BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: AmyLove
Date: 04 Jul 16 - 08:11 AM

An excellent resource from Villanova University:

Library Exhibits :: To Strike for Freedom! The 1916 Easter Rising

This booklist is worth checking out, too (six pages of listings) (the link is too long to make clickable):

http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/RecreationandCulture/libraries/Heritage%20and%20History/Documents/1916-booklists.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 03:50 PM

Raggy an example please of this alleged hatred of mine "of anything not "BRITISH".

Oh but I forgot you are one of the set on this forum who are good at throwing out baseless accusations but very poor at substantiating them.

Don't worry Rags, I'm not holding my breath - you're as predictable as the tide.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 02:32 PM

Your hatred of anything not "BRITISH" is appalling.
Does the Irish Army not also have court marshals?
Any army in the world?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 02:14 PM

What guarantees that the 12 are all good men and true? Besides Raggy Military Justice does not require those 12 men, it requires whatever is required to make up a Court Martial panel. Tell me whether or not martial law had been declared on the 25th April 1916? The other thing you seem to have overlooked, those who rose in Dublin did so as armed men in uniform, called themselves the Army of the newly declared Republic and read a Proclamation that stated they were allied to Germany - on what grounds should any of these men been tried as civilians in a civilian criminal court? If you opt for violent solutions then accept violent consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 02:00 PM

So you are trying to say that a panel of army officers, colleagues of General Maxwell, could act as a jury of 12 good men and true, the peers of the accused. Just which planet do you live on.


Don,t bother to reply I already know the answer. Your hatred of anything not "BRITISH" is appalling.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 01:27 PM

Jingoistic doublespeak??

You asked a simple question Raggy? Naturally in your usual smart-arsed, ill-informed way, you know like the point you tried to make regarding when conscription was introduced, and I answered it.

At a Court Martial the President is the Judge the other panel members fulfil the role of the Jury. Now then Raggy tell us all what is so hard to grasp about that set up.

Non-Jury trials and mass internment were not introduced in Ireland by the British in Northern Ireland. They just followed the precedent set in dealing with the IRA by Eamon de Valera and the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 11:59 AM

yet more jingoistic double speak

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 08:47 AM

Ah a technical question from Raggytash, that of course he would have not had to ask if he had bothered to look it up himself.

What is a Field General Court Martial if not a trial without a jury .................... or any defence come to that.

Field General Court Martial: The Court is made up of a Judge Advocate, and between three and seven (depending on the seriousness of the offence) officers and warrant officers. Rulings on matters of law are made by the Judge Advocate alone, whilst decisions on the facts are made by a majority of the members of the court, not including the Judge Advocate, and decisions on sentence by a majority of the court, this time including the Judge Advocate.

The three to seven members of the panel fulfil the role of the Jury with the added advantage that they can ask any question they wish directly.

Non-Jury trials and mass internment were introduced as solutions to internal security problems in Ireland NOT by the British but by the Government of the Republic of Ireland at the instigation of the man who first turned the IRA loose and was instrumental in fomenting the Irish Civil War - Eamon de Valera.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 08:29 AM

From another thread this contribution fro Jim Carroll:

"I've just withdrawn from a thread in which you and your mate have launched personal attacks on my friends, family my neighbours and in fact the vast majority of the occupants of this island by representing them as "brainwashed" ignorant, gullible, and misled by propaganda."

More Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit". I do not think that either Keith A or I have launched any such personal attack and besides I think it was the five historians quoted, the former Leader of Fine Gael and the Coroner who held the inquest into the death of Lord Louis Mountbatten who all linked the political meddling and interference into educational matters and the faux-history that was taught in schools in the Republic of Ireland for purely political purposes to the violence that has blighted the island since independence.

There again Jim you could always provide examples of such personal attacks - but track record would tend towards the probability that you won't.

Example 1: Of any personal attack against the friends of Jim Carroll?

Example 2: Of any personal attack against any of Jim Carroll's family?

Example 3: Of any personal attack against any of Jim Carroll's neighbours?

Example 4: Of any personal attack against the Irish nation?

Numbers 1, 2 & 3 will be impossibly difficult for Mr Carroll as I do not know any of them, can you actually make a personal attack against people you do not know, and for that matter how do you make a personal attack against the entire population of a country?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Jun 16 - 08:15 AM

What is a Field General Court Martial if not a trial without a jury .................... or any defence come to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 01:22 PM

Somewhere back down the thread Jim Carroll was complaining about injustices heaped on the Irish up North and he specifically mentioned Diplock Courts and mass internment without trial.

But of course Great Britain did not introduce non-jury trial or mass internment to Ireland did they Jim - Your pal Eamon de Valera did that in the late 1930s - ever heard of such a thing as the Special Criminal Court? Article 38 of the Constitution of Ireland? Or the "Offences against the State Act 1939". When the IRA mounted its S-Pan bombing campaign on the British mainland in the late 1930s de Valera had IRA members rounded up and interned - guess where? - The Curragh. Later after the Second World War when the IRA mounted their cross-border campaign of 1956 to 1962 internment was introduced again as evidenced by the following:

James Dillon, speaking in the Dáil in April 1959, felt that an interesting survey would be an enquiry into 'the places of education of the internees recently released from the Curragh Camp'

Just thought that I'd put that in in case you claimed that none of this ever happened. So clear precedents set for both in Ireland when applied to internal security problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 10:33 AM

Also from Jim's link,

"At the inquest into the death of Lord Mountbatten in 1979 the (Irish)coroner
stated:
I believe it is necessary to stress again the great responsibility the teachers
of any nation have for the way they interpret history and pass it on to the
youth of their country. I believe that if history could be taught in such a
fashion that it would help to create harmony among people rather than
division and hatred, it would serve this nation and all nations better."

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 05:49 AM

"You will not find a reference to "brainwashing children to hate", or distorting or lying or anything resembling any of these things." – Challenges Jim Carrroll

He then supplies a link - HOLOHAN – from which we get the following:

1: "The perception is common among Irish teachers, politicians and historians that there were serious deficiencies and flaws in the approach to the teaching of history and in the process of curricular development. These defects are thought to have contributed to the phenomenon, as expressed by Joe Lee, that 'the modern Irish, contrary to popular impression, have little sense of history. What they have is a sense of grievance which they choose to dignify by calling it history'

Taken directly from "Teaching Irish Independence: History in Irish Schools, 1922-72", by John O'Callaghan.

2: Platitudes on the harmful effects of biased history teaching should consider that for most of the period, apart from the endeavours of the Irish Historical Studies school, academic history itself progressed little beyond an aspiration to objectivity

For developments in academic scholarship, see Theo Moody (ed.), Irish historiography 1936-71 (Dublin, 1971).

3: "I believe it is necessary to stress again the great responsibility the teachers of any nation have for the way they interpret history and pass it on to the youth of their country. I believe that if history could be taught in such a fashion that it would help to create harmony among people rather than division and hatred, it would serve this nation and all nations better."

Statement by the Coroner at the inquest into the death of Lord Mountbatten in 1979 – that glorious occasion where the bold Fennian men sallied forth against near impossible odds and successfully murdered a 79 year old man and two teenage boys, one of whom was Irish, who were out for a days fishing, four others were seriously injured, one of them Lady Doreen Brabourne aged 83 died from her injuries the following day. How proud Pearse and Connolly must have been.

This comment reflects the assumption that Irish history teaching propagated a prejudiced and potentially dangerous account of Irish history; that it presented a jingoistic version of Irish history to young people and was an underlying factor in Irish Republican Army (IRA) violence because it instilled hatred of England as an evil oppressor and glorified the militancy of the campaign for independence.

4: James Dillon, speaking in the Dáil in April 1959, felt that an interesting survey would be an enquiry into 'the places of education of the internees recently released from the Curragh Camp'. Dillon was concerned with the kind of instruction they received, where they got it and from whom. A comprehensive survey would certainly help to put allegations about the role of nationalist-motivated history teaching as a determining factor in republican violence in context.

Hey Jim numbers are building- three historians, nope four counting O'Callaghan, a Coroner and the leader of Fine Gael, all thought there was a link. But let's see how this survey got on:

The ongoing failure of the Department of Education to open its records to full public scrutiny continues to hinder research on history teaching. While history teaching has not suffered from academic neglect, much of the work in the area has been from a pedagogical rather than a historical perspective.

Now I wonder why the Department of Education would object to public scrutiny of its records relating to the teaching of history in Ireland? Ah but wait a minute Dev was still alive in 1959 wasn't he and Irish History ended at 1921, the Civil War that de Valera needlessly instigated was never taught, didn't happen according to Ruth Dudley Edwards, and she should know she sat through the lessons where the Irish Civil War was totally ignored and by-passed.

5: In his 1992 thesis, Doherty argued that the vague minimalism that characterised formal guidelines governing the teaching of history reflected the limited nature of central control over education, and facilitated a populist conception of that history. He showed that so inadequate was teachers' professional training and so vulnerable were their terms of employment to managerial and local pressure, they became actively engaged in the promulgation of socially acceptable beliefs.

Socially accepted beliefs do not amount to history.

6: However, the conception of history and history teaching as a method of restoring and renewing the Gaelic past did not consider those whose past was not a Gaelic one. The emergence of a new consensus on Irish identity meant that those who did not subscribe to it, in political, cultural or historical terms, became outsiders in the state. Roy Foster's review of the cultural revival movement was highly critical: 'the emotions focused by cultural revivalism around the turn of the century were fundamentally sectarian and even racialist'

Whoops Jim there's another one.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 04:30 AM

You are the only one to have suggested children were taught to hate - you have never produced a single quote of anybody making such a disgusting claim.

I have never made that claim.
I did claim that Irish children were indoctrinated with anti-British propaganda, keeping hate alive.
I quoted the Irish historian O'Callaghan who stated that schools "indoctrinated" children with "ant-British propaganda."

Indoctrinating children in schools with anti-British propaganda will inevitably engender a negative view of Britain in may if not most of those children.

Are you in favour of indoctrination and propaganda in schools Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 03:55 AM

From the link supplied by Jim in his last post:

Tierney believed that the very purpose of a free Irish state would be to forge an Ireland through education that linked the Gaelic state of the past to what he envisaged as the Christian state of the future.

Unfortunately for Tierney's beliefs there never was any such thing as a Gaelic State of the past

"Raised on songs and stories. Heroes of renown" – just about sums it up. And if you have been daft enough to swallow it, then learning the actual history of the place must come as one hell of a shock.

In his academic work, MacNeill identified the basis of the Irish nation in the remote Gaelic past. He showed that the Irish nation was an ancient historical entity whose formation could be traced back to the fifth century: 'the Irish people stand singular and eminent … from the fifth century forward, as the possessors of an intense national consciousness'

Any historian whose speciality is medieval history {The study of history from the 5th to the 15th centuries} could destroy MacNeill's notions in an instant and expose them as pure fairy tales.

In 1924, the orthodox Catholic Bulletin declared that 'The Irish nation is the Gaelic nation; its language and literature is the Gaelic language; its history is the history of the Gael. All other elements have no place

In terms of teaching anybody anything that is a ludicrously myopic, isolationist and retrograde point of view on which to build a system of education. The results of which have hardly been a success – if this system has been in place for 90 years how come only somewhere between 5% and 10% of Ireland's population use it?

"In the 2011 census for the Republic, 94,000 people reported using Irish as a daily language outside of the education system, and 1.3 million reported using it at least occasionally in or out of school. There are several thousand Irish speakers in Northern Ireland. It has been estimated that the active Irish-language scene probably comprises 5 to 10 per cent of Ireland's population.{Source: Romaine, Suzanne (2008), "Irish in a Global Context", in Caoilfhionn Nic Pháidín and Seán Ó Cearnaigh, A New View of the Irish Language, Dublin: Cois Life Teoranta, ISBN 978-1-901176-82-7 – Just in case Jim thought I'd made it up}

In Gaeltacht areas, however, there has been a general decline of the use of Irish. It has been predicted that, within 10 years, Irish will no longer be the primary language in any of the designated Gaeltacht areas {Source: "Ranafast Gaeltacht in Donegal fights Irish language decline – BBC News". Bbc.co.uk. 2015-08-13. Retrieved 2015-10-31.}

Wonder if non-Irish folks following this thread are aware of it but if you want any civil service or government job in the Republic you must be able to speak Gaelic. I once knocked round Lahinch golf course with an American who had employed one of the caddies, a youngster about 14 years old. Through the summer he'd been making money at the club hand over fist but he told us that all that was about to come to an end because he had to go off to summer school for intensive Gaelic instruction as that would open up more employment options for him when it came time to leave school. He thought it a complete and utter waste of time and absolutely hated the idea of doing it.
   
Milne argued that the majority of Protestants in the Irish Free State had considered themselves Irish in imperial terms. In contrast with southern Catholic nationalists, southern Protestant unionists felt deeply the pressure of political change. Many schools under Protestant management did not subscribe to the Gaelicicising policies and the historical perspective of the new state. They had to bear the rigours of a state Gaelicisation policy, or else see their schools deprived of all public funding.

The will and choice of the people Jim, or simple big state bully-boy coercion?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 02:45 AM

MGM·Lion was right - and I was wrong - this thread did run and run.
I hung on because it was an opportunity to discuss a subject I am interested in and it also proved to be an example of the very worst of British rule of Ireland down the centuries distilled into two people who, whenever criicism of the British Empire has raised its ugly head, have been first on the rostrum to defend it, The Famine, WW1, Irish Independence...... these boys where there, fighting to defend the glories of the Empire
In Keith's case, Britain's continuing rule of Ireland has also been a subject worth defending, even to the point of accusing Northern Irish children of being the cause of three nights of sectarian rioting - I don't know if there is a word for hatred of Irish children - depicting them as sectarian rioters and brainwashed small humans - Eirokinderphobia maybe, but if has been displayed to the full her
The only "hate that has been proven here has been the hate of two people for the Irish nation - gullible, ignorant of their history, unworthy of independence, historically duped by foreigners for fighting for independence, guilty of a non-specified hatred, and now sneered at for not being able to throw off British rule completely - not nice people (and I don't mean the Irish).
The history of England's relationship with Ireland has been of oppression, exploration and mass-murder by the richest and most powerful Empire the world has ever seen - echoes of that Empire has resonated throughout this argument as it did with similaar arguments about present-day sectarianism and The Famine.
The only hatred proved here has been that of two people against an nation which remains, in my personal experience, peaceful, friendly and extraordinarily welcoming to strangers - I defy either of these two to prove otherwise, as neither of them have ben able to show a single shred of evidence that the Irish were "brainwashed to hate, they will not show the Irish to be other thna I have described,
I thought it might be worth finishing this often distressing (for me - obviously they have reveled in their hatred in everything Irish) argument with some of the historical quotes that have marked British rule of Ireland - this pair can proudly take their place in that history.
Then I am gone
Jim Carroll

Anti-Irish quotes throughout history
Politics.ie
They live on beasts only, and live like beasts. They have not progressed at all from the habits of pastoral living. ..This is a filthy people, wallowing in vice. Of all peoples it is the least instructed in the rudiments of the faith. They do not yet pay tithes or first fruits or contract marriages. They do not avoid incest.
- Giraldus Cambrensis/Gerald of Wales, The History and Topography of Ireland, 12th Century

How godly a deed it is to overthrow so wicked a race the world may judge: for my part I think there cannot be a greater sacrifice to God.
- Edward Barkley, describing how the forces of the Earl of Essex slaughtered the entire population of Rathlin Island, Co. Antrim, 1575

I have often said, and written, it is Famine which must consume [the Irish]; our swords and other endeavours work not that speedy effect which is expected for their overthrow.
- English Viceroy Arthur Chichester writing to Elizabeth I's chief advisor, Nov. 1601

The time hath been, when they lived like Barbarians, in woods, in bogs, and in desolate places, without politic law, or civil government, neither embracing religion, law or mutual love. That which is hateful to all the world besides is only beloved and embraced by the Irish, I mean civil wars and domestic dissensions .... the Cannibals, devourers of men's flesh, do learn to be fierce amongst themselves, but the Irish, without all respect, are even more cruel to their neighbours.
- Barnaby Rich, A New Description of Ireland, 1610

All wisdom advises us to keep this [Irish] kingdom as much subordinate and dependent on England as possible; and, holding them from manufacture of wool (which unless otherwise directed, I shall by all means discourage), and then enforcing them to fetch their cloth from England, how can they depart from us without nakedness and beggary?
- Lord Stafford, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in a letter to King Charles I, 1634

So ended the fairest promise that Ireland had ever known of becoming a prosperous and a happy country.
- Sir William Temple, about 1673, (the export of wool from Ireland to England was forbidden in 1660)

Ireland is like a half-starved rat that crosses the path of an elephant. What must the elephant do? Squelch it - by heavens - squelch it.
- Thomas Carlyle, British essayist, 1840s

...being altogether beyond the power of man, the cure had been applied by the direct stroke of an all-wise Providence in a manner as unexpected and as unthought of as it is likely to be effectual.

The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated. …The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people.
-Charles Trevelyan, head of administration for famine relief, 1840s

[existing policies] will not kill more than one million Irish in 1848 and that will scarcely be enough to do much good.
- Queen Victoria's economist, Nassau Senior

A Celt will soon be as rare on the banks of the Shannon as the red man on the banks of Manhattan.
- The Times, editorial, 1848

I am haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw along that hundred miles of horrible country...to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black one would not see it so much, but their skins, except where tanned by exposure, are as white as ours.
- Cambridge historian Charles Kingsley, letter to his wife from Ireland, 1860

A creature manifestly between the Gorilla and the Negro is to be met with in some of the lowest districts of London and Liverpool by adventurous explorers. It comes from Ireland, whence it has contrived to migrate; it belongs in fact to a tribe of Irish savages: the lowest species of Irish Yahoo. When conversing with its kind it talks a sort of gibberish. It is, moreover, a climbing animal, and may sometimes be seen ascending a ladder laden with a hod of bricks.
-Satire entitled "The Missing Link", from the British magazine Punch, 1862

This would be a grand land if only every Irishman would kill a Negro, and be hanged for it. I find this sentiment generally approved - sometimes with the qualification that they want Irish and Negroes for servants, not being able to get any other.
- British historian Edward Freeman, writing on his return from America, about 1881

...Furious fanaticism; a love of war and disorder; a hatred for order and patient industry; no accumulative habits; restless; treacherous and uncertain: look to Ireland...
As a Saxon, I abhor all dynasties, monarchies and bayonet governments, but this latter seems to be the only one suitable for the Celtic man.
-Robert Knox, anatomist, describing his views on the "Celtic character", 1850

The Celts are not among the progressive, initiative races, but among those which supply the materials rather than the impulse of history...The Persians, the Greeks, the Romans and the Teutons are the only makers of history, the only authors of advancement. ...Subjection to a people of a higher capacity for government is of itself no misfortune; and it is to most countries the condition of their political advancement.
- British historian Lord Acton, 1862

You would not confide free representative institutions to the Hottentots [savages], for instance.
- Lord Salisbury, who opposed Home Rule for Ireland, 1886

...more like squalid apes than human beings. ...unstable as water. ...only efficient military despotism [can succeed in Ireland] ...the wild Irish understand only force.
- James Anthony Froude, Professor of history, Oxford
________________________________________
A View of the State of Ireland
Edmund Spenser (Google Books)
Marry those be the most barbaric and loathy conditions of any people (I think) under heaven...They do use all the beastly behaviour that may be, they oppress all men, they spoil as well the subject, as the enemy; they steal, they are cruel and bloody, full of revenge, and delighting in deadly execution, licentious, swearers and blasphemers, common ravishers of women, and murderers of children.[...]
And first I have to find fault with the abuse of language; that is, for the speaking of Irish among the English, which as it is unnatural that any people should love another's language more than their own, so it is very inconvenient and the cause of many other evils. ...It seemeth strange to me that the English should take more delight to speak that language than their own, whereas they should, methinks, rather take scorn to acquaint their tongues thereto. For it hath ever been the use of the conqueror to despise the language of the conquered and to force him by all means to learn his.
________________________________________
Dictionary of Race and Ethnic Relations
Ernest Cashmore, Michael Banton (Google Books)
The Irish emigrant experience can only be understood by recognising the dramatic impact that centuries of British colonialism has had for the Irish people. As a result of its geographical position and internal political feuds Ireland became the first English colony.[…] The native Irish were depicted as savage heathens who were "more uncivill, more uncleanly, more barbarous and more brutish in their customs and demeanours, than in any other part of the world that is known." Consequently, it was justified, through military conquest and legislation such as 1697 Penal Laws, to deprive the native population – "the uncivilised Other" – of their religious, civil, and land rights.
________________________________________
Out of Africa, out of Ireland
Rootsweb
In Black Folk Then and Now, Du Bois concurs: "Even young Irish peasants were hunted down as men hunt down game, and were forcibly put aboard ship, and sold to plantations in Barbados".
According to Peter Berresford Ellis in To Hell or Connaught, soldiers commanded by Henry Cromwell, Oliver's son, seized a thousand "Irish wenches" to sell to Barbados. Henry justified the action by saying, "Although we must use force in taking them up, it is so much for their own good and likely to be of so great an advantage to the public." He also suggested that 2,000 lrish boys of 12 to 14 years of age could be seized for the same purpose: "Who knows but it might be a means to make them Englishmen."
________________________________________
The Love of the Irish
Slate
Britain sometimes meant well in trying to govern Ireland, but the contempt felt by Englishmen towards the Irish kept surfacing. Benjamin Disraeli, Queen Victoria's favourite Prime Minister, couldn't stand the Irish. He described the native Irish way of life as consisting of "clannish brawls and coarse idolatry". Lord Salisbury, the influential Conservative Prime Minister at the end of the 19th century, denied that the Irish could ever have self-government with this doubly racist sentiment that: "You would not confide free representative institutions to the Hottentots, for example." (Although, in a moment of sanity, he conceded that Ireland did need "lots and lots of money", which, at last, it has got.) James Anthony Froude, a discipline of Carlyle's and a professor of history at Oxford described the Irish as being "more like squalid apes than human beings" and Charles Kingsley, the author of The Water Babies, continued the primate analogy by writing from Ireland that he was "haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw along that hundred miles of horrible country". The humorous magazine Punch repeatedly, throughout the reign of Victoria, portrayed the Irish as Simian creatures, chimp-like, with long arms and the long upper lip of the monkey, and The Times' editorials excoriated the Irish at every turn for their "want of character", fecklessness, hopelessness, and so on.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 06:52 PM

"This is the mythology that was taught in Irish Schools - nothing to do with teaching to hate anybody, rather it is exactly the opposite.
"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'.25 Policy makers intended history to reflect a romantic but unhistorical ideal of Ireland's Gaelic past held by many Irish revolutionaries. Pearse, for example, idealised education in pagan and early Christian Ireland and argued that its character could be revived through an education of 'adequate inspiration'.26 He believed that 'a heroic tale is more essentially a factor in education than a proposition in Euclid ... what Ireland wants beyond all...is a new birth of the heroic spirit'.27"

i.e. The new Free State Government wanted and deliberately directed that instead of history they had to teach school children in the Irish Free State bullshit. By the way is this the same Pearse character who wanted one of the German Crown Princes to become King of Ireland after Germany won the First World War?

They {The Government of the newly independent Ireland} wanted "to reflect a romantic but unhistorical ideal of Ireland's Gaelic past held by many Irish revolutionaries." - In other words indoctrination = "brainwashing" a load of complete and utter codswallop - If you are going to teach history then teach F*****G History not some complete and utter prat's romantic notion of what he thought things were like.

"You will not find a reference to "brainwashing children to hate", or distorting or lying or anything resembling any of these things."

Oh no? Mr Carroll just WTF do you think the following means "to reflect a romantic but unhistorical ideal of Ireland's Gaelic past There is History pure and simple there is no such thing as romantic history and if you teach something as "history" that is "unhistorical" then you are filling the minds of children with bullshit, which is wrong. But there again the crowd who put this train wreck on the tracks somehow had to justify why under their direction Irishmen had been killing Irishmen for Irish independence for the best part of two years and they still ended up with a partitioned island because a large number of Irishmen wanted no part of their "revolutionary dream".

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 01:26 PM

Incidentally
This is the mythology that was taught in Irish Schools - nothing to do with teaching to hate anybody, rather it is exactly the opposite.
"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'.25 Policy makers intended history to reflect a romantic but unhistorical ideal of Ireland's Gaelic past held by many Irish revolutionaries. Pearse, for example, idealised education in pagan and early Christian Ireland and argued that its character could be revived through an education of 'adequate inspiration'.26 He believed that 'a heroic tale is more essentially a factor in education than a proposition in Euclid ... what Ireland wants beyond all...is a new birth of the heroic spirit'.27"
It comes directly from one of your above references
HOLOHAN
You will not find a reference to "brainwashing children to hate", or distorting or lying or anything resembling any of these things.
Neither will you find anything in the works of Kineally though she uses this book extensively.
It points out how, after gaining independence Ireland began to imbue children to understand Ireland and no longer being a subject of Britain but an independent nation - 'The Harp without the Crown' or 'Ourselves Alone' (the literal traslation of 'Sinn Fein')
You are the only one to have suggested children were taught to hate - you have never produced a single quote of anybody making such a disgusting claim.
I hadn't realised Holohan's book is on line - I've just read it - it's extremely easy to access and understand, though I doubt if you will overcome your "disinterest" in order to do so.
On the basis of nothing that ersembles evidence you will continue to describe Ireland as a gullible, brainwashed nation - which makes yo the racist you are.
This is all yourown work not Kineally's, not Holohan's, not even Richardson's - all yours
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 12:40 PM

They were not teaching lies - they were telling it as it was

"Nationalists myths are not the truth.
If taught as history they are lies.


"1938, the editors stated their commitment to replace 'interpretive distortions' with 'value-free history'"
Which is exactly what I said, to which you responded "Your "description" of what you wish she said is shite."

She went on to say that it never happened.
"this debate took place within the rarefied atmosphere of academia and failed to percolate down into the schoolrooms "
The schools ignored them and carried on with their "distortions."

I do not lie. I quoted exactly what was said on the programme, with a link.

The effect on children of "indoctrination" with "anti-British propaganda" is bound to produce anti-British feelings in many if not most of them.
How can you deny that obvious fact Jim?
That you do shows how closed you mind is to the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 11:53 AM

""Within this model, 'blame' is generally attributed to key groupings, either within the British government or within the landlord class. To some extent, these beliefs were fostered by the state school system south of the border, which itself arose out of particular historical circumstances. In 1922, for example, the Free State government instructed history teachers that pupils should be 'imbued with the ideals and aspirations of such men as Thomas Davis and Patrick Pearse' and that they should emphasise 'the continuity of the separatist idea from Tone to Pearse' (see Francis T. Holohan, 'History teaching in the Irish Free State 1922-35' in HI Winter 1994).""
That is teaching Irish history Keith and all those people were and remain national heroes and their contribution to Ireland is undisputed anywhere - unlike the British heroes like Cecil Rhodes who we were "brainwashed to admire in our schools" who are now being exposed as mercenary thugs.
If you think that anybody claims that teaching Thomas Davis and Patrick Pearse if "brainwashing" - you really are off your head - I'm attending a launch of a book on the contribution of Thomas Davis to Irish history later this year - the annual RTE lectures are actually entitled the THOMAS DAVIS LECTURES
You really are round the twist.
They were not teaching lies - they were telling it as it was.
Kineally's critiscism was that it was taught without explanation.
Irish Free State 1922-35'
"1938, the editors stated their commitment to replace 'interpretive distortions' with 'value-free history'"
Which is exactly what I said, to which you responded "Your "description" of what you wish she said is shite."
Education changed at the end of the Free State and blame was removed from any teaching - that is what you have just confirmed with your quote.
Irishe children were never at any time taught to hate Britain - not ever - factual history did that.
Kids were taught to admire the heroes certainly - because they were heroes - but that is a million miles away from being brainwashed to hate.
You are now back to claiming that the Irish did hate Britain " is bound to produce anti-British feelings in many if not most of them."
Thought you'd denied saying that - obviously not?
"Do you deny that Jim?"
Of course I ***** deny it and will do so until you produce one single example of that hatred - you have refused to do so - you are making it up.
And you continue to lie about Richardson - to save face no doubt
There are two filmed interviews with her on the web and sever written essays - her subject is terrorism
On each, she links her contact with the IRA to Bloody Sunday.
Her "learning the truth" is basically that she accepted the Protestant version rather than the catholic one.
Truth only becomes truth when it is proven beyond dispute - or apparently, when you pair decide it is.
You have no supporters to your claims of truth.
Her "truth" is no more true than yours and as she is the only one you have been able to come up with during this argument - I know where my money goes.
You will find among her internet stuff that her 'Road to Damascus' conversion led to her views being rejected both by colleagues and friends, making her in the minority too.
You still attempt to maintain an argument long after it has been ripped to shreds - you still have no self-respect
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 10:34 AM

No she didn't Keith - you first misinterpred what she said, now you are just making it up.

Yes she did, and here she is saying it.
Before you claim "out of context," here is the link to the whole piece.http://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/beyond-revisionism-reassessing-the-great-irish-famine/

"Within this model, 'blame' is generally attributed to key groupings, either within the British government or within the landlord class. To some extent, these beliefs were fostered by the state school system south of the border, which itself arose out of particular historical circumstances. In 1922, for example, the Free State government instructed history teachers that pupils should be 'imbued with the ideals and aspirations of such men as Thomas Davis and Patrick Pearse' and that they should emphasise 'the continuity of the separatist idea from Tone to Pearse' (see Francis T. Holohan, 'History teaching in the Irish Free State 1922-35' in HI Winter 1994)."

"...nationalist 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 "

However - she was not conned into thinking about joining the IRA because of her Catholic "brainwashing" as you invented.

She said she would have joined IRA "in a heartbeat" before university opened her eyes to the truth.
She said that many who did not have the same opportunity WERE led to join.

You have refused to specify which hatred was brainwashed into the Irish children, so none exists - simple as that.

False logic Jim.
The effect on children of "indoctrination" with "anti-British propaganda" is bound to produce anti-British feelings in many if not most of them.
Do you deny that Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 06:26 AM

No she didn't Keith - you first misinterpred what she said, now you are just making it up.
I examined in some detail another invention of yours yesterday - that of Prof Richardson.
The Prof. certainly did attend a convent school in Ireland where she was taught to respect Irish Republican history.
She later attended a Protestent College (Trinity) where she was taught the other side of the argument (not both sides) - she describes both influences as "two diametically opposed views.
She made her choice on consideration of those views - the current violence that was taking place at the time being a deciding factor.
However - she was not conned into thinking about joining the IRA because of her Catholic "brainwashing" as you invented.
She said she was incensed when she read about The Bloody Sunday Massacre and intended to go to Newry to join the protests there - she was prevented from doing so by her mother, who locked her in her room.
Her nearest contact with and only consideration of joining the I.R.A, was during her time in Protestant Trinity when she was invited to join the Republican Clubs there - she didn't, but she attended meetings.
Your "brainwash thing was as much invented as was your Kineally claims.
"I never have said that, and it is a lie to say that I have."
You have refused to specify which hatred was brainwashed into the Irish children, so none exists - simple as that.
You have now suggested - not identified that some must (not does) exist.
You started out saying that hatred of Britain has been passed on through generations of brainwashing - that as far as I'm concerned, is a complete U-turn.
Take care on those roads now!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 05:50 AM

no serious researcher has ever suggested that this was ever the case,
I have quoted three historians who state unequivocally that it was.
You have produced nothing, because there is nothing for you to produce.

Keith's other star witness, Christine Kineally, said exactly the opposite,

She said exactly what I said, and I linked to the History Ireland article of hers where she said it.

Neither of you have ventured to suggest exactly what "lies" were told -

According to Kineally "nationalist myths" were taught instead of history, and according to O'Callaghan the children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-British propaganda."

so he now - all of a sudden - never said that the Irish people hate Britain -

I never have said that, and it is a lie to say that I have.
I have always found them warm and welcoming.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 01:16 PM

"Bet I,ve lost a stone this week."
Have you looked carefully for it ?
Awkward going round with one stone; you know what happened to Hitler and Goebells!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 01:12 PM

Great weather for relaxing ........................ not conjucive when stuck up a ladder with a brush and a roller. Bet I,ve lost a stone this week.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 12:24 PM

"No change from my previous experience in truth."
Not really - but you didn't expect there to be did you?
Hope you has as good a spell of weather as we did in the next county.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 12:11 PM

Finally finished the decorating !!!


Still receiving generousity, hospitality,kindness, offers of all kinds of help, loads of Guinness when we,ve been singing, the people really appreciate the musicians here.

No change from my previous experience in truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 06:40 AM

"Certainly it probably contributed to causing some Irish"
Nope - his claim was that it engendered hatred for generations and he did not backtrack on it until I insisted that he produced proof of that hatred
Don;t go spoiling your efforts to get your act together - leave Keith's serial dishonest out of it.
" facts and statistics"
Not sure what " facts and statistics" yoiu are talking about - I've given you the reaso why The Famine was never properly examined - the same applies to Easter Week, which was similarly neglected for political reasons
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 06:27 AM

"No Jim that is not ""
Yes it is.
My family were brought up under the Irish education system so I know from personal experience exactly how it worked
There is no evidence that the Irish hate Britain - Keith has failed to come up with any.
Any hatred comes from British citizens and is based around how the Six Counties administration behaved, nothing to do with education.
Kineally accused the system of ignoring the question of blame - she specifically blames Britain for he famine outcome and goes   - the "Heroes and villians" refers to the limitations of Irish education in teaching events rather than why those events occurred.
It's utterly ridicullous to claim that Irish education deliberately caused anybody to consider join the IRA.
All Irish schools until relatively recently, were largely owned and run by the Catholic Church who opposed Easter Week, opposed the IRA and excommunicated Catholics who were active members
Lets face it, unless you can show otherwise by disputing my list, Britain was culpable for the outcome of the Famine - the only question is whether British policy was deliberately adopted to solve 'The Irish Question' which now appears likely.
If teaching that in schools generates hatred, so be it - it would be wrong not to do so.
I was taught about the Nazi Holocaust in schools - I have no doubt that it generated some hatred against the German people - we have sit-coms to prove it did.
Wsa teaching that subject brainwashing British children to keep hatred alive through the generations - or was it just teaching history?
Up to 1995 no blame was ever apportioned in Irelan - Kineally's point - that is why the Famine has been virtually ignored as a subject for over a century, latterly in order to keep the road to Britain freely open to Irish emigrants.
Immediately after independence Irish schools taught the unvarnished facts, without explanation, just "heroes and villains" - the facts were never altered, but up to 1932, no attempt was made to explain them.
Following the setting up of The Irish Republican State, Irish history was manipulated in favour of Britain, apportioning no blame whatever.
That lasted to the early 60s when more meat began to be put on the skeleton.
The total change, where the Famine was examined minutely, didn't happen until 1997 - that was when the finger was pointed.
If the Irish education system distorted what was taught to kids - how was it distorted and why did it not produce wholesale hatred for Britain throughout Ireland - there is no evidence that it ever did - all the violence came from British Ireland
The Border camopaign is a total red-herring - that is traceble back to the growing unrest in the North - it was at that time that my uncle, aunt and their family were burned out of Derry and forced to flee to Dublin because of the increasing Unionist bigotry - the period is excellently documented in the Thames Television history of 'The Troubles'.
It is never acceptable for any Government to dictate the teaching of history - having been educated in the post Empire era in Britain, I know what an effect it can have on the understanding off the subject, where we were brought up to salute the flag, stand for the Queen and believe that the Empire was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
You have, as far as I can see, an accurate account of how Irish histort was taught in Irish schools (can't remember it ever being taiught in English schools) and the reasons for why it was manipulated, certainly not to engender hatred, in fact the opposite.
If yo have any different account, please give it rather pointing at undigested facts and the words of a somewhat eccentric academic.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 06:24 AM

Keith's other argument has been that the teaching of Irish history has led the Irish people to hate Britain

Nope that was your take on what has been said. Certainly it probably contributed to causing some Irish people to hate Britain enough to plant bombs that killed innocent Irish and British civilians - or are you going to try and tell us that that never happened - just like you tried to tell us that there were no cross border campaigns?

Tell us all what you thought was going through the minds of those who planted the Omagh Bomb - a free united Ireland? - unfortunately the cost the "men of the gun" demand comes at far too high a price. But I forgot Jim you are all for coercing people by force of arms.

I have no intention of reopening The Famine farce again with you

Care to explain then why you continually make reference to it and try to drift the thread? There is a very good reason that you don't want to open a Famine thread of your own - your ignorance and lack of knowledge there would be demonstrated as clearly as it has been here and on numerous WWI threads.

As for facts and statistics and detail nobody, not even you, has to-date countered them or corrected them. Wonder why not? I mean if they were just "invented" proving them false would be easy wouldn't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 05:00 AM

"The claim is that Irish children were taught to hate Britain through feeding children lies"

No Jim that is not "The claim" as you put it, that is the claim as you perceive it. Go back and look at what was actually said.

"Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive."

Culture of "blame" - "heroes" and "villains" - it most certainly does keep hatred alive - worked for you didn't it Jim. Had you looked at that documentary about the IRA's border campaign of 1956 to 1962 you would have heard the reasons what brought the "volunteers" to join the IRA - you'll soon find out that Louise Richardson was not alone.

There again you never did get back on whether or not it can be considered acceptable for a government to dictate what history is taught and what slant to put on it. But that is what the government did in Irish schools after independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 03:28 AM

""It made Prof. Richardson say she wanted to join IRA until she learned the truth." "
Professor Richardson is one person out of - how many - her politics is hardly one you would steer a boat by - she wishes to give Islamists an opportunity to put their case in Britain - is that somebody you would by a used car from?
You have taken one statement from this person that suits your case to prove something that does not exist.
The claim is that Irish children were taught to hate Britain through feeding children lies - no serious researcher has ever suggested that this was ever the case,
Keith's other star witness, Christine Kineally, said exactly the opposite, that Irish history was manipulated to avoid blaming Britain because it was politically expedient for Ireland to do so at a time of continuing emigration.
Neither of you have ventured to suggest exactly what "lies" were told - Keith has absolved himself from doing so by saying he knows nothing of Irish schools - would you like to give it a try - I very much doubt it?
Keith first constructed his argument around Kineally "someone who knows more than the rest of us put together" or some such words, on his basic misunderstanding of the term "revisionist" - now he is reduced to a deliberate misinterpretation of one single phrase.
As well as being an expert on the Famine, her field covers how history was taught - she based an entire book on the subject.
Keith works on soundbites - you don't even bother with that, you rely on people believing your own pronouncements, which nobody ever has really - you have always been an oddball with little support on this forum - your aggressive contempt for those you argue with has made sure of that, as has your extremist right-wing point of view. "Start taking more water with whatever you are drinking Jim." "Otherwise, typical Carroll" incoherent rant."do you really believe that's how an adult should behave - how old are you?
I joked about "pecking order" but it seems it was near enough to the truth to hit a raw spot - whatever you might know on these subjects is wiped out by your aggressive unpleasant manner of talking down to people - your latest offering has reverted you right back to your old insecure insulting behaviour.
Keith's other argument has been that the teaching of Irish history has led the Irish people to hate Britain - he has been forced to frantically back-pedal from that as he has been totally unable to identify any hatred, so he now - all of a sudden - never said that the Irish people hate Britain - a somewhat stupid claim in the face of his own statement.
Keith's now serial dishonesty which has now gone viral, rules him out of any discussion as far as I|'m concerned.
You're own behavior, particularly your refusal to back up your opinion with documented and identified facts, more or less rules you out and your sneery, insecure manner makes any contact extremely unpleasant.
Your ignorance of Irish history is, to say the least, spectacular, and your contempt for the Irish and their understanding and respect for their culture and history is distasteful - your level of argument on this matter is that of a B.N.P. ignoramous.
You want to continue arguing - fine - the subject interests me, but you are going to have to start behaving like an adult if you want to discuss with me - otherwise - go and talk to Keith - you're pretty well matched.
I have no intention of reopening The Famine farce again with you - you refused to address the salient points of the subject last time and I doubt if you want to relive that embarrassment again, so all we can look forward to would be more blustering and abusive haranguing - not interested.
The fact, as I understand them, can be found here 06 Jun 16 - 05:55 AM - you want to discuss them then do so with documented and identified facts of your own and if you manage do do so without the accompanied abusive arrogance, then maybe we'll discuss it - otherwise, take your unpleasant abuse elsewhere.
I've read what Kineally says and I know what her critics say - I also know that the last twenty years has brought a landslide of fresh study and information which has placed her at the forefront of the subject - that's the type of information you pick up from actually reading the subject rather than carefully selecting convenient snippets from the net.
You entire argument here has been reminiscent of Conservative Unionism - aggressive, bully-boy bluster, which would have given the Irish every reason to hate Britain, had they been inclined.
Let's see if you can manage to put a lid on it and produce some real, verified facts instead of insulting invective.
Give it a try - Keith's out, as far as I'm concerned.
Interesting that you should start contradicting Kineally though - do you want to be struck down by one of Keith's lightning-bolts?Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 03:28 AM

"the mass murder of the Easter Week leaders"

Really Jim? Don't really know about the others but Patrick Pearse, Tom Clarke, Thomas MacDonagh and James Connelly knew they were dead the second they decided to go ahead with the rising - they set it up to fail, and they lied to their men and deliberately put them into the field to die - the other leaders knew they were dead the second their names went on that Proclamation.

The leaders of the Easter Week Rising charged under the provisions of the Treason Act had absolutely no defence in law because they undoubtedly had taken up arms against the King and waged war against him in time of war. And all reference to perceived ills and aspirations as viewed by those men you could list till the cows came home, all that is just window dressing, it would not alter the fact that they had indisputably done what they had done and that was what they were charged with and no-one in their right mind was going to allow them to be given a soap box to air their views in a country that was engaged in a life and death struggle against an extremely powerful foe that these man had colluded with. If you scream and shout about Great Britain being an evil Imperial power then you have no right at all to complain or be surprised when she acts in what you perceive to be an evil imperial manner.

3,509 Arrested, about half of whom were released almost immediately;
1,836 Were imprisoned, all released after a year by general amnesty;
90 Convicted and sentenced to death, 75 of them have their sentences commuted to penal servitude and they became part of the 1,836 detailed above;
15 men executed;
66 Volunteers killed in action.

So out of 1,836 who took up arms against the King just under 5% died - That could have been a lot worse.

The population of Dublin was something in the order of about 310,000 people in 1916 and the death toll was 485. Of that number 260 were civilians who the Leaders of the rising deliberately put at risk by staging their armed insurrection in the middle of their city. That means that between the dates given in the thread title 0.08% of the civilian population of Dublin were killed and something like 0.7% were wounded - That too could have been a great deal worse, indeed should have been if all those claims of indiscriminate artillery and machine gun fire are to be given any credence. I wonder how many of them were the 1,000+ inmates of the Mendicity Institute who ranked as the weakest and most vulnerable in the city, who Sean Heuston just turfed out to fend for themselves, or the 3,000+ civilians, patients and charity cases, nurses and doctors who found themselves trapped inside the South Dublin Union when everything kicked off with no opportunity to get clear. Then there were the civilian residents of Moore Street who the Volunteers gave no chance to flee before they entered their homes and took up positions for their last ditch action.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 02:52 AM

You quoted from one of O'Callaghan's books yourself Jim.
Kineally said that in the 30s, academics tried and failed to get true history taught in Irish schools.
Richardson said her views changed when she learned true history at university, and said that many without that opportunity went on to join IRA as she had wanted to.

Off line for a few days.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 09:22 PM

Jim Carroll - 09 Jun 16 - 03:25 PM

Start taking more water with whatever you are drinking Jim.

Otherwise, typical Carroll incoherent rant.

"It made Prof. Richardson say she wanted to join IRA until she learned the truth." - is a more correct way of putting what Professor Richardson said.

Richardson says no such thing - she said she nearly joind the IRA afetr she was taught - she never said that what was taught was a lie.

Jim I think the hint that it was a lie is that bit where she said "until she learned the truth".

Kinealy (Still can't get the name of this favourite Irish Historian of yours right JOM) makes many errors of omission, she details correctly that the bulk of the population drop came about through emigration then makes the mistake of lumping together 1 million dead and makes no attempt to differentiate between those who died from diseases that at the time were incurable (And would remain so for another thirty years) and those who died from lack of food. He history is flawed in as much as she concentrates of what should have been done and not what actually happened at Government level. She does not concern herself with detail, unfortunately those actually dealing with the disaster had to Kinealy simply skips over it and so have you Jim.

Drop in population during Woodham Smiths "Great Hunger" from 8.5 million down to about just over 6 million (Drop of about 31.5%) Drop in population in the previous Great Famine in 1740-41 was 38% - that was the one where they say everyone was saved and disaster averted because they banned the shipment of grain out of Ireland (Another "myth") Here is what actually was banned:

"A government official, the Duke of Devonshire, in an unprecedented move on 19 January 1740, prohibited export of grain out of Ireland to any destination except Britain".

But in 1845 to 1849 it was only the potato harvest that failed not once but three times.

In 1740 to 1741 it was the potato harvest and cereal crops that failed simultaneously in conjunction with an extremely severe winter

In both cases disease was the main cause of death, NOT starvation. And the problems that presented themselves in both was the same - lack of infrastructure to transport, store and distribute food to where those who needed it were - Kinealy doesn't even touch on it. You see those are practical problems, the detail below Government level and Kinealy isn't very good on detail.

But Jim mentioned Cromwell, but of course it wasn't just Cromwell was it and it was during this period that the population dropped by not 31.5%, not 38% but by 41% this percentage caused by war, famine and disease where both sides employed scorched earth tactics to deny their respective enemies food, forage and support. But all this was par for the course in these times as demonstrated by what was happening over in Europe the Thirty years War was coming to an end. An event "classified as the last of the European wars of religion. It was one of the longest, most destructive conflicts in European history, resulting in 8 million civilian deaths from famine and disease.

Critics of Kinealy's work say her forte is in the policy of handling disasters yet even with all the machinery, equipment, communications, support and awareness in 1985 in Ethiopia ~500,000 died the world in 1983-1985 could not save them, in the mid-1600s, mid-1700s and mid-1800s it all must have been that bit more difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 03:25 PM

Where has any of your historians ever said that lies were told to school children?
None ever have.
Kineally specified what she means by myths - making heroes of John Mitchel and Wolfe Tone without putongt their actions into context - they are her 'myths'
Wat was taught in school was fact - Kineally criticises it for not apportioning blame - which she now does as the critic of her review pointed out.
Kineally is one who blames Britain for the famine and devotes an entire chapter to whether it was a deliberate act.
"It made Prof. Richardson want to join IRA until she learned the truth."
Richardson says no such thing - she said she nearly joind the IRA afetr she ws taught - she never said that what was taught was a lie.
Nowhere is there any claim that what was being taught was untrue - another thing you have made up - the critiscism was that the reasons for what happened wee avoided for political reasons.
This is all totally a product of your sick mind
You said that Irish peole were taught to hate - that is not true
You claim that Irish people hate Britain - that is not true
You have now desperately backpeddaled - first claiming that I made it up, now claiming that generations doesn't mean a significant number.
The only "eminent historian I can find named O'Callahan is an Irish blogger – but there again, anybody who appears to back your claims are "eminent" - you're gong to have to enlighten me on that one
If anything incited the Irish to hate Britain it is the 600 years on British rule, not indoctrination
If I was taught about Cromwell's massacres or Dunlavin Green or the massacre of the camp followers after Vinegar Hill or the genocide of the famine or two two 'Bloody Sunday massacres (Croke Park and Derry) or the mass murder of the Easter Week leaders, or the lies about Home Rule or the attempts to involve Ireland in an Imperial War or the half-century ill treatment of the Catholics of the six counties afer rigged elections, or the beating up of Civil Rights Marchers or internment without trial or the death of ten hunger strikers.... and all the other atrocities committed against Ireland, I would hate Britain -
None of these are lies or exaggerations and they are still being revealed.
It transpires that, when the British Courts locked up the Birmingham Six for seventeen years, the judiciary were fully aware of who did the bombings - English MP, Chis Mullen exposed him in his book 'Error of Judgement' or the Diplock Courts or the rigged enquiry into Derry's Bloody Sunnday.
Now, it transpires, the police were aware of the bombings in advance and could have stopped them
This week it has been announced that an investigation is taking place into the murder of six Catholics watching a football match in a bar in Northern Ireland by two Protestant terrorist gunmen - it is claimed that British security forces were involved - they knew the killers and they knew they were armed and did nothing.
I'll be honest with you, I am not a violent man by any means - I pride myself on that, but if you said some of the things you have claimed on threads like this to my face, I would be very likely to punch you - people like you inspire hatred.
I'm surprised that the Irish don't hare people like you
Yu have behan]ved towards Muslims in exactly the same way as you have the Irish - I really can't see why you have been allows to remain a member of this forum, behaving the way you do.
Now - where has anybody ever said that the Irish education system produced hatred in Irish children by telling lies?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 02:33 PM

Jim, I said it did not come from your schooling.

Where is there any ebvidence of "brainwashing" - indoctrination certainly does not mean the same

This thesaurus gives them as synonyms, which is also my view but if you prefer, withdraw "brainwashed" and insert "indoctrinated."
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/indoctrinate

As I have shown you with her own words Kineally refers to pre-1932 education that out mythical romanticism - not to hate.

Not true. You have only asserted it, not shown it.

As I have shown you with her own words Kineally refers to post-1932 education as involving the teaching nationalists myths as history.

Show anybody who claims that education was slanted at brainwashing kids to hate Britain.

I did show somebody, the eminent Irish historian O'Callaghan, who stated that the children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-British propaganda."
What effect might that have on impressionable young minds Jim?
It made Prof. Richardson want to join IRA until she learned the truth.

'I've proved every single point I made on te famine thread

I proved the only point I made on the famine thread.
That historians disagreed on Britain being to blame, and most did not believe Britain to be culpable.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 01:52 PM

And for the record
I received my education in an English Secondary Modern Protestant school
Stupid boy!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 01:48 PM

Two threads you are lying on simultaneously now
Where is there any ebvidence of "brainwashing" - indoctrination certainly does not mean the same - definition "to teach a person or group to accept ideas uncritically - all education does that.
Where is there any indication that what is being taught is wrong or untrue - nowhere.
As I have shown you with her own words Kineally refers to pre-1932 education that out mythical romanticism - not to hate.
Show anybody who claims that education was slanted at brainwashing kids to hate Britain.
"You are a good example of someone who believes all those nationalist myths and anti-British propaganda."'I've proved every single point I made on te famine thread - you proved nothing and you have been given those dteails above
Date: 06 Jun 16 - 05:55 AM
All of those statements are now fully accepted facts - every one.
You have totally disgraced yourself here and proved nothing.
Now - which facts of mine are nationalist myths exactly - take your time?
I have produces full documented proof of what I claimn - you have yet to produce any
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 11:09 AM

By the way – no historian anywhere has ever used the term "brainwashing" or have claimed that there was any attempt to make children hate Britain, nor have they ever claimed that what was taught in schools was historically incorrect.

Yes they have.
Indoctrinating is synonymous with brainwashing.
O'Callaghan stated that children were "indoctrinated" with"anti-British propaganda."
Kineally stated that "nationalist myths" were taught.
Myths are not "historically correct" Jim.

Indoctrinating children to believe that Britain was to blame for much of Ireland's problems will tend to make them dislike Britain.
It did with Prof. Richardson.

You are a good example of someone who believes all those nationalist myths and anti-British propaganda. (Not from your own schooling, but maybe passed on from family members.)
We all know that you hate Britain, but not all Britons.
Only those of us who point out that your beliefs are myths and propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 10:56 AM

"reading fictional accounts of Oirish history and seethed with anger."
Got me there Teribus - you arguments and evidence have totally overwhelmed me!!
Pathetic even for you
KEITH
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 10:10 AM

Well Jim I don't know about schoolchildren but it sure as hell worked with you as you sat there reading fictional accounts of Oirish history and seethed with anger.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 09:53 AM

Finished with this Keith - you have nailed your own bigoted colours to your mast far too often to make it necessary.
Rearrange this into a well--known phrase or saying - "ON HUNG MY PETARD OWN"
Gone - for now - try the 'Bog Snorkelling rule book.
Jim Carroll
By the way – no historian anywhere has ever used the term "brainwashing" or have claimed that there was any attempt to make children hate Britain, nor have they ever claimed that what was taught in schools was historically incorrect.
Kineally suggested in her attacks on revisionism that what was taught in schools was incomplete and unbalanced in order not to implicate Britain or to upset the emigrant's applecart at a time when many thousands f the m were crossing the Irish Sea – the diametric opposite to your own claims.
Of course, you have ben given this in her own words and choose to ignore it in order to save face, which is what this is now about.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 08:31 AM

I never claimed that there was any significant hatred.
You faked quotes to claim that I had. ("hate the British"and "to hate us British"
I have produced three Irish historians who all agree children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-british propaganda."
You have found nothing anywhere that contradicts those views.

I suggested that the intent was "to keep hate alive."
Why else would they be "indoctrinated" with "anti-British propaganda" and "nationalist myths?"
I have experienced nothing but goodwill from all the Irish folk I have ever met, so the brainwashers may not have been too successful in their aim.
However I am quite certain that it has coloured their view of history and explains why so many are so uncritical of the rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 07:29 AM

More lies by teh way Keith
"I suggested that the intent was "to keep hate alive."
Your statement was that it had kept hate alive - "keeping hate alive." - once again, exact words.
You are totally inacpable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood, even when it's in front of you in black and white.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 07:24 AM

"I never claimed that there was any significant hatred."
Sigh........
Yes you did Keith you have claimed generations of schoolchildren have been brainwashed to hate us
Your exact words - yet again
"Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive."
The key words in your statement are "brainwashed", "generations" and "keep hate alive"
That may not be significant to you - it obviously isn't, but it is a disgusting racist smear to the people I respect
"You faked quotes to claim that I had."
Have I faked that?
I have faked nothing - and such an accusation is outrageous coming from somebody who has deliberately lied about what they said, has been caught out in that lie and is now attempting to wriggle out of what they actually said.
You really need to pay attention to the basic rules of bog-snorkeling - when you find yourself up to your neck in shit, keep your mouth shut and stop wriggling.
I do not lie - I do not make things up - as I have said, with you pair, I don't have to, you do my work for me.
Your contempt for the Irish, their knowledge of their own history, their independence and the ability to think for themselves is palpable in your claims of their having been tricked and brainwashed into fighting for independence.
Your willingness to lie and distort to substantiate those claims has now spread over at least three, long, ungainly threads.
You have picked 'historians' who have claimed the opposite, you have distorted facts and you have insultingly dismissed the arguments of Irish people who have had the temerity to disagree with by describing their arguments as having been "based on propaganda not fact."
Who do you people think you are - you're certainly not scholars - you have admitted being neither knowledgeable nor interested - who are you intellectual supermen?
You leave a sour taste in the mouth.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 04:44 AM

You have proved nothing, you have offered nothing in dispute on any of these things other than your own uncorroborated opinions no evidence, just unqualified statements and you have attempted to create smokescreens and set up 'straw dogs' to act as a diversion to you having to respond to the real facts..

Good heavens Jim, I'd no idea that prior to my birth that I had written the Government of Ireland Act 1914 and got it through Parliament and had it enacted into law.

Similarly with the following pieces of legislation passed by Parliament:

Parliament Act 1911
Army Act 1914
Defence of the Realm Act 1914
Military Service Act 1916
Government of Ireland Act 1920
Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921

So the above and the stated provisions therein are just "uncorroborated opinions no evidence, just unqualified statements"!!!

A question Jim do you EVER preview your posts and read the complete and utter crap that you write?

Had there been no rising there would have been no destruction or loss of life - that statement is true and blindingly obvious - the rising was brought about by SEVEN MEN who didn't even have the backing of their own organisations and who represented nobody but themselves. They couldn't even agree amongst themselves what form their united independent Ireland would take their views being so disparate.

You grab a handful of 'facts' and statistics out of the air, present them as gospel and arrogantly expect them to be accepted without question - you seldom, if ever produce links to what you say.
Fair play to Keith - he is noted for his scrabbling around to find something to fit his preconceived notions, inaccurate, out of context and invariably misunderstood as they usually are.

The facts are generally facts as are the statistics, not once have you been able to refute them.

They and the arguments I present are not presented as gospel, but are presented to refute ludicrous statements made by yourself and your pals and they are presented for you to refute by countering with what you think are the correct facts and statistics.

Keith A by and large does the same and guess what Jim, to date not one single example have you been able to come up with that disputes what either of us has said.

"your latest "no mortar in Sackville Street" was classic"

Yes Jim it is "classic" yet another example of more Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" - I think that if you scroll down to my post you will find that what I asked Rapparee to show me was where the CONCRETE was as that was the word used in the Irish Times witness statement he quoted.

Logic, reasoning, common sense and attention to detail are all sadly lacking in your posts, what they are heavily laced with is emotive claptrap founded on ill-informed, biased fiction and a totally subjective view on history.

On the 6th December 1922 The Irish Free State Constitution Act enacted by the British Government brought into being a 32 county United Independent Ireland.

On the 7th December 1922 six counties of that United Independent Ireland exercised their right of self-determination and opted out, deciding themselves to remain as part of the United Kingdom to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Their right to self-determination having been accepted and acknowledged by all signatories to the Anglo-Irish Treaty. So pray tell how did Great Britain who handed over 32 counties force through Partition. But of course you do not believe in right of self-determination for all do you? You believe that people should be coerced into political and economic unions against their will by force of arms.

C'mon Jim tell us all about how the UK forced the Republic of Ireland to drop its illegal constitutional territorial claim to Northern Ireland in 1998. Oh hang about that came to pass because of the result of a referendum where the actual wishes and desires of the Irish people were established - does that register Mr Carroll? The will of the people not the wishes of some little clique within a clique of a clique of delusional Republicans whose answer to the clearly stated desire of the Irish people was the Omagh bombing - just what on earth do you think they were thinking of, wouldn't your magnificent seven have been so proud of the way they'd followed in their footsteps.

"Evidence" you don't know the meaning of the word.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 04:25 AM


Keith has mounted a campaign to prove the Irish a bitter, hate-filled people, ...Keith's dishonest refusal to provide one single shred of evidence of that hatred

I never claimed that there was any significant hatred.
You faked quotes to claim that I had.
I have produced three Irish historians who all agree children were "indoctrinated" with "anti-british propaganda."

I suggested that the intent was "to keep hate alive."
I have experienced nothing but goodwill from all the Irish folk I have ever met, so the brainwashers may not have been too successful in their aim.
However I am quite certain that it has coloured their view of history and explains why so many are so uncritical of the rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 03:36 AM

Been there
You have proved nothing, you have offered nothing in dispute on any of these things other than your own uncorroborated opinions no evidence, just unqualified statements and you have attempted to create smokescreens and set up 'straw dogs' to act as a diversion to you having to respond to the real facts..
A typical example is your clinging on to your 'artillery' lifebelt - nobody has disputed that the looters' fires were started before the artillery was used - you didn't "prove conclusively" when the fires were started - I, in fact, introduced the question of the looting and I went on to point out that these fires were brought under control and that the main confligration that followed was caused by the artillery and it was this which devastated Sackvill Street and Dublin City Centre.
All this was brought about by your claim that it was rebel action that brought about the destruction and not that of the troops - those are the facts that you have attempted to cover with your smokescreen.
To claim that you "have provided links" to anything is utterly ludicrous - one of the most distinguishing features of your entire contribution is that you never provide links to anything you have said and have consistently and often pointedly ignored requests to do so
I had a quick shufti through some of our past clashes before I settled down in front of Lewis last night - this has been your practice with all your contributions to this forum, almost without exception, as has been your arrogantly talking down to those who disagree with you.
You grab a handful of 'facts' and statistics out of the air, present them as gospel and arrogantly expect them to be accepted without question - you seldom, if ever produce links to what you say.
Fair play to Keith - he is noted for his scrabbling around to find something to fit his preconceived notions, inaccurate, out of context and invariably misunderstood as they usually are.
You, somewhat lazily, rely on your bluff and bullshit being accepted at face value.
You have dismissed out of hand as "nonsense" or "made up Carroll shite" or "irrelevant", documented and linked information from clearly identified serious works of history and have offered nothing resembling serious research in return - nothing!
I don't think I have ever experienced such an unpleasant crusade by two people who appear to be living in a world of flying Union Jacks and glorious battles that was created in the heads of writers like A. G. Henty, Alfred Lord Tennyson and Charles Mackay - a sort of 'Teribus in Keith's Adventures in Imperial-Land'.
Your ignorance of Ireland, its history, its people has often proved spectacular - your latest "no mortar in Sackville Street" was classic - Dublin was full or mortar-rendered buildings at the time.
You have attempted to present a picture of a rebellion that was unnecessary - it wasn't, and the political machinations of British politicians in forcing through a partition which created a repressively sectarian state has proved that beyond a shadow of doubt.
You claim the men who gave their lives to set in motion the cause of Irish freedom from Empire were selfish and dishonest - they were neither - no group of revolutionaries widely announce their plans in advance - they confine them to 'need-to know'.
As for selfish - their aims were as noble as it comes - not for personal gain but for nationhood after centuries of oppressive rule by a power that had excelled itself a little over half a century earlier by depopulating Ireland and carrying out what nowadays would be recognised and mass-genocide - still referred to as Ireland's Holocaust.
You gloated that the rebellion was a failure - it most certainly wasn't - it turned the apathy of the Irish people into a revolutionary fervour which eventually set the dominoes falling through the entire Empire.
Britain's legacy to Ireland was a divided nation, permanent emigration and an economy that only began to right itself at the end of the 20th century - like many of Britain's former subjects, Ireland is still feeling the evil effects of Imperial rule.
One of the features of your squalid behaviour here has been to attempt to smear revolutions as German Spies and sexual perverts - the age-old sick dirty-tricks method of defusing and denigrating opposition to despotism.
Keith has mounted a campaign to prove the Irish a bitter, hate-filled people, when, as anybody knows who has had anything to do with them, they are exactly the opposite - even if you had never met an Irishman, Keith's dishonest refusal to provide one single shred of evidence of that hatred ,(having claimed several times that he had and actually having refused to do so) speaks for itself
You have both set out to show that Irish people as gullibly-stupid, "brainwashed by propaganda" and ignorant of their own history - as far from the truth as you could possibly get.
Neither of you have made anything that resembles a case yet you, in your ignorance and arrogance have dragged this into yet another epic - just as you did with the Famine, and Homs and the W.W.1. bloodbath - a behavioural pattern or what!!
I don't think I have ever met a case of anybody being so obviously, dishonestly wrong about anything, and proven to be so by factual evidence - an achievement of sorts, I suppose.
Breakfast calls
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 16 - 03:21 AM

A few more:

10: You stated that the threat of conscription played a significant role in the rising. Yet it was pointed out to you:

(a) That the decision to mount a rising was taken by the IRB at a meeting held on the 4th September 1914 (Source: History of the IRB)

(b) That when Great Britain declared war on Germany in August 1914 conscription did not exist.

(c) That when conscription was considered it specifically excluded all males who did not reside in Great Britain (Source: Military Service Act 1916) from which the relevant passages were quoted and reference made to the Act itself, all of which you could have checked. The Military Service Bill was introduced in the Commons in January 1916 and passed into Law to become the Military Service Act 1916 on 1st March 1916. As planning for the rising had already been in train since the 4th September 1914 conscription could have played no part at all in it. The Derby Scheme that was used to test if conscription was necessary did not extend to Ireland so any rational thought process would have indicated that neither would conscription when the Derby Scheme showed that conscription was necessary.

What happened AFTER the rising can have no bearing at all on what excuses were used to justify the material destruction and loss of life in Dublin that Easter.

11: You stated that those Court Martialled and executed were not guilty of treason, and that they were not charged with treason. I provided links to the Treason Act and pointed out to you, providing direct quotes from the text, that they were charged with offences under the provisions of the Treason Act.

12: You claimed that the Courts Martial were illegal - I pointed out that under Martial Law declared on the 25th April 1916 they were perfectly legal in accordance with the Army Act 1914, Military Law and under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act 1914.

The contention that in time of war you can form armed companies of uniformed men, declare yourselves to be an Army of an independent State and declare yourselves to be allied to an enemy state and at war with Great Britain then when it all crumbles and fails plead that you should tried as ordinary citizens before civilian criminal courts is bizarre to say the least. Waging war is not a game, it never has been. 3,509 people were arrested in the aftermath of the rising, around 1,800 were imprisoned, 90 were sentenced to death of whom 15 were executed and 75 had their sentences commuted to penal servitude for five years, all being released after about a year under a general amnesty.

Mistakes made? Yes instead of executing the leaders they should have been publicly disgraced, their disloyalty to their own men should have been demonstrated, their deceit exposed. Those imprisoned should have been held until after conclusion of hostilities with Germany.

13: You claimed that the rising had no effect on Unionist views. Both Keith A and myself provided links, sources and quotations that showed when agreement in principle was reached by both Unionists under Carson and Nationalists under Redmond was reached - we even gave you the date (8th July, 1914). Links and quotations supplied by yourself, combined with the above (You cannot just shrug and pretend it didn't happen because it did, it is a matter of record, the 1914 Home Rule Bill could not have been passed without it happening) demonstrate the following:

(a) Agreement in principle reached 8th July 1914 regarding a six year temporary exclusion from direct rule from Dublin for Ulster.

(b) Easter Rising 24th to 29th April, 1916

(c) "Crucial Meeting" of the Ulster Unionist Movement in May or June 1916 which resulted in

(d) Demand for permanent partition on 19th July 1916.

There was only ONE THING that happened of any consequence in Ireland between the 8th July 1914 and the 19th July 1916 that could in any way have influenced a shift in attitude between Unionist and Nationalist camps - the Rising - to state anything else would be ludicrous. The rising undoubtedly hardened attitudes on both sides and more or less guaranteed that Ireland would be partitioned.