The Irish Times & Irish History- have they lost the Plot?

[Catalpa]

Churchill, Winston's father, was Conservative leader 1886-87
The Home Rule Bill was pushed through by the Liberals, but suspended by the Lords?

Well he was Leader of the House of Commons and the chief Tory in that Chamber in the mid 1880s.

But Lord Salisbury was the PM and I think its very unlikely he was not also Leader of the Tory Party as well.

The highest position Lord Randolf reached was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[cyberianpan]

Churchill, Winston's father, was Conservative leader 1886-87

No , he was House of Commons leader

Wiki

In the autumn election of 1885 he contested Birmingham Central against John Bright, and though defeated here, was at the same time returned by a very large majority for South Paddington. In the contest which arose over Gladstone's Home Rule bill, Lord Randolph again bore a conspicuous part, and in the electioneering campaign his activity was only second to that of some of the Liberal Unionists, Lord Hartington, George Goschen and Joseph Chamberlain. He was now the recognised Conservative champion in the Lower Chamber, and when the second Salisbury administration was formed after the general election of 1886 he became Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons.

Big boss was Salisbury.

cYp

[droghedasouth]

So it was successfully pushed through by the Liberals.

And the Churchill thing is correct?

Sort of correct - he was the recognised champion of the Conservatives in the Commons after the 1885 election but Lord Salisbury was leader of the party and Prime Minister. His strange resignation from being Chancellor and Leader of the House in December 1886 was very sudden and his career never recovered. He was already in serious decline (political and health) when he coined the expression that Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right.

[Thranduil]

In the Evening Herald on St Patrick's day they referred to the saint as having been a 17thC character, they referred to the 17thC St Patrick in both the title (shocking) and in the text. It could make you wonder about those times when you hear those stories about 30-60% of the people in country X not being able to point out their capital city on a map.

he believes that accepting a Protestant voice back into Ireland’s political and social culture should be the next phase of the peace process – and a prerequisite for a united Ireland

What exactly are 'Protestant Voices', on what subjects do Protestants differ from Catholics that we would have need of such a voice? Is he perhaps trying to insert 'Protestant' as code for something else, say... 'Unionist'? If so, the underhanded way of going about it is understandable given that Unionism and United-Irelandism are seemingly mutually exclusive, i say seemingly because Ireland was United when it was part of the UK - but they don't actually think the thick paddys would fall for that one do they?

If he truly is imagining an actual Protestant-Catholic issue existing down here, let me just say that contrary to earlier reports I don't think we are operating the counter-reformation down here, i think Protestants and Catholics get along just fine - the problems have always been up there in British administered areas - it doesn't help to keep scratching your tummy when it's your neck that is itchy.

I would be happy to put an actual limit on the things that some people say 'must happen' before United Ireland can come about, to me it seems like a whole load of things being given away scot free with only smoke as the offer, my own opinion is that it is just smoke.

[joel]

In the Evening Herald on St Patrick's day they referred to the saint as having been a 17thC character, they referred to the 17thC St Patrick in both the title (shocking) and in the text. It could make you wonder about those times when you hear those stories about 30-60% of the people in country X not being able to point out their capital city on a map.



What exactly are 'Protestant Voices', on what subjects do Protestants differ from Catholics that we would have need of such a voice? Is he perhaps trying to insert 'Protestant' as code for something else, say... 'Unionist'? If so, the underhanded way of going about it is understandable given that Unionism and United-Irelandism are seemingly mutually exclusive, i say seemingly because Ireland was United when it was part of the UK - but they don't actually think the thick paddys would fall for that one do they?

If he truly is imagining an actual Protestant-Catholic issue existing down here, let me just say that contrary to earlier reports I don't think we are operating the counter-reformation down here, i think Protestants and Catholics get along just fine - the problems have always been up there in British administered areas - it doesn't help to keep scratching your tummy when it's your neck that is itchy.

I would be happy to put an actual limit on the things that some people say 'must happen' before United Ireland can come about, to me it seems like a whole load of things being given away scot free with only smoke as the offer, my own opinion is that it is just smoke.

Dunno - perhaps any admitted Catholics would have to start paying tithes to the Anglican church again? Perhaps their vote would be downgraded in value - and they'd have to travel in the back of the bus? Something like that.

[pete2]

In the Evening Herald on St Patrick's day they referred to the saint as having been a 17thC character, they referred to the 17thC St Patrick in both the title (shocking) and in the text. It could make you wonder about those times when you hear those stories about 30-60% of the people in country X not being able to point out their capital city on a map.



What exactly are 'Protestant Voices', on what subjects do Protestants differ from Catholics that we would have need of such a voice? Is he perhaps trying to insert 'Protestant' as code for something else, say... 'Unionist'? If so, the underhanded way of going about it is understandable given that Unionism and United-Irelandism are seemingly mutually exclusive, i say seemingly because Ireland was United when it was part of the UK - but they don't actually think the thick paddys would fall for that one do they?

If he truly is imagining an actual Protestant-Catholic issue existing down here, let me just say that contrary to earlier reports I don't think we are operating the counter-reformation down here, i think Protestants and Catholics get along just fine - the problems have always been up there in British administered areas - it doesn't help to keep scratching your tummy when it's your neck that is itchy.

No way to know and its off the top of my head but doubt its shorthand for unionist, there are a few unionists in the south no doubt but he must mean the descendants of the political class deposed and disenfranchised during the 1900s. The landed aristocracy and clergy? Surely bitterness remains as a result of this? Not just the nostalgia of Kevin Myers types. Weren't there atrocities in Cork as the article says?

Including their voice in the establishment of the south, a parity of esteem if you like, being a means to reengage unionists in the north, offer reassurance and a welcome. Suppose it could be some sort of precondition appearing or could be a casual sop to his readership, stupid comment etc. Don't know who the author is, his blogger account is just about technology, not sure why hes writing on history.

[Breadan O'Connor]

Just read this Article from today's edition:

Truth elusive in the shared history of Ireland and Britain - The Irish Times - Fri, Apr 17, 2009

Surely the IT could have got someone to cross check it first before publishing such a piece and the rather glaring Historical errors that it contains?

I mean honestly if the want Historical Articles in their 'paper of record' I'll do it for

- for Free!

Clangers:

'The Liberals had finally pushed through the Home Rule Bill in 1911 after 60 years of effort.'

'The devastation of the first World War and the election of 1919 saw to that for good'

'Thatcher’s predecessor as Tory leader 100 years before, Lord Randolf Churchill'

He's right about one thing!! i.e. That the British Conservatives were responsible for the rise of Irish Republicanism by supporting the Ulster Unionist separatists against Home Rule.

As he says, Randolph Churchill was the midwife to Ulster separatism.

[T.S. Gracchus]

Of course every nation should try to improve both its (collective) understanding of its own history and its understanding of the histories of other societies. But would such a pursuit of collective self-improvement/enlightenment necessarily carry a consolidationist mandate (i.e., Ireland being made ready to join the Commonwealth, the creation of a “common history” for the peoples of Ireland, etc.)? IMO, such a field of INTELLECTUAL pursuit can never, not even to the very smallest degree, RIGHTLY be politicized.

The author also discusses the development of the Tory-Unionist alliance. Of course, he failed to consider there that an accurately drawn border (i.e., a border that better represented the respective allegiances of both of Ulster’s national groups) would’ve pre-empted the rise to relevance of such an alliance.

[joel]

He says that the Irish just remember the bad bits. Anyone know of ANY good bits under British rule?

[Elvis Parsley]

He says that the Irish just remember the bad bits. Anyone know of ANY good bits under British rule?

No Fianna Fail