BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:10 PM

professor, have you ever considered reading the book yourself.

Have you ever considered forming your own opinion.


Read the book and then, if you disagree with the contents, formulate your own argument with the research in it.







I'll not hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 May 16 - 02:06 PM

Once again Terricola your state 500,000 people in Ulster would have taken up arms. Once again I ask you justify those figures.



I'll wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 01:44 PM

"Your argument appears to be that the reason they happened was that the laww book says they had to - where is your evidence for anybody ever claiming this?"

The Treason Act as in force at that time:

1: They had colluded with the enemy in time of war
2: They had taken up arms against the Crown in time of War
3: "Having organised and trained her manhood through her secret revolutionary organisation, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and through her open military organisations, the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army, having patiently perfected her discipline, having resolutely waited for the right moment to reveal itself, she now seizes that moment, and supported by her exiled children in America and BY GALLANT ALLIES IN EUROPE [GERMANY], but relying in the first on her own strength, she strikes in full confidence of victory."

The penalty for treason at the time was death - that sentence was not discretionary it was MANDATORY - Do you know what that means???

The bit about "kangaroo courts" didn't come from Wiki did it Jom - your opinion - NOT FACT.

Those who signed the Proclamation were undoubtedly guilty of Treason, Sir Roger Casement was undoubtedly guilty of Treason and they suffered the penalty required by law for that crime.

As for the "she strikes in full confidence of victory." - now that was a downright lie wasn't it Jom as those making that declaration had already sent out the orders for the IRB and IVF throughout Ireland to stand down, thereby condemning the Rising to certain defeat and failure.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 01:19 PM

"Now let us see what Wiki has to say about treason laws as applicable in the UK at the time:
"
Where doers that in any way contradict Wiki's statement on the Executions
Are you claiming that Maxwell didn't order the executions (some of the victims of which were picked at random)?
Are you suggesting that the manner of the kangaroo cout trials weren't against the rules of a fair trial?
If the Government was responsible for these executions why weren't the breaches of law commented on.
Where has anybody ever suggested that the reason these executions took place was because they were duty bound to carry them out?
Your argument appears to be that the reason they happened was that the laww book says they had to - where is your evidence for anybody ever claiming this?
The rule book says that the army wasn't allowed to execute non-combatants - yet it happened on several occasions -ncluding the murders carried out by Capt. Colthurst.
C'mon - if they were compulsory somebody would have put that up as a defence for such a monumental cock-up.
They were acts of revenge decided on illegally by people who should not by law have had a say in the matter.
WEven you can do better than wave a rule book -where has hat ever been documented as a reason?
Ireland was not committed to the war so the rules of that war do not apply - those executed were not British citizens, as you have been at pains to point out about all Irishmen in the past.
A feeeee-ble attept at an excuse.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 01:16 PM

"a Civil War that Britain forced on the Irish"

WOW I am absolutely dying to hear what convoluted logic has to be applied to make that argument.

By the by Jom you never did come back to me on that question:

Which would have been worse and which would have lasted longest - A Civil War fought between 15,000 IRA men and 55,000 Men of the Irish Army OR A Civil War fought between 70,000 men backing an Independent Ireland and almost 500,000 men and women totally committed to the Unionist cause. Logic and reason would seem to favour the answer that the latter would be far worse.

The Irish Civil War was the fault of Eamon de Valera and the IRA not accepting the deal that gave Ireland it's independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 16 - 01:03 PM

You claim that Britain had no alternative but to execute the rebel leaders because there was a war on. - See Below

Here are the facts as I have always understood them.

That has never been put up as a reason for them happening - See Below, they took place at the behest of General Maxwell alone, they were held in secret, and those charged were not allowed to offer a defence of any shape or form - they were revenge-taking kangaroo courts - a disgrace to the army and a disgrace to the Empire, some aspects of the 'trials' were actually illegal by both military and civil standards.
Controversially, Maxwell decided that the courts-martial would be held in secret and without a defence, which Crown law officers later ruled to have been illegal.[132] Some of those who conducted the trials had commanded British troops involved in suppressing the Rising, a conflict of interest that the Military Manual prohibited."

Now Jom would like us to believe that the above was all stated in the Wiki Article - but it was not was it Jom.

Now let us see what Wiki has to say about treason laws as applicable in the UK at the time:

United Kingdom

The British law of treason is entirely statutory and has been so since the Treason Act 1351 (25 Edw. 3 St. 5 c. 2). The Act is written in Norman French, but is more commonly cited in its English translation.

The Treason Act 1351 has since been amended several times, and currently provides for four categories of treasonable offences, namely:

"when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir";
"if a man do violate the King's companion, or the King's eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir";[24][25]
"if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"; and
"if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King's justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices".

Another Act, the Treason Act 1702 (1 Anne stat. 2 c. 21), provides for a fifth category of treason, namely:

"if any person or persons ... shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown ... from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging".

By virtue of the Treason Act 1708, the law of treason in Scotland is the same as the law in England, save that in Scotland the slaying of the Lords of Session and Lords of Justiciary and counterfeiting the Great Seal of Scotland remain treason under sections 11 and 12 of the Treason Act 1708 respectively.[26] Treason is a reserved matter about which the Scottish Parliament is prohibited from legislating. Two acts of the former Parliament of Ireland passed in 1537 and 1542 create further treasons which apply in Northern Ireland.

The penalty for treason was changed from death to a maximum of imprisonment for life in 1998 under the Crime And Disorder Act.[27] Before 1998, the death penalty was MANDATORY, subject to the royal prerogative of mercy. Since the abolition of the death penalty for murder in 1965 an execution for treason was unlikely to have been carried out.

Treason laws were used against Irish insurgents before Irish independence.

Counter to what you believe the Military Council who were the only people pushing for this armed rising WERE in contact with the German Government Casement and Plunkett had actually been in Germany trying to convince the Germans to land troops in Ireland. Germany sent guns, ammunition and explosives fortunately they all were lost when the German ship Aud scuttled herself off the Irish port of Cork.

Had the Courts Martial been held "in Public" the fact that British Naval intelligence had broken German Naval codes might have been exposed and in April 1916 that may well have had a significant effect on the war as less than two months later the German High Seas Fleet set sail and the Battle of Jutland was fought.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 01:02 PM

Far easier to scoop a line from somebody who doesn't like Coogan's book
"A thought-provoking read"
Bestseller
Haven't read the book, but that doesn't stop a man with a mission who hasn't read any book
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 12:22 PM

Irish Times.

"1916: The Mornings After review: Tim Pat Coogan's arrogant travesty of Irish history
Ireland's 'best known historical writer' utterly fails in this badly researched 'personal perspective' of the Irish century, says Diarmaid Ferriter

By page 20 of this truly dreadful book Tim Pat Coogan has puffed himself up to the extent that he has an important announcement to make: he is publishing a "hitherto unpublished" letter from Patrick Pearse to the Fenian John Devoy in New York, written in August 1914.
"I consider the document to be so important as to merit being published in full," Coogan declares. The problem is that the text of the letter is not previously unpublished. It is an exact copy of the letter that Pearse sent to Devoy's colleague Joseph McGarrity the same day and that was published in full 35 years ago, in Séamas Ó Buachalla's The Letters of PH Pearse.
On the basis of this example and many others Coogan is not remotely interested in looking at what others have written on 20th-century Irish history. He describes this book as a "strongly personal perspective" on Ireland since 1916. But he does not appear interested in context and shows scant regard for evidence. He does not attempt to offer any sustained analysis in relation to the challenges of state building, the meaning of sovereignty, economic and cultural transformations, or comparative perspectives on the evolution of Irish society

There is no indication whatsoever that Coogan has engaged with the abundant archival material relating to the subject matter he pronounces on."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 12:16 PM

"So when Irishmen go to war with Irishmen, it is still Britain's fault!"
Unbelieveable

AGREED!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 May 16 - 12:16 PM

Tell you what professor, read Tim Pat Coogans book 1916, The Mornings After and I,ll engage in conversation with you again.



That should give me a considerable break.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 11:58 AM

"So when Irishmen go to war with Irishmen, it is still Britain's fault!"
Unbelieveable
I have no intentions of feeding this troll and I sincerely hope nobody else does.
This is really ploutering around in the slime.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 11:48 AM

So when Irishmen go to war with Irishmen, it is still Britain's fault!
I suppose everything else in the world is.

but to suggest that what happened was worse than the Tans is partisan nonsense

It was said by an IRA man who was there. The "Harry Patch" of the civil war.

I did not I drew those dated from your own link and indicated the timeline.

No you didn't. Nothing in any of my links suggest any change in the curriculum before 1970.
That is why you have not, and can not produce any quote to substantiate such made up tosh.

Nowhere and at not time has anybody ever suggested Irish children weer brainwashed to "hate the British" as you originally suggested
Yes they have.
Kinealy states that they were fed "nationalist myths" as history.
That is brainwashing Jim.
O'Callaghan states that the children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-British" propaganda. "Indoctrinated" is another word for "brainwashing" Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 11:17 AM

Your behaviour here is beyond belief Keith
You know nothing of Ireland and you have no interest in its history, yet you scratch around the net looking for ways to denigrate the Irish people, their beliefs and their history.
Using a Civil War that Britain forced on the Irish really is scraping the bottom of the barrel to express your hatred.
We have spent thirty odd years recording Irish people about their culture, their traditions and their history, particularly their social history.
One of the things we have never managed to do is get anybody to talk about the Civil war - nearly one hundred years after the event it remains a festering sore.
Shortly after we started recording here we ceased asking about the War out of respect for the people on both sides who have always struck us as kind, welcoming to strangers and generous with their time and information.
While I would hate to see you waste the effort on digging up more garbage in your crusade, can I request that as far as this is concerned you leave this alone.
Britain caused the Civil War by forcing through an agreement that neither the Republicans nor the Free Staters wanted - the former were prepared to fight partition, The Staters believe that the question of partition would eventually resolved with reunification.         
It's more than a little sick for an Empire Loyalist like yourself to use a war Britain brought about against the Irish people
Kindly leaver it out - out of simple hunman respect, if nothing else.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 10:35 AM

"Jim, what is your opinion of the Irish men shot by the Irish firing squads of the civil war?"
I think the Irish Civil War was an appalling affair caused by the betrayal of the British Government in forcing through a Treaty.
Atrocities happened, as do in any war, but to suggest that what happened was worse than the Tans is partisan nonsense - no rapes, no torture, no mass destruction - just Irishman fighting Irishman
"Jim made that up in desperation to save his own silly face."
I did not I drew those dated from your own link and indicated the timeline.
Nowhere and at not time has anybody ever suggested Irish children weer brainwashed to "hate the British" as you originally suggested - you have never produced an example of anybody saying so, in the past or now.
Please do not accuse me of making things up with your track record.
Perhaps you might help Terrytoon out and answer the question which touches on both your claims - no/ - thought not!
Do you not realise how deep a hole you pair have dug for yourself.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:58 AM

Last quote,
http://www.irishfreedom.net/Irish%20Republican%20News/Dan%20Keating%20interview.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:49 AM

Jim, what is your opinion of the Irish men shot by the Irish firing squads of the civil war?

"Hardened by the brutalities they had witnessed in France these men (Free State Army)showed no mercy in their dealings with anti-treaty forces. "They were far worse than the Black and Tans" asserts Dan. "They murdered nineteen republican prisoners at Ballyseedy Cross, Countess's Bridge and elsewhere in Kerry in three days. The Tans never did anything as bad as that", he says. "It was
very easy to get killed at that time", remembers Dan."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:40 AM

Rag, O'Callaghan said that Irish children were "indoctrinated" (aka brainwashed) with "anti-British" propaganda.
Your quotes did not dispute that.
Kinealy said that "nationalist myths" were taught as history.

Neither said that anything changed when Free State morphed in to the Republic.
Jim made that up in desperation to save his own silly face.

Here is another source that supports my view."Catholicism and the Curriculum: The Irish Secondary School Experience, 1922-62"

"This history was "shaped by nationalistic fervour" and a "desire to establish a legitimate continuity for Irish separatism."(16)

The approach to Irish history showed the concurrence of dominant ideologies of Catholicism and conservative nationalism. John Broderick has characterised this as follows:

The idea of history that we got was that we had been oppressed by our neighbours, the British, for seven hundred years; that the Catholic religion in particular had been suppressed and was persecuted; that there had been a great revival in the nineteenth century with Catholic Emancipation through Daniel O'Connell, and that Catholicism thrived under that, but that coming into the twentieth century we were being Englified and we were becoming more and more part of the United Kingdom and that was why 1916 came about; this had to be broken, the Irish people had to be shown what their heritage was. In a capsule this was the history of Ireland.(17)

Educators encouraged the teaching of this perspective on Irish history through study of outstanding individuals and significant incidents. Teachers were informed that the continuity of the separatist idea should be stressed and that pupils should be imbued with the ideals and aspirations of revolutionaries. The other side of this emphasis on Irish language and culture was a bias against Protestant Anglo-Irish culture. This exclusion was blatant with respect to the teaching of English. "

"Only after 1960 were educators to change attitudes towards the curriculum in the interest of meeting social and economic needs, helped by a more open-minded outlook in the wider society--a matter for another study."
Thomas A. O'Donoghue
http://www.edu.uwo.ca/hse/98odonoghue.html

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:35 AM

Couple of typos in there for you to use, if you can't find any arguments - want me to point them out for you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 16 - 09:29 AM

"But with all that it hasn't affected you in the least Jom."
Haven't you got round to the fact that small minded insulting gets threads closed - or perhaps, given the shape of your position, that's what you're trying for.
If you actually have an argument, why not put it (with references, of course)?
You have the facts - you respond with denials.
Lat's see if we can't make it simple for you.
You claim that Britain had no alternative but to execute the rebel leaders because there was a war on.
Here are the facts as I have always understood them.
That has never been put up as a reason for them happening, they took place at the behest of General Maxwell alone, they were held in secret, and those charged were not allowed to offer a defence of any shape or form - they were revenge-taking kangaroo courts - a disgrace to the army and a disgrace to the Empire, some aspects of the 'trials' were actually illegal by both military and civil standards.
Controversially, Maxwell decided that the courts-martial would be held in secret and without a defence, which Crown law officers later ruled to have been illegal.[132] Some of those who conducted the trials had commanded British troops involved in suppressing the Rising, a conflict of interest that the Military Manual prohibited."
(Wiki entry on The Rising).
Now - why not show us, with evidence, that this is wrong - or are you going to stick with "just the same old myths"
"You have quoted the Daily mail as a reputable source before now Jom "
I have never at any time suggested the Daily Mail to be a "reliable source" (pretty much a waste of time asking you to show where I have - you appear not to lower yourself to actually substantiating what you say)
As far as I am concerned, The Daily Mail is a right-wing bum-wipe that has never managed to break with its history of support for Hitler and Fascism).
What I have said is that if The Daily Mail makes a positive statement in favour of anything vaguely to the left of Mein Kampf, it is possibly true - for instance, if they criticise the right-wing establishment, then they must have done something really, really bad.
I'm quite happy to condemn the right wing with the words of their own supporters - it is no indication that I trust the bastards or regard them as in any way reliable.
Oddly enough, I now regard The Times in the same way - from a reliably, informative newspaper to a tablid rad in the hands of Murdoch - I still take it for 'Codeword'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 May 16 - 05:53 PM

Wait a minute, WAIT A MINUTE!

First off, is this Kineally guy alive or dead?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 May 16 - 05:33 PM

Oh, for crying out loud!, The Daily Mail [which btw I don't read -- I take the Times becoz I like its crosswords best] is only a newspaper, with a particular slant on the news; slightly rightwards, but no more tendentious than is *The Guardian's equally leftward one. Why the Mail is commonly so monsterised by the Professional-Leftie-Brigade is a constant cause of considerable wonderment to many!

≈M≈

*to which I was a regular contributor of theatre, book & folk reviews,as also The Times, for ¼+C... I have probably mentioned here before that, at one Cambridge Folk Festival, Maurice Rosenbaum, a member of the Communist Party but the definitely right-wing Daily Telegraph's longtime folk critic, and I, who was there to review it for far further left The Guardian, once agreed that if there were any sort of sense in the Universe we would swop papers; but that's just not the way things work...

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:18 PM

"I don't know what you read (I don't count The Daily Mail and the Beano as reading), but",/i>

You have quoted the Daily mail as a reputable source before now Jom - something to do with arms to Syria I believe. WAZZA MATTER Jom your irrefutable source when it suits you but something to be totally dismissed when it doesn't - as far as integrity goes you are utterly bankrupt.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:08 PM

"Maybe in the past they did, nowadays our education systems a far more enlightened, far more open to scrutiny and our teachers represent a far more balanced cross section of the population, so much so that the right-wing press often refers to them as "leftie""

But with all that it hasn't affected you in the least Jom.

Still no facts, just the same old myths and the same old emotive crap - one of the world's most experienced victims - whose motto is - IT's ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE's FAULT - you should have it tattooed on your forehead.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 02:35 PM

My quotes are from the same source professor. As I said you probably haven't bothered to read and absorb the full article, you've seen a sentence which you think supports your argument with going to the trouble of understanding the whole picture. That, I'm afraid, is par for the course for you. Many people are used to it, but that doesn't excuse your ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 02:22 PM

Jim and Rag, the O'Callaghan paper I linked to is quite clear that nothing changed when the Free State became a Republic, that the academic community failed to get things changed in the 30s, and that the abuse persisted until the seventies.
Kinealy says the same.

The quotes I provided are quite unequivocal. The ones that Rag put up to not challenge that in any way.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 02:18 PM

"I think education systems in every country brainwash children with their own take on history, "
Wiggle - wiggle.
Maybe in the past they did, nowadays our education systems a far more enlightened, far more open to scrutiny and our teachers represent a far more balanced cross section of the population, so much so that the right-wing press often refers to them as "leftie"
Schools are far more answerable to parents response, but in the case of Ireland, you claim they are all brainwashed by propaganda right up to this present moment.
Your claim is that present day Irish children are brainwashed to hate Britain, not in the past but today - that is the hole you have dug for yourself and that's why I describe you as I do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 May 16 - 01:06 PM

"To describe Irish children as brainwashed by the Irish education system is racist"
Jim, I think education systems in every country brainwash children with their own take on history, for example in the UK, Children are brainwashed with the UK version of history, which is English propaganda, sometimes it is more subtle than that, sections of irish history are just not taught in the uk., result many english people remain ignorant of the atrocities performed by the british in ireland

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 12:46 PM

Incidentally professor neither you, nor anyone else, including my good lady, knows how I vote. How you can claim I am left wing is, like most of your posts, totally uninformed and based on your own groundless assumptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 12:38 PM

Can I add that the effort someone is prepared to put into showing that the Irish know nothing of their own history and are gullible enough to be misguided by propaganda, while at the same admitting that they have never read a book on the subject and are not interested enough ever to do so shows beyond doubt the contempt they feel towards the people under discussion.
You really couldn't have made it clearer - here and on previous discussions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 10:56 AM

All pre Republic days Keith - you have the details in your own link.
"And Jim, no-one except you could find racism in anything I have posted."
To describe Irish children as brainwashed by the Irish education system is racist.
To describe Irish people as being fooled by propaganda and ignorant of their own history is racist.
To describe the subject of the commemorations taking place at the present time throughout Ireland as a "contemptible joke" is racist.
To set yourself up to re-write Irish history as it is now widely published, having boasted that you have never read a book on Ireland and are not interested enough in the subject ever to want to do so is the type of arrogant racism that proves beyond any doubt that the Easter Rising to get rid of such belligerent arrogant racism was a necessity - your arguments a living example of that attitude.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 10:40 AM

Try reading the whole article professor, don,t stop at the one line which can be taken as you so often do ......................... out of context. The only person you,re fooling is yourself ........................ oh and your fellow jingoist Terricola

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 10:05 AM

O'Callaghan summarising his findings on
"Politics, Policy and History: History Teaching in Irish Secondary Schools 1922-1970"

"The conclusion drawn is that history teaching was used by elite interest groups, namely the State and the church, in the service of their own interests. It was used to justify the State's existence and employed as an instrument of religious education. "

That is for the whole period. Nothing changed on the demise of the "Free State"

Kineally,
" What was specific to Ireland, however, was the declared mission to challenge received nationalist myths, and by implication, although less centrally, loyalist myths. Thus, at the launch of the influential Irish Historical Studies journal in 1938, the editors stated their commitment to replace 'interpretive distortions' with 'value-free history'. To a large extent, however, this debate took place within the rarefied atmosphere of academia and failed to percolate down into the schoolrooms either north or south of the border."

And Jim, no-one except you could find racism in anything I have posted.
Rag will back you because he backs anyone with far left views.
Shall we ask Joe?

You resort to personal attack everytime your arguments get knocked flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 08:40 AM

If you can't acknowledge your deliberate distortions and the racism of your claims, everybody else can, which suits me.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 08:35 AM

Jim, He hasn't even read the article he pasted, let alone understood it. For example:

"However, this declared determination of revisionism to destroy the 'myths and untruths' of populist historical consciousness has also limited the ability of revisionists to construct an alternative view of Irish history"

or

"Such myths and dreams need to be explained and deconstructed, not denied, destroyed or omitted, TO SUIT A PRESENT CONVENIENCE" (my capitals)

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 08:13 AM

"The tendency, apparent in the syllabi, to study the history of Ireland in isolation was still an issue in the 1970s,""
That has no connection whatever to teaching children to hate Britain - none whatever - it talks about the scope of taught history, that is what "ISOLATION" means, not what was or is being taught.
Britain has been accused of the same, as has many countries - only teaching their own history.
The section you have quoted both in Kineally's article and the recent one, which uses the same sources, refers to The Free State Period.
Irish children have never taught to hate Britain, as you have suggested - not even in The Free State Period.
In the period referred to, British were being taught to pity those who were not 'lucky enough' to be born British – we were still singing hymns about it in the 1950s in our school in Liverpool
That is another disgusting racist smear.
"On the subject of Irish schools teaching "Nationalists myths" as factual history"
Free State history - Kineally, of all people, blames Britain for the Famine - why should she describe it as "Nationalist Myth"?
Both she and your article deal with Irish history chronologically and I have headed in my extracts from your article - Free State then Irish Republic.
Does your hatred of the Irish have no depths that you can distort your own cut-'n-pastes?
Finished with disgusting aspect of your demeaning of Irish children.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 06:51 AM

"It is undesirable that teachers should treat Irish history as an isolated phenomenon or should fail to explain the connection between events in Ireland and the contemporaneous events in Great Britain and Europe"
Why stop there Jim?
The quote continues,
"The tendency, apparent in the syllabi, to study the history of Ireland in isolation was still an issue in the 1970s,"

I did not misinterpret Kineally, that is what she said in the essay.
see it here in her original intended context.
http://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/beyond-revisionism-reassessing-the-great-irish-famine/

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 06:05 AM

Jim, you are making stuff up.
On the subject of Irish schools teaching "Nationalists myths" as factual history, she said,
"Thus, at the launch of the influential Irish Historical Studies journal in 1938, the editors stated their commitment to replace 'interpretive distortions' with 'value-free history'. To a large extent, however, this debate took place within the rarefied atmosphere of academia and failed to percolate down into the schoolrooms either north or south of the border."
She is quite clear then that it continued beyond 1938 and does not say when the abuse ended.
The paper I just quoted says it went on at least up to the seventies.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 06:01 AM

One last word on your slur on today's Irish children then perhaps we can put this to bed forever.
Both your previous quotes from Kineally and the ones you have attempted to use here refer to the period of Irish education during the free State period.
Your quote relates to the section of your article that was dealing specifically with the period from independence up to the declaration of the new Irish Republic.

Free State Period
"The government of the Irish Free State had a vested interest in disseminating its own version of history"
"Eoin MacNeill, the first secretary of the Gaelic League and professor of ancient Irish History at UCD, was the minister for Education from August 1922 to November 1925. This was a decisive period in the determination of the direction of the new Irish education system. "
"The first annual report of the Department of Education highlighted the fact that the central educational aim of the Free State was "the strengthening of the national fibre by giving the language, music, history and tradition of Ireland their natural place in the life of Irish schools"
"The fundamental role that history can play in the development of patriotic attitudes was recognised and exploited in the Irish Free State. History was used in the pursuit of extra-educational objectives. The political objective was the most important in history teaching, and, as such, history teaching operated as a political instrument. Its end, in so far as it concerned the State, was chiefly political; the production of loyal citizens and the justification and preservation of the State's existence. As a part of the school curriculum, the subject of history taught young learners a monolithic nationalist, anti-British and pro-Catholic history that was heavily dependent upon allegory and collective memory. School history was a major part in a State project to preserve and propagate what it meant to be Irish. It was based on the twin aims of developing a State that was Gaelic and predominantly Catholic in outlook and spirit. The primary objective of history teaching was the transmission of the distinct nationality upon which the State was founded."

1931 onwards
" The extent of the change in emphasis from British to Irish history was made clear by the reports of examiners and inspectors, who commented on the ignorance of British history displayed by many students in matters in which Ireland was directly affected by Britain:"
"It is undesirable that teachers should treat Irish history as an isolated phenomenon or should fail to explain the connection between events in Ireland and the contemporaneous events in Great Britain and Europe"

You deliberately misinterpreted Kineally to prove that Irish children are brainwashed, you are doing so now to continue that despicable accusation.
That is beneath contempt.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 04:54 AM

You obviously do not understand the article you have scooped up nor the Kineally quotes that blew up in your face.
Irish history blaming Britain, as outlined by Kineally, cease to be taught when the Free State ended and 'The Emergency Period' in Ireland necessitated that Irish people could freely emigrate to Britain for work, which would not have been facilitated by biting the hand that they expected to feed it.
That is the whole point of her attack on revisionist historians who, since that period, have avoided apportioning blame for anything - read her book.
It is why there was never a substantial work on the Famine until 1995 and probably why there has never been one on The Uprising.
"but I am very well read on the period 1914-1918 which of course includes the rising."
Thank you for confirming your ignorance on the Rising - no British history book, on the war, or anything else, has ever covered the Easter Rising as anything more than a passing reference.
The only British historian to have done so is Robert Kee, in his trilogy and he devotes no more than a few paragraphs itself - if this not the case - name one British history book which has,
Now - back to the real world - go away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 04:49 AM

John O'Callaghan

An interesting paragraph on John O'Callaghans take on the rising here.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 04:36 AM

Did you not even read the title Jim?

"Politics, Policy and History: History Teaching in Irish Secondary Schools 1922-1970"

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 04:33 AM

No Jim. You need to read it.
"In terms of the function ascribed to history, it was not until the mid 1960s that Irish education emerged from "Plato's cave"."

"The nationalist role assigned to history at the foundation of the State was significantly diminished."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 04:19 AM

" taught young learners a monolithic nationalist, anti-British and pro-Catholic history"
Sigh........!
During the 'Free State" period which ended in 1937 - read what you have scooped up Keith.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:58 AM

Rag, it is true I do not read books on Irish history, but I am very well read on the period 1914-1918 which of course includes the rising.
That is how I have been able to expose your ignorance of the facts behind the rising, and your gullible acceptance of the myths deliberately created about it and presented as historical fact to generations of Irish school kids.

" As a part of the school curriculum, the subject of history taught young learners a monolithic nationalist, anti-British and pro-Catholic history that was heavily dependent upon allegory and collective memory."

"The nationalist role ascribed to history in primary schools was not as pronounced in secondary schools. This was because the type of indoctrination involved was more effective with younger subjects,"

"Gaelic culture was proclaimed as not only relatively, but absolutely better than others. Nationalist history was not only pro-Irish but anti-British."
http://etudesirlandaises.revues.org/2119

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:57 AM

"Thing is Jom you don't put up any facts, "
You have had these facts over and over again, we have had at least two epic threads on the Famine and yet you repeat the same garbage as you did then - want me to link you to the threads - the two Trevelyan latters, including the one published in Coogan's 2016 book, or the newly-researched facts from the landslide of books published during the 150th anniversary commemorations, or even those from Englishwoman Mrs Cecil Woodham Smith's 'The Great Hunger' (up to 1995 her book was the only major work dealing with The Famine).
On the last thread, we actually narrowed it down to (I think) numerous essential facts (full warehouses, enough food to feed Ireland four time over, the continuation of importing food for profit, laissez faire policy, Trevelyan's letter, the massive number of evictions, which, in my opinion, proved beyond doubt Britain's guilt in the outcome of the Famine....) all linked to documented evidence - I put them up again and again, requesting your response - you refused to respond - which is what you pair do and what you are doing here.
I don't know what you read (I don't count The Daily Mail and the Beano as reading), but you never link what you say, you just present them as definitive statements which turn out to be nothing more than clay pigeons.
I know what Keith reads - nothing - he's been honest enough to tell us that - and it shows (though I now smell the burning rubber of desperate back-pedaling) .
Again, Keith has been honest enough to tall us that he isn't interested enough to read up on these subjects, though he persists in dragging out these charades and trying to win prizes.
Your technique is to make your definitive, unlinked statements, ignore the responses and make them again later, as you are doing here with The Famine - you've been shot down over all this countless number of times yet you still come back for more.
I suggest if you want to make a point on this you answer the questions you were given last time and come back with some documented facts of your own - declaring a thing to be true doesn't make it so.
This is actual, well established and universally accepted history we are dealing with - not jingoistic propaganda, which is what your arguments mount up to.
"The executions Jom were the sentence demanded by the law for anyone found guilty of treason in time of war."
That has never been put up as a reason for them happening, they took place at the behest of General Maxwell alone, they were held in secret, and those charged were not allowed to offer a defence of any shape or form - they were revenge-taking kangaroo courts - a disgrace to the army and a disgrace to the Empire, some aspects of the 'trials' were actually illegal by both military and civil standards.

"Controversially, Maxwell decided that the courts-martial would be held in secret and without a defence, which Crown law officers later ruled to have been illegal.[132] Some of those who conducted the trials had commanded British troops involved in suppressing the Rising, a conflict of interest that the Military Manual prohibited."
(Wiki entry on The Rising).

You describe the Rebellion as "murder", yet none of the actual murders or atrocities that took place at the time were ever tried.   

"After the Rising, claims of atrocities carried out by British troops began to emerge. Although they did not receive as much attention as the executions, they sparked outrage among the Irish public and were raised by Irish MPs in Parliament.
One incident was the 'Portobello killings'. On Tuesday 25 April, Dubliner Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, a pacifist nationalist activist, had been arrested by British soldiers. Captain John Bowen-Colthurst then took him with a British raiding party as a hostage and human shield. On Rathmines Road he stopped a boy named James Coade, whom he shot dead. His troops then destroyed a tobacconist's shop with grenades and seized journalists Thomas Dickson and Patrick MacIntyre. The next morning, Colthurst had Skeffington and the two journalists shot by firing squad in Portobello Barracks. The bodies were then buried there. Later that day he shot a Labour Party councillor, Richard O'Carroll. When Major Sir Francis Vane learned of the killings he telephoned his superiors in Dublin Castle, but no action was taken. Vane informed Herbert Kitchener, who told General Maxwell to arrest Colthurst, but Maxwell refused. Colthurst was eventually arrested and court-martialled in June. He was found guilty of murder but insane, and detained for twenty months at Broadmoor. Public and political pressure led to a public inquiry, which reached similar conclusions. Major Vane was discharged "owing to his action in the Skeffington murder case".[141][142][143][144][145]
The other incident was the 'North King Street massacre'. On the night of 28–29 April, British soldiers of the South Staffordshire Regiment, under Colonel Henry Taylor, had burst into houses on North King Street and killed 15 male civilians whom they accused of being rebels. The soldiers shot or bayoneted the victims, then secretly buried some of them in cellars or back yards after robbing them. The area saw some of the fiercest fighting of the Rising and the British had taken heavy casualties for little gain. General Maxwell attempted to excuse the killings and argued that the rebels were ultimately responsible. He claimed that "the rebels wore no uniform" and that the people of North King Street were rebel sympathizers. Maxwell concluded that such incidents "are absolutely unavoidable in such a business as this" and that "Under the circumstance the troops [...] behaved with the greatest restraint". A private brief, prepared for the Prime Minister, said the soldiers "had orders not to take any prisoners" but took it to mean they were to shoot any suspected rebel. The City Coroner's inquest found that soldiers had killed "unarmed and offending" residents. The military court of inquiry ruled that no specific soldiers could be held responsible, and no action was taken"
From the Wiki entry on the Rising.

"As for the British Empire Jom, the events of 1916 and 1921 had nothing whatsoever to do with its demise,"
'Course it didn't - it fell of its own accord.
The Rising was the first great crack in the facade, it inspired the movement for India leaving the Empire, it was written about at length by the Russian revolutionaries, who used it to overthrow Tsardom... it showed the Empire at its brutal worst and it showed how a small number of poorly armed irregulars could take on the might of the richest and most powerful power in the world - the first domino to wobble.
"That they will do anything to get a deal? "
Now you appear to be defending the altering of a treaty on National Independence - not "some politicians" but an Empire.
How on earth can you write off the altering of a document that has brought about a century bloodshed, injustice and civil conflict which is still seething away waiting to erupt again (by my watch, in a couple of months time)
What kind of people are you
"I was obviously being too modest about my knowledge of history."
I see Keith is developing a sense of humour in his old age.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:57 AM

That's pretty rich coming from someone who thinks Cork is on the east coast of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:54 AM

Never mind about the "professor" Raggy when are you going to make a start on even that one page? My guess would be never. But you certainly have never read the book - pot, kettle, black mean anything to you? The information so far supplied by Keith has been correct and in context, the information supplied by you to this thread has been unsubstantiated rumour that doesn't even bear the most cursory examination.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:36 AM

I didn't really expect you to understand that professor. Your loss not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 16 - 03:00 AM

Still nothing on the Rising then Greg.

If there are "a cornucopia" of flaws in the history I have put up in support of my views, why can't any of you produce a single one?
Because you are lying.

Even Rag, who presumably has read lots of history books, can not produce anything to support his case or to challenge the other.
Or can you Rag?
Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 May 16 - 02:34 AM

Let me give you an analogy professor, one that is particularly fitting I believe.

If the history of Ireland is a big book of 750 pages you have read just one page and think you can tell everybody about Ireland because you have read just one page.

That was not true yesterday, it isn't true today and it won't be true tomorrow. When and only when you have read the entire book will you be in a position to make any sort of relevant comment.

Will you ever read the whole book? I have for one doubt it.