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.

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.

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.

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

True. In one sense he is right. When a peer was Prime Minister, some figure among the MPs was treated if not as as leader of the party, then leader of the party's MPs. Thatcher held that role as part of her role as leader of the party and prime minister. When a peer was prime minister there was often a form of dyarchy, with the leading MP treated as an effective PM in the Commons. That no longer arises - the last peer to be PM was the Earl of Home for a short time in 1963. Technically a peer can still be PM if chosen by their party as leader, as all parties now elect leaders. But as no party will elect a peer that would only arise in an extreme emergency, for example if leading ministers and the PM were assassinated and the most senior figure left in a crisis was in the Lords. It isn't as in Ireland where a member of the upper house is constitutionally barred from heading a government. But it is exceptionally unlikely to happen again, especially as inter-party negotiations are now well advanced on replacing the Lords with an elected senate. (The issue of a PM in the UK senate has not to date been contemplated in the discussions. It may arise in the negotiations later, if they don't break down.)

One curious fact about Churchill and his links with Unionism. When Parnell supported the Tories in forming a government, the go-between was one Lord Randolph Churchill, and he was at that stage viewed as a home ruler.

Thank you for your comprehensive post. Atrocity was too strong, the word in the article was "persecutions" so apologies. Raising that does lead onto what the author hints at. Ive heard that a widely held unionist view is that there was widespread agitation against their co-religionists back then. A representative sample below

From an anonymous comment in the northern loyalist press here. I would guess this is accurate given the times but perhaps this is what the author of the article was getting at. To reintroduce a "protestant voice" to public life is to acknowledge wrongs that were done, and make amends/compensation (of a political not financial kind). This cannot return to a hegemony of course, but to have some political input into public affairs. I'm sure this already exists via various political figures but is it perceived to exist? that might be the issue.

__________________
Mass Immigration - Not in my name
Liberal elites across the EU have taken Bertoldt Brechts advice and declared that the people have forfeited the confidence of the government, therefore the liberal elites have decided to dissolve the people and import another.

They should give the land they stole back. And there can't be extra representation. No more priviliged classes.

And they should stop getting extra money from the Irish state, for schooling. Instead, the Church of Ireland should repay the tithes it demanded from poor Catholics over the centuries.

joel you'll need to reassure unionists they will be a celebrated and appreciated as equals. If theres a legacy of persecution against their constituency thats not been given voice they will feel intimidated and more hesitant to come on board. Do you not see the wisdom in more carrot and less stick? Might that have worked in the past?

__________________
Mass Immigration - Not in my name
Liberal elites across the EU have taken Bertoldt Brechts advice and declared that the people have forfeited the confidence of the government, therefore the liberal elites have decided to dissolve the people and import another.

Well considering he thought Ireland had a protestant president in 1926, I'm not sure accuracy can be assumed.

I must say, I was a bit surprised by this one as well. To me it seemed a slight stab in the direction of Richard Aldous (UCD). But poorly executed by a lazy writer. There was more the Irish Parliamentary party then they way he puts them across. And his description of those practicing historical research both here and in GB was laughable. I really resent the implication that the only thing Irish/British historians seem to be doing is 'validating their current constitution and politics.' That is hardly the case. Most of them a challenging perceived notions and expanding on them. Thus contributing to a better understanding of both Anglo-Irish relationships and the history of Ireland itself. This article lacked depth and smelled of a begrudging failed academic.

__________________
"The thing that always annoyed me about traditional Irish historiography was the paradox of its Anglocentrism. People are now prepared, I think, to confront the possibility that many Irish problems are, in a sense, indigenous to the Irish situation." Roy Foster (1989).

First of all, why is Ireland joining the Commonwealth (apparently) a matter of moral urgency? I think the author needed to elaborate there a bit.

The author also stated that “a divided past means a divided future.” Does this mean that the teaching of history MUST conform to a consolidationist mandate? What if history really doesn’t unite? Would the teachers then be ethically compelled to fudge with the facts?

If “a divided past” necessarily stands in opposition to reconciliation, then there is no hope for mankind. On the contrary, the challenge is to OVERCOME the conditions created by history.

__________________
A historical truth taken out of context can be as deceptive as an outright fabrication.

spot on. Its just another anglicisation project . The joke of giving up your claim to your national territory will result in it being returned to you is a joke that could only be played on very stupid people with a complete lack of confidence in themselves . This is more of the same , an insult to an intelligence that responds well to insults

That might well be the case but the study of History and it's dissemination by those who choose to teach and write on the subject must be based first on factual considerations and a conscious attempt by those involved to avoid engaging in polemics.

Now while I recognise that the author of this article was openly stating a personal opinion and no more he did make rather a hash of it.

We don’t study History solely to change current conditions that we deem to be flawed but carry it out in order to understand the past on its own terms. Obviously we try and use what we now believe today to be true to make sense of what has gone before.

History does not provide the answers to Current Affairs and its perennial problems that every Age faces in all its permutations and combinations.

But it can be studied on its own merits and also I think used to guide us into avoiding the worst follies that Man has committed in his History.

But does Human Nature change or is it a case of:

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose….?

__________________
This day in Irish History:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


COUNTRY FIRST