northern Ireland as part of one article.
Use of the word Ireland was seen as part of that claim, since there could only be one Ireland, note that's why it does not say Southern Ireland as this would have implied permanency over the partition of the island itself.

As for being informed over Irish politics and history, well much of what happened in Ireland was part of a much wider picture of 'spheres of influence' during the disputes with various popes and with Spain and the religious disputes involving Protestantism vs Catholicism, so if you are going to work on Iirsh history you need to put it in its true perspective, which relative to the larger picture, is not as large as perhaps the OP might wish.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by casdave
[quote]much of what happened in Ireland was part of a much wider picture of 'spheres of influence' during the disputes with various popes and with Spain and the religious disputes involving Protestantism vs Catholicism
My point is that I was not taught anything at all, and that struck me as odd, since it bore more relevance to domestic current events at the time than nearly anything else (apart from the Falklands War perhaps). Manwithaplan points out that the influence a British voter would have on NI is negligible, but since the full title of the Tories is "The Conservative and Unionist Party" (my emphasis), there is an indication that that particular mainstream British political party would have some clearly defined, erm, attitudes towards the situation.

A corollary to all the above is that my brother took History 'A' level, and did indeed study Irish history in depth (which he described as 'a great shock' since a] it involved Britain being generally unpleasant, and b] he had had no prior knowledge of this).

[APB]

First, to answer the questions put by yojimbo. At my (non-Catholic) secondary school (in Scotland), we were taught, in some detail, about Daniel O Connell, Charles Stuart Parnell and the 'War of Independence' of 1919-1922.

A fairer test however would be to check out for yourself some of the current textbooks on late nineteenth and early twentieth century British history intended for use in British secondary schools. I would be very surprised if you can find one which doesn't devote a fair amount of space to the subject of Ireland and which doesn't try to discuss it in an even-handed manner.

FWIW, my own impression is English schoolchildren are much more likely to be taught about Irish history than they are about Scottish history, let alone that real Cinderella of the English school curriculum, Welsh history.

[manwithaplan]

Originally posted by jjimm
Manwithaplan points out that the influence a British voter would have on NI is negligible, but since the full title of the Tories is "The Conservative and Unionist Party" (my emphasis), there is an indication that that particular mainstream British political party would have some clearly defined, erm, attitudes towards the situation.
[/B]

I wasn't suggesting that there was complete bipartisanship amongst the major British parties on the issue. From an Irish perspective, the differences in policy and approach can be significant but from the point of view of a British voter, poorly informed or not, they hardly constitute a major determinant of choice.

As a footnote, and I am the last person that could be described as an apologist for the Tories, it was under a conservative Government that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, that the statement of 'no selfish or strategic interest' was made and that the Downing Street Declaration was announced. I would contend that the 'Unionist' in their title now has more resonance in Scotland and Wales than in Northern Ireland.

[Nukeman]

Im British, and I happen to know about most of the things discussed about Ireland, mainly because I am interested in History, and tend to remember things I was taught in History, rather than, say, maths.

I think the real answer to this question is that most English people don't know much about their own country's history and geograpy, let alone Ireland's. [You just have to look at the 'Dumb Britain' section in Private Eye (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/dumb.htm) to know that].

[Nukeman]

sorry, that should read "most of the things discussed above about Ireland

[TwistofFate]

As a corollary to that, all I learned about oliver Cromwell was taught to my by Monty Python ;)

well everything about him that didnt relate to Ireland ;)


Casdave, we recently ammended our constitutional claim to the 6 counties, but the name still was not changed fromn Ireland ;)

Loyalists can call themselves British all they want. If they have a british passport, they can call themselves British.


Just like all the 6 county nationalists who can claim an Irish passport ;).


As for the what to call us question, Unless you're speaking in Irish, please refer to my country as Ireland.

[ruadh]

Originally posted by casdave
When the Irish constitution was written it also had a claim on Northern Ireland as part of one article. Use of the word Ireland was seen as part of that claim, since there could only be one Ireland, note that's why it does not say Southern Ireland as this would have implied permanency over the partition of the island itself.

Actually, it doesn't say "Southern Ireland" because nobody here uses that term.

You're correct about part of the constitution (originally) laying claim to the entire island, but do you have a cite for that being the reason "Ireland" was chosen as the official name? I'm not necessarily disputing it, but I don't see it claimed in any of the references I have to hand.

Also, I'm not sure what the alternative could have been. De Valera certainly wouldn't have wanted to keep the name "Irish Free State" since he opposed the creation of the Free State to begin with, and he couldn't call it "The Republic of Ireland" since it wasn't (de jure) a Republic at the time. "Ireland" may simply have been the most logical choice of a name.

[APB]

Of course, accepting that the political entity governed from Dublin can be called 'Ireland', even when it doesn't include the Six Counties, rather weakens the logic of any objections to the use of the term 'Britain' or 'Great Britain' to describe the political entity governed from London that does include them. Either you assume that 'Ireland' and 'Britain' have strict geographical definitions and can only be used as such, or you accept that other factors might legitimately be considered in the use of such terms.

[ruadh]

I understand what you're getting at APB but you're ignoring the fact that "Ireland" is the legally correct term for this island minus the Six Counties, and "Britain"/"Great Britain" is not the legally correct term for that island plus the Six Counties. As such there is nothing inconsistent about finding the first usage acceptable and the second usage not.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by ruadh
I understand what you're getting at APB but you're ignoring the fact that "Ireland" is the legally correct term for this island minus the Six Counties, and "Britain"/"Great Britain" is not the legally correct term for that island plus the Six Counties. As such there is nothing inconsistent about finding the first usage acceptable and the second usage not.

Just to clarify, you find it unnacceptable for people to refer to the Six Counties as part of Great Britain?

[Steve Wright]

The Six Counties of Northern Ireland are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If "Great Britain" included Northern Ireland, there would be no need to specify the "and Northern Ireland" bit. (Also, Northern Ireland should not be confused with northern Ireland.)

Hmmm... I seem to recall various people from Northern Ireland being, at one time or another, banned from visiting "the mainland", i.e. Great Britain. Does this imply that a UK citizen of Northern Ireland is not necessarily a British citizen? (Since the movement of British citizens around the various parts of Great Britain is not subject to restriction, this seems to imply a greater degree of separation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

(I hear the grinding sound of cans of worms being opened here...)

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
Just to clarify, you find it unnacceptable for people to refer to the Six Counties as part of Great Britain? It is politically and geographically incorrect to refer to the Six Counties as part of Great Britain, because (to recap): Great Britain is the name of the island that houses England, Scotland and Wales. Ireland is the name of the island that houses the Republic of Ireland (aka 'Ireland' or 'Éire' according to the Irish constitution) and Northern Ireland. 'British' is the nationality of people in Northern Ireland (if they choose to accept it).

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by jjimm
It is politically and geographically incorrect to refer to the Six Counties as part of Great Britain, because (to recap): Great Britain is the name of the island that houses England, Scotland and Wales. Ireland is the name of the island that houses the Republic of Ireland (aka 'Ireland' or 'Éire' according to the Irish constitution) and Northern Ireland. 'British' is the nationality of people in Northern Ireland (if they choose to accept it).

Speaking purely hypothetically, should the people of Northern Ireland take a vote and decide tomorrow that they'd like to be viewed as part of Britain, would that be "politically" acceptable?

[APB]

ruadh, I too understand what you're getting at, but, if I wanted to be provocative, I might suggest that the UK government, being fully aware of the various cultural and historical sensitivities involved, has taken care to adopt a formal description of its own country that is geographically accurate, whereas the Irish government apparently hasn't. ;)

(I normally find similies twee and irritating but it is at times like this that they have their uses.)

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
would that be "politically" acceptable?I don't know if you putting quotes around the word indicates you believe I'm being 'politically correct' - I'm not. There is a clear and acknowledged distinction between the name of the island of 'Great Britain', and the nationality 'British'. The former is a geographical definition, the latter a political one, accepted by all sides.

As for voting on it, that's for another GD.

[jjimm]

OK Gary, on re-reading I do realise I have got "politically" and "incorrect" in that order in the same sentence. But this is a real version of 'politically correct', rather than the PC version.

To draw a parallel, it's the same kind of political correctness that persuades me to call the land of my birth England, not France.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by jjimm
There is a clear and acknowledged distinction between the name of the island of 'Great Britain', and the nationality 'British'. The former is a geographical definition, the latter a political one, accepted by all sides.

I'm just curious as to why it's okay to refer to Orkney and Shetland as being part of Britain (or parts of Scotland, if you prefer) yet for some reason to refer to Northern Ireland as being part of Britain is wrong. I'm particularly curious as to why people should become offended by such a thing.

[jjimm]

As has been established, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom (noun) and is British (adjective), but is not in Great Britain (noun) as you originally asserted.

[manwithaplan]

Originally posted by jjimm
There is a clear and acknowledged distinction between the name of the island of 'Great Britain', and the nationality 'British'. The former is a geographical definition, the latter a political one, accepted by all sides.

As for voting on it, that's for another GD.


The island is 'Britain' not 'Great Britain'. 'Great Britain' is a political concept which came about with the Acts of Union with Wales and Scotland. Of course, you're right in saying it doesn't include Northern Ireland and that that is accepted by all sides.


In terms of the nomenclature generally, I know the following is well understood by most of the people here but some of the posts in this thread lead me to believe it's worth stating anyway.

'Ireland' - The name given to the state in the 1937 Constitution. Applied to the 32 counties with a proviso that laws enacted by the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) only have effect in the 26 counties pending the reintegration of the national territory. The amendment to articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution now means that, constitutionally, 'Ireland' now refers only to the 26 counties. Of course, geographically, pejoratively or just casually, 'Ireland' can be used to refer to the 32 counties.

'Britain' - The island of Britain, including England, Scotland and Wales.

'Great Britain' - The political union of England, Scotland and Wales.

'The United Kingdom' - The political union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

When you get into the issue of nationality, things aren't so clear. In addition the use of other terms such as 'Ulster', 'the Six Counties', 'the north' etc. all have political connotations but I would of thought that we could at least agree on the above.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by jjimm
As has been established, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom (noun) and is British (adjective), but is not in Great Britain (noun) as you originally asserted.

You've misquoted for the third time. Please try to recall that I didn't refer to mainland Britain, but the mainland British.

And my question still stands. Many people refer to the country as Great Britain. The inhabitants are British. Why then is it offensive to refer to Northern Ireland so? Isn't that just semantic nitpicking at best, and at worst a deliberate attempt to find issues to be offended by?

[APB]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
I'm just curious as to why it's okay to refer to Orkney and Shetland as being part of Britain (or parts of Scotland, if you prefer)...

The argument is that Orkney, Shetland, the Isle of Wight etc. aren't geographically part of Great Britain, which, according to some definitions, only refers to the largest island of the group. (And, despite what manwithaplan thinks, the correct geographical term is Great Britain, a usage which predates any political union.) Similarly, one can argue that any of the islands off Ireland, geographically defined, aren't part of Ireland, again geographically defined. Of course, this doesn't mean that the inhabitants of Orkney, Shetland, the Isle of Wight or whereever aren't British, Scottish, English or whatever, in exactly the same way as the inhabitants of Aran are Irish and the inhabitants of Hawaii are Americans.

[manwithaplan]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
Originally posted by jjimm
As has been established, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom (noun) and is British (adjective), but is not in Great Britain (noun) as you originally asserted.

You've misquoted for the third time. Please try to recall that I didn't refer to mainland Britain, but the mainland British.

And my question still stands. Many people refer to the country as Great Britain. The inhabitants are British. Why then is it offensive to refer to Northern Ireland so? Isn't that just semantic nitpicking at best, and at worst a deliberate attempt to find issues to be offended by?

If you are born in Northern Ireland, you're entitled to carry a British or an Irish passport. If you choose to carry an Irish passport (the primary piece of evidence of citizenship), you are entitled to be offended if someone calls you British. Similarly, northern unionists would be offended if you called them Irish (which is why it's such fun;))

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly on the issue of the name of the country but if 'many people' are including Northern Ireland in their references to Great Britain, then many people are wrong.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
You've misquoted for the third time.For once, I didn't misquote you - I was responding to the following:Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
Just to clarify, you find it unnacceptable for people to refer to the Six Counties as part of Great Britain? And the answer, again, is yes, it is incorrect.

[jjimm]

[counter-nitpick]
manwithaplan do you have a cite for the 'Great' part of that being related to the Union?

I have read that it comes from Ptolemy, who deemed the archipelago to be "Pritinos" (or something... in transliteration from the Greek), which the Romans called "Britannia", that comprised Albion and Hibernia, which were referred to as the Greater Britannia and the Lesser Britannia. Though I now cannot find the cite, dammit.

Anyway, from what I can find in modern dictionaries, 'Great Britain' is indeed the name of the island:

Great Britain: "an island of NW Europe"
(Merrion-Webster)

Great Britain: "an island comprising England and Scotland and Wales"
(WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University)

Great Britain: "An island off the western coast of Europe comprising England, Scotland, and Wales."
(American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

[/counter-nitpick]

[Polycarp]

As a nation, "Great Britain" existed by courtesy from 1603 to 1707 and de jure from 1707 to 1800. It consisted of the realm of England (including Wales) and the realm of Scotland, two separate kingdoms under one monarch between 1603-1647 and 1660-1707, James VI of Scotland and I of England preferring to be known as King of Great Britain as encompassing both his realms. When the kingdoms were merged under Anne in 1707, the term of Great Britain was adopted for the resulting single nation. In 1800, the Kingdom of Ireland, which had been under English control since Tudor times, was united with Great Britain to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922, when Home Rule was adopted for His Majesty's Irish Free State, the word "Northern" was inserted to note that the Six Counties had chosen to remain within the United Kingdom. While I am totally repelled by the complete ignorance of most of the English vis-a-vis the condition of Ireland between 1485 and 1922, one has to admit that the Irish have unilaterally played fast and footloose with the agreement established in 1922 between the two countries.

[yojimbo]

Originally posted by manwithaplan
In addition the use of other terms such as 'Ulster',

Ulster is used by some to refer to the six counties when actually its .... Ouch, who threw that apple? :D


Carry on boys.

[manwithaplan]

jjimm, APB, humble apologies. I am wrong. As wrong as a very wrong thing. I will not allow my received understandings to be posted unchecked in future. And I was so pompous about it:o. It just shows you how culturally neutered I am that I always believed that the 'Great' was due to some political vanity or meant 'greater than the sum of its parts' rather than a classical derivation.

I'll still call it Britain though;)

[jjimm]

Originally posted by yojimbo
[QUOTE]Ouch, who threw that apple?Are you sure they didn't throw an orange?

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by jjimm
For once, I didn't misquote you - I was responding to the following:Originally posted by Gary Kumquat
Just to clarify, you find it unnacceptable for people to refer to the Six Counties as part of Great Britain?

Unfortunately, you are still misquoting.

Originally posted by jjimm
Northern Ireland is not in Great Britain (noun) as you originally asserted.

In case you don't see the distinction, a question is not an assertion.

Now, with regards to the quotation game, here's Encyclopedia.com (http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/05334.html)


Great Britain
officially United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, constitutional monarchy (1996 est. pop. 57,412,000), 94,226 sq mi (244,044 sq km), on the British Isles, off W Europe. The country is often referred to simply as Britain.

And again I fail to understand why people should be offended if people refer to Northern Ireland as being part of Britain, rather than part of the United Kingdom? What's the big difference?

[yojimbo]

Gary there isn't a big difference and somebody that gets offended needs to get a grip IMO but the point I think being made is that it's technically wrong.

It's all very nitpicky stuff really.

It almost worth throwing in a "Tiocfaidh ar La" etc. in just to get away from this stuff but there's a word for that ;)

[jjimm]

originally posted by Gary Kumquat
a question is not an assertionYou're right. Not good to offend people with the minutae of semantics, is it? ;)

[ruadh]

Originally posted by Polycarp
...one has to admit that the Irish have unilaterally played fast and footloose with the agreement established in 1922 between the two countries.

Unilaterally? You don't want to get me started on the Boundary Commission again do you? ;)

[London_Calling]

I'd like to be misquoted, please.

Certainly sir. Have you been here before?

No, I haven't, this is my first time.

I see. Well, do you want to have just one misquote, or were you thinking of taking a course?

[jjimm]

Originally posted by London_Calling
I'd like to be misquoted, and I am a gigantic badger.Glad to be of service. Now take back what you said about badgers.

[London_Calling]

Help Matron ! I'm being badgered !!!!!..........

[Nukeman]

"Look, if we built this large wooden badger..."

[PeeQueue]

And again I fail to understand why people should be offended if people refer to Northern Ireland as being part of Britain, rather than part of the United Kingdom? What's the big difference?

I think you're missing a small point. It is not so much that people would get offended, it is just incorrect. Just as Cuba is not part of the USA. Britain, or Great Britain is an actual political and geographical place. The United Kingdom(UK) is the name of the nation.

This is not to say that people don't refer to it as Britain, Great Britain, and many times, England. But in reality, those names do not include Northern Ireland. I don't think most people would correct you in the real world, but hey, this is the SDMB.

PeeQueue