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

[18 Brumaire]

Its very simple really. Now that old fashioned colonialism is passé and no longer acceptable in polite society, they try a different tack, "oh now lets all be friends together with our shared history and all that (so that we can screw you in some other underhand way).", i.e. when the game starts to go against us lets change the rules. Anyone who buys into this is a dupe.

[Goldwater]

The IT's sub-editorial department suffered especially under the cutbacks

cYp

There has been a very noticeable increase in the number of errors and typos in recent months. It's most unimpressive.

The worst I have seen was only the other day on the front page. At the end of a story about Eircom, it was stated that Fine Gael had called on the government to 'privatise' Eircom. This would be difficult to achieve, and sure enough the fuller story inside correctly stated that FG want the government to nationalise Eircom

[Catalpa]

There has been a very noticeable increase in the number of errors and typos in recent months. It's most unimpressive.

The worst I have seen was only the other day on the front page. At the end of a story about Eircom, it was stated that Fine Gael had called on the government to 'privatise' Eircom. This would be difficult to achieve, and sure enough the fuller story inside correctly stated that FG want the government to nationalise Eircom

Noticed that myself and thought it a bit odd until I turned to the inside pages...

[Nem]

Its very simple really. Now that old fashioned colonialism is passé and no longer acceptable in polite society, they try a different tack, "oh now lets all be friends together with our shared history and all that (so that we can screw you in some other underhand way).", i.e. when the game starts to go against us lets change the rules. Anyone who buys into this is a dupe.

I respectfully disagree. Of course we need to look at Anglo-Irish relationships in a historical context. And I don't think that is necessarily in a context of being 'shared' but to establish a better understanding of Ireland's role in the British Empire for instance. The serious mistake the article in the OP makes is that it tries to make some political point out of it. And that goes both ways.

[indepepdenceday]

The danger of opinions is everyone can have one!
The Liberal Party successfully passed the Home Rule Bill through the House of Commens but the feudal House of Lords knocked it back. As a result the party attempted to limit the powers of the Lords which weakened thier political position.

A massive push towards the new Labour Party in 1919 left the Liberals with no real solid ground.

[indepepdenceday]

Opinuions are like a\holes everyone has one.

The Liberals passed the second Home Rule Bill through the Commons in 1911. The pro empire conservative House of Lords knocked it back. The Liberal Party then attempted to reduce the power of the Lords under the 1912 Parliment Act, greatly reducing their political allies.

The end of World War One saw the growth of Socialism (have a look at Russia 1917)and a huge sway towards the new Labour Party in England destroying the Liberals voting base.

Winston's father was the very pro empire leader of the Conservative Party for a period of the late 19th century.

Perhaps if the writer of the initial post had a proper look at history he may avoid such knee jerk reactions that make him look foolish like so many of my opinionated countrymen.
If he read the article properly and did some research on the points raised he may learn somthing!
The sooner we Irish come to terms with the reality of our own history the sooner we can become a modern nation which doesn't elect clowns who sing on the back of tractors and whose Daddy's were great fellas.

[merle haggard]

[quote=Thranduil;1573930]

The word 'atrocity' is very strong, it suggests an unacceptable, almost irrational reaction. Given Irish history before and after the changes i think the Irish response to (real or perceived) former tormentors has been exceptionally mild. I think the case that many Protestant famillies who were targetted were targetted for their British loyalties rather than their religion is convincing and i seem to recall one Canadian Professor who tried to suggest ethnic cleansing had taken place was shot down pretty quickly using the facts.

very few protestant families were targetted , literally a handful , and none wee targetted for their British loyalties . The only people targetted were those who had been identified as active British agents , often armed British agents whod shot people down . The treatment of these people was in no way different to the treatment given to the other British agents , the vast majority of whom were Irish catholics .
Its rarely pointed out that a unionist spokesperson in the south who pointed out in the Times of that period that her majestys loyal subjects in the south werent being persecuted and werent passing on information simply because they didnt even possess the informtion to pass on had his property burned to the ground in reprisal shortly afterwards by the Black and Tans

The Protestants once controlled almost everything in Ireland, about a hundred years ago they lost much (but by no means all) of their power and influence as democracy and more social justice appeared on the horizon. Surely they should/would realise that the changes which took place were right and just and therefore not a cause for residual bitterness on their part? I think most of them realise just that. The way things used to be was Protestant domination, the way things are is non sectarian - no Protestant domination. The way back to the 'way things used to be' with landed gentry and a Protestant political hegemony etc is gone and it would wrong to promise a return of that kind of status to Irish Protestants, it would be cruel - being impossible.

what these people are promising is that Ireland should in genral become more anglicised , less seperatist in ethos and take the position that British colonialism in this country is something to be celebrated . As colonialism as a positive and unifying force means seperatism is negative and divisive one in this equation its then necessary to retrospectively criminalise and demonise our sepertist past . And promote the somme etc as a positive unifying sacrifice . Ireland as a whole should be much more anglocentric

of course this argument isnt remotely about a shared united Ireland , its about retrospectively justfying colonialism as a positive orce in Ireland and cementing British influence in Ireland.

I don't doubt there are some who hanker badly for that (it must be darned fine to be the first class in a nation of lower classes and ranks) but my understanding of the history of Protestants in Ireland is not just festooned with mental images of greedy landbarons and the Orange Order, but of revolutionaries and patriots working for equality and national justice.

a short lived affair though . And patriotism is not part of this agenda

Fair point and it is true that the ability of a 32C nation to accept a Unionist political establishment would be an essential prequisite, we cannot have a peaceful 32C nation that refuses to allow any political voice for Unionism after all.

how on earth can a nation or democracy function by accomodating a political point of view that takes the position the nation should have no right to exist as an entity in the first place but instead must derive its sovereignty from a foreign monarch and parliament ? An Ulster identity can be democratically accomodated . Unionism cannot . Once a nation establishes itself its unity and integrity and its sovereignty must be completely inviolate . Otherwise disaster beckons for that nation . War , division and conflict are a certainty. To accomodate unionism means your constitution must accomodate the possibility part of Ireland will be reunited with Britian . This door cannot be left open . Our nations sovereignty must be completely inviolate otherwise we dont have a nation .

I just feel that Unionists in the North are unreachable and have given no signs to suggest otherwise and that's the reality..

Unionists in the north have a veto , therefore are not the slightest bit interested and absolutely no mtivation exists to make them interested . Its only when that veto is in question - as happened in the early 70s when a British pull out was on the cards - that they seek a different realtionship and start talking about possible forms and conditions of unity ..
Anyone though claiming that sterilising Ieland of its seperatist ethos , and abandoning the nations right to exist as a national entity , would bring unity is of course full of it . Its a lie .

Besides i am not sure FG would be comfortable with a Protestant Unionist party emerging in the Republic since they sort of hoover up that vote already, unless they rebranded themselves?

Its former leader John Bruton once openly declared himself a unionist in Leinster house during a debate in the early 90s .
Harold Wilson approached Fitzgerald and Cosgrave in the mid 70s and told him he intended pulling the British presence out of Ireland . They went buck ape.s.hit and did whatever they could to prevent that scenario ever occuring . Including the deliberate wrecking of the Feakle talks and peace talks between the provos and loyalist paramilitaries . Fitzgerald has gone on record many times expressing his opposition to Irish unity at any time on the basis the country cannot afford to be unified

fianna fail are no different in this regard however feel the need to wave a tricolour for propaganda purposes

[18 Brumaire]

The serious mistake the article in the OP makes is that it tries to make some political point out of it. And that goes both ways.

Thats the problem with "revisionism". Objective historical writing is one thing, or even taking a particular line and backing it up, but when it is done for political ends, when the conclusion is advice for the future, thats not history.

[Catalpa]

The danger of opinions is everyone can have one!
The Liberal Party successfully passed the Home Rule Bill through the House of Commens but the feudal House of Lords knocked it back. As a result the party attempted to limit the powers of the Lords which weakened thier political position.

A massive push towards the new Labour Party in 1919 left the Liberals with no real solid ground.

I thought it was LGs Budget that the Lords tried or threatened to block in 1910/11 and as a result their powers were limited to three Parliamentry years only?

That opened the way for Home Rule for Ireland...

[Earnest]

very few protestant families were targetted , literally a handful , and none wee targetted for their British loyalties . The only people targetted were those who had been identified as active British agents , often armed British agents whod shot people down . The treatment of these people was in no way different to the treatment given to the other British agents , the vast majority of whom were Irish catholics .
Its rarely pointed out that a unionist spokesperson in the south who pointed out in the Times of that period that her majestys loyal subjects in the south werent being persecuted and werent passing on information simply because they didnt even possess the informtion to pass on had his property burned to the ground in reprisal shortly afterwards by the Black and Tans

what these people are promising is that Ireland should in genral become more anglicised , less seperatist in ethos and take the position that British colonialism in this country is something to be celebrated . As colonialism as a positive and unifying force means seperatism is negative and divisive one in this equation its then necessary to retrospectively criminalise and demonise our sepertist past . And promote the somme etc as a positive unifying sacrifice . Ireland as a whole should be much more anglocentric

I don't think that is anything like what the Irish Times was thinking of. It's not a question of celebrating colonialism. It's more a question of accepting that our ancestors had differing political views and we don't have to take sides. I do not feel a traitor to Ireland because of anything my ancestors may have done. This is my country too: can I have an equal right to participate? Both Catholics and Protestants fought at the Somme: can we not accept that they did what they thought was right at the time?

of course this argument isnt remotely about a shared united Ireland , its about retrospectively justfying colonialism as a positive orce in Ireland and cementing British influence in Ireland.

a short lived affair though . And patriotism is not part of this agenda

how on earth can a nation or democracy function by accomodating a political point of view that takes the position the nation should have no right to exist as an entity in the first place but instead must derive its sovereignty from a foreign monarch and parliament ? An Ulster identity can be democratically accomodated . Unionism cannot . Once a nation establishes itself its unity and integrity and its sovereignty must be completely inviolate . Otherwise disaster beckons for that nation . War , division and conflict are a certainty. To accomodate unionism means your constitution must accomodate the possibility part of Ireland will be reunited with Britian . This door cannot be left open . Our nations sovereignty must be completely inviolate otherwise we dont have a nation .

What if the nation decided freely that it wanted to be united with Great Britain? What if the nation decided freely that it was happy for part of Ireland to be united with Great Britain if the majority in that part wanted that? (Well, actually, the nation did decide that when it voted to accept the Good Friday Agreement.)