Monday, September 29, 2008
“History is like a knife..”
The report in the Sunday Tribune on the Oireachtas Select Committee on Education and Science report on teaching modern Irish history contains a compelling argument.
History teachers said they avoided Northern Ireland because it “can raise discriminatory attitudes in class and name calling”. There was little support for introducing it in the classroom, they said.
Other reasons given by teachers for avoiding the subject were they felt they lacked knowledge of the subject and believed they could not compete with the information the students got from their communities and families. [added emphasis]
But the report warns this will have to change. “If students do not learn about modern Irish history in a school context, will they be skilled enough to interpret what they see in the media outside school?” it asks.
Among the report’s recommendations [Word doc]
Recommendations:
• There needs to be a full acceptance at political level that History is a subject that can assist in a very vital part of a child’s development in this era of changing dynamics and continue to support changes that are still deemed necessary.
• Former approaches to History stressed a single interpretation of events as being “the Truth”. It is now internationally accepted that there can be many views and interpretations, which are based on evidence, and there is validity to the Multiple Perspective approach that assists and encourages students to respect diversity and cultural difference rather than reinforce the more negative aspects of Nationalism.
Pete Baker @ 10:10 AM
Which of the 2 histories are they going to teach?
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 10:29 AM“Which of the 2 histories...”
Which 2 histories are you cherrypicking out of the many available to posit only 2?
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 10:37 AMtell me all the histories you see htb
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 10:59 AMSteve,
Religion, class, gender, nationalist, unionist, socialist, Ireland as part of Britain, Ireland as part of Europe, Irish diaspora, economic etc etc.
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 11:06 AM“Ireland as part of Britain” would be better dealt with in Geology.
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 11:23 AMWell El Paso, I could have said the UK but I was also thinking before 1800. And British Crown possessions took too long to type.
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 11:24 AMthe schizophrenia has to end:
Irish people pretending they’re British for e.gPosted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 11:45 AMGari
Those arent different histories they are different sections of history
As I see it there are 2 basic histories to nIreland
Nationalists see it as an illegal and immoral occupation by the english government that allowed unionists to murder, rob and disenfranchise people as they seen fit
Unionists see it as paeceful wonderful part of the UK in which they are constantly attacked with out provocation by the feninan bastatards they so graciously allow to be second class citizens instead of slaves
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 12:41 PMWhile these Irish historians waste their time focusing on Irish history, the true nature of Ulster’s history will undoubtedly shine through.
Irish Nationalists and Republicans who live in Ulster should firstly acknowledge Ulster’s uniqueness on this island and secondly understand what made the Ulster people, before trouble started. They should also stop forcing Irish nationality and identity onto the Ulster people and allow the Ulster people to learn their unique history on this island.
Irish Nationalism/Island Unity is the root problem behind our troubles, not those people who invaded. The sooner Nationalists and Republicans realise that when people on this island, or people from elsewhere, claim they own the island and want all it’s people Nationalised in one form or another, this is when the trouble starts. Brian Boru claimed he was king of the island, and the Ulster people resisted him, the Pope claimed he owned, gave it to King Henry II and the Ulster people resisted.
The problem is the idea of Irish Nationalism/Irish unity.
Irish Nationalists and Republicans should stop restricting Ulster and it’s people by borders and counties. That idea where Ulster and it’s people were hemmed in by borders into a workable area is alien to them in the first place. The idea is based on others managing the Ulster people instead of the Ulster people managing themselves. It’s a restriction placed upon them, forced by foreigners in order to nationalise either to pay St.Peters pence or to indoctrinate them with rules. When Irish Nationalists and Republicans use these restrictions on Ulster, they are doing the work of their masters the English and the Roman Priests.
Foreigners with grand ideas have destroyed the true nature of Ulster. It’s about time, people woke up to this fact.
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 12:47 PMUMH
Are you trying to claim back the missing three from the republic?
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 12:51 PMSteve,
Lots of people would totally dispute your definition of those as sections of history, myself included. You see it as two basic histories. But historians of gender, for example, would argue that both those types of history have marginalised the history of gender, and told us very little about it. I think its best to accept that there are multiple strands of history, and we choose to stress those we prefer.
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 01:03 PM”Are you trying to claim back the missing three from the republic?”
You obviously haven’t read my post. The decision of how large or how small Ulster is, lies with the Ulster people, noone else.
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 01:18 PMCould we try to focus on the actual topic?
Which, in the case of the Oireachtas report, is the point, made by teachers, that there is a difficulty in teaching modern Irish history [particularly NI history] when it has to ”compete with the information the students got from their communities and families.”
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 01:25 PM“Unionists see it as paeceful wonderful part of the UK in which they are constantly attacked with out provocation by the feninan bastatards they so graciously allow to be second class citizens instead of slaves”
LOL - Why don’t you volunteer to teach Northern Ireland history to our Southern cousins’ children Steve - with such a remarkable knack for accurately capturing the mentality and history of “themmuns” you could easily help nurture and brainwash - sorry - instruct a new generation of future Irish “patriots” for the struggle ahead....
You could also get your friend Percy to run a parallel class in the stupidity of the planter idiots still “pretending” to be British - and after all this time too....shocking!Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 01:34 PMUMH
Ulster peole werent asked their opinion only unionists
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 01:52 PMSorry, Ulster’s my homeland, but the people who invaded are indeed the problem in my eyes. Back then in the violent days of the plantation they came to this island with distinct orders from their English masters; be loyal to the English crown and suppress the disloyal Gaelic natives as vehemently as possible.
400 years on and the descendants of the Ulster settlers passionately carry on their “loyal” work, to the detriment of this island.
But Ulster is no more distinct on this island than is Connaught, Munster or Lenister. All 4 provinces have their own proud, unique histories.
It’s all combined Irish history in the end. And Connaught was declared a Republic in 1798 before NI was ever dreamt about by Loyalists so if anything we in the west are more “special” than all you other provincial muckers!
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 01:55 PMLooks like Republic of Connaught could join Percy and Steve in administering the new “6 counties” history module down Mexico way - opening lesson entitled “The problem all started with themmuns and here’s why!”....LOL!
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 02:09 PMDemocratic, up in Alaska you lot might finally start learning a lesson called “integrating into host country”.
Saves a lot of problems in the long term when you move to a new place, as the Vikings and Normans proved on this island before the unruly ones arrived in Ulster.
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 02:27 PMRepublic of Connaught
”Sorry, Ulster’s my homeland, but the people who invaded are indeed the problem in my eyes.”
No need to apologise. If you think it’s the invaders who are to blame and not the ideas they bring, can you explain why the vikings are not considered enemies in the same sense the English are? Both tool advantage that the island wasn’t nationalised and both brought the same ideas of island unity/Nationalism. So if it’s the people who are the problem can you clarify why the people matter more than the ideas they bring?
”Back then in the violent days of the plantation they came to this island with distinct orders from their English masters; be loyal to the English crown and suppress the disloyal Gaelic natives as vehemently as possible.”
Hold on a minute, you seem to be stuck in a time warp here. I’m not necessarily referring to one period in time, I’m looking a trend through different periods.
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 02:34 PMRepublic of Connaught: you lot might finally start learning a lesson called “integrating into host country”.
Or “You will be assimilated”. Unlike the Gaels before us, who managed to transplant much of their culture and language; or the Europeans who colonised the two American continents.
History will tell, eventually. But, as Chou En Lai said - “It’s too soon to tell”.
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 02:40 PM“Democratic, up in Alaska you lot might finally start learning a lesson called “integrating into host country”.”
LOL - Maybe that’s the conclusion you should look for in the essays of your future pupils Republic of Whatsisname - send all those pesky Northern Prod Planter types off to Alaska - that’ll learn ‘em. At least it’s original I suppose - drive ‘em back across/into sea is the classicical republican tosh. ....Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 02:45 PMUMH,
The Vikings didn’t try and govern the island from Scandinavia for a few centuries. They settled and became, “more Irish than the Irish themselves”.
The English could have done the same as the Scandinavians and became as native as anyone else here; but that wasn’t their aim. Perpetually using Ireland as a colony for England’s agenda was their sole aim.
The invaders in and of themselves aren’t a problem because they were/are of the same race and also christians.
Complete failure to integrate with the majority “natives” was and is the problem with Ulster Loyalists. All countries have regional differences, but Ulster Loyalists believe themselves to be from another planet to catholic Irish, which is a farce.
All people on the British Isles are pretty much the same from a global perspective. That doesn’t mean England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales shouldn’t be politically independent countries if the majority wish it so. As they did in Ireland before partition.
As they will in Scotland in 20 years.
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 02:51 PMDemocratic, you initially use Mexico to describe the South but if I use Alaska in retort I’m the aggressor? LOL. Hypocrite?
Did Unionist governments and their policies not try and “encourage” pesky Taigs to go down to “Mexico” for long enough? The irony is comical if you had the wit to grasp it.
Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 03:05 PM“Complete failure to integrate with the majority “natives” was and is the problem with Ulster Loyalists. All countries have regional differences, but Ulster Loyalists believe themselves to be from another planet to catholic Irish, which is a farce.”
Your narative gets better and better Republic - keep it coming....British and proud my friend (and feeling moreso every time a thread like this comes up!) - you remember to pass that on to your charges too…Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 03:10 PM“Democratic, you initially use Mexico to describe the South but if I use Alaska in retort I’m the aggressor? LOL. Hypocrite!”
Ah so that’s what the Alaska business was about - a misunderstanding then - I was thinking in more literal terms - my apologies for that one Republic.Posted by on Sep 29, 2008 @ 03:14 PM
