Why are Brits ignorant of Ireland?

Great Debates
41

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. :wink:

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.

42

You’ll also notice that I can’t spell “independence”, let alone talk about a war for it. :smiley:

43

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 :stuck_out_tongue: :wink: :smiley: <= Just In Case :slight_smile:

44

I just want to say

taught
taught
taught
taught
taught

:o

45

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

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

I was.

  1. 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…

  1. 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…

46

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?)?

47

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.

48

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.

49

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by casdave *
**

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).

50

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.

51

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.

52

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 to know that].

53

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

54

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

well everything about him that didnt relate to Ireland :wink:
Casdave, we recently ammended our constitutional claim to the 6 counties, but the name still was not changed fromn Ireland :wink:

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.

55

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.

56

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.

57

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.

58

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

59

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…)

60

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).