MovieChat Forums > The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2007) Discussion > The English can't entirely be blamed for...

The English can't entirely be blamed for not understanding

posted 15 years ago by motivator52
33 replies | jump to latest

I'm Irish and all irish people have been educated extensively on what happened during the war of independence and the civil war. I teach the children in my class about it. In comparison, i also know what they learn in school in england because i taught there as a teacher for a few years and had to teach their curriculum. They receive absolutely minimal education on the history of ireland. They are too busy learning about henry viii's wives and the victorians.
When irish history is brought up very briefly in their books it mentions that 'some accused england of being heavy handed'. This was similar when the famine was mentioned and it said 'at the time, many suggested the english could have done more to help the irish'. I mean talk about understatements. I had to teach the english children about oliver cromwell being a heroic explorer and conqueror - i couldn't help letting them know as an afterthought that he was also a butcher who ordered the killing of whole villages of irish people and children.

The toughest part however was trying to get the english people i befriended and went to college with to understand why there is still to this day slight resentment and why it's still a sensitive subject. One english colleague said to me 'yeh but it happened nearly a hundred years ago, get over yourselves'. This was a clear indication he just didn't get it - when i questioned him about it, he knew very little at all about it. Sure we have been watching irish and english TV and news for years - the english only see the english news.

Now don't get me wrong, i like english people. Both of my brother-in-laws are english coz my sisters married english men but through extensive conversation with them i can see clearly their lack of understanding and knowledge on the realities of what happened. My grandad fought during the war of independence and then eventually fought in the free state army for Collins because as he said so himself 'he just wanted peace at that stage and didnt want more irish to die'. Having said that, I totally relate to cillian murphy's character in this film. I can't say for sure what i would have done if i had been round back then but my gut instinct tells me i would have taken De Valera's side.

Anyway, getting back to the main point of my posting, many of the english do understand it because they have made it a point to educate themselves on the subject and there's no doubt the IRA were extremely violent in their methods, but overall in my experience the majority of english people are just not properly informed and as a result are slightly ignorant of what really happened and reluctant to hear it. Anyway, great film, well done to Ken Loach, amazing to think he made such an honest film, well done.

Y'know, kid... you got a helluva knack for killin' a conversation

[–] herocladingreen 15 years ago

while ill be a no point agreeing that after a time when you cant feel the impact of a situation, should you be complainin about it, but ill agree with what your sayin overall
the hurt from the british comes from the fact that they still disrespect the independence of ireland, and they tend to put the IRA in a vicious light (people like bobby sands being non-existent to them, but they well remember any time a bomb ever went off made by a man in a mask) it would be a bit like if white people still treated black people like slaves (talking down, ordering around, etc), and reported in text books that slaves were like vicious beasts, so they had to be chained (or at least that this behavior was socially accepted)

its just another means of covering up your nasty bits to appear immaculate to your citizens, meanwhile, even if they dont realize it, young brits are being brought up to hate people for wanting freedom. Even in the case of modern middle eastern terrorism, they are also being taught to accept people who want to destroy freedom, those muslims who are willing to kill themselves, their wives, for gods sake, their own children, for the cause of eradicating jews, christians, and all free states, they are actually being told by the media (cant comment on schools on this one) that these people are just fluffy bunnies that want to be left alone.

its like somebody got the IRA and the taliban mixed up, and this has all been a goofy mixup from the start :/

[–] ricky_says_hi 15 years ago

well neither side has been perfect. as an English kid with Irish parents who moved to Ireland at age 8 i can't exactly say i got fair treatment. i acknowledge my people did horrible things in the past, evil and brutal things almost as bad as the Holocaust. but why should the current generation who did nothing to the Irish be held responsible for what their ancestors did? and why should the young Irish children be taught to hate certain people purely because they are English? should a black person be taught to hate southern Americans because of slavery? should a Jew be taught to hate Germans because of the Holocaust? in this day and age we are all supposed to be equal and both sides need to give up these prejudices

as a side not i had no idea some English textbooks portray Cromwell as a hero. i've read a few and they all portrayed him as a murdering tyrant

There's something about flying a kite at night that's so unwholesome

[–] motivator52 15 years ago

ricky, i never suggested anyone should be taught to hate anyone or that the current generation of english should be held responsible. i'm simply saying it is a touchy issue and things that happened which were that brutal and still quite recent, when you consider it's only our grandparents generation, are bound to still cause a certain amount of sensitivity on the subject. this is why i think it's understandable that irish people still feel sensitive to what the english did (even if it wasn't the current generation that did it). i never suggested schoolkids be taught to hate anyone - i tried to put the point across that children should be taught a balanced history which teaches the children the bad things a country have done as well as the good things. in irish history books the current IRA are described to students as terrorists and rightly so. i saw very little if any history while teaching in england which highlighted to children there the multitude of things past generations of english did to the irish people.

perhaps we have read different books on cromwell. the one i taught at primary level had him painted as a heroic explorer, adventurer and conqueror.

[–] craigus_d 15 years ago

The problem is that there is more to Cromwell than meets the eye. Protestants were being killed in their masses by Catholics at the time (an often overshadowed fact) and Cromwell had to fix the problem in front of him. True, he laid siege to several towns but all evidence suggests that Cromwell himself did so in a fair manner - and it seems he only ordered attacks on towns that refused to surrender. It is certainly true that his troops went over the top in their raiding of the towns, but there is no evidence that Cromwell ordered attacking in that manner. I can even quote you Irish historians who have concluded that.

At any rate, these people were often barbaric, both sides, neither of them are entirely innocent - both sides were provoking the other. We are civilised people who have inherited this unfortunate situation (which is very very difficult to fix in retrospect, now that we have it) and it seems odd to me to talk to the English like they still have responsibility. It's very true that English kids don't get an entirely balanced view of the situation, but I think you'd be lying if you said that the Irish ones do.

[–] Nathars 15 years ago

Craigus D

Does the recorded comment "nits breed fleas" mean anything to you ??

"Slaughtering those who did not surrendur".... they were naughty all right.

I doubt the children were making any surrendur decisions.

Oliver Cromwell was a reformer and a religious fanatic who recovered from a deep depression (modern day nervous breakdown) when he found God in a book.

His Parliamentary record is a litany of quotations from the Bible, and little or nothing of personal or intellectual merit. He was a very effective field grneral but he was found out in siege situations, and suffered the greatest defeat of his army (including the English Civil War) at Clonmel Co. Tipperary when they were lured into a "killing field", by Red Hugh O'Neill an experienced officer of European Armies in an earlier career. In fact if the Earl of Ormond had listened to Red Hugh's uncle he would have died along with his army in Ireland.

Oliver Cromwell approached Ireland as a deeply rooted racist. Catholics were dirty, slovenly, and of low moral fibre with no work ethic.

That is not to say that OC was not an important figure in English history or to deny his role in creating conditions which limited the "Divine Right of Kings", before the Guillotine put an end to that nonesense.

The Pooka

[–] Ryepower12 14 years ago

There is no false equivalence here. In cases where two sides are "barbaric" to each other, I think a reasonable condition for determining which one of those 'sides' had merit is the one that's being invaded by a far superior power. Any barbarism on the other side is bred into them through years or centuries of horrific conflict.

All colonialism needs to be condemned and should be remembered as freaking evil periods of time in Western history, including the centuries of English control over Ireland (as well as literally hundreds of millions of people all around the world, many of them in India). Ditto pretty much every other powerful civilization over the course of human history that caused widespread civil rights disasters and took freedom away from sovereign territories.

We need to stop remembering these events in a positive light, and instead of teaching kids about historical empires as if they were something to be admired for their conquest, we need to teach them about how they were tyrannical murdering bastards who imposed their will on people who never asked for it. By the time kids are 18, they should know the history of humankind is one of warfare and destruction and we need to stay the HELL away from that history if we're to create a better and peaceful world.

[–] wouter-592-294858 15 years ago

Wow, watch it with that pre-Obamean Bushtalk... You obviously don't realise that you have been taught to see 'those middle eastern muslims' as 'freedom destroying, child killing terrorists'. You are one step away from calling them 'sand *beep*

You would have been on the right track if you had compared the middle eastern -the Palestinians in the case of Israel you mention - to the Irish. They are resisting brutal, illegal occupation with what little means they have, and for the largest part non-violently. Just check the record!

Remember: things only started moving forward concerning Ireland, when people (and officials) started noticing that the Irish had some pretty justified grievances. The exact same goes for the Palestinians: they live in constant fear of losing their house, their land and their lover ones. The entire arab league has since long accepted the reality of Israel, but within its legal borders. All land that was confiscated after 1967, and that hideous wall that was built well into their land, need to be corrected. This follows international law and world opinion. But Israel refuses and attacks again and again under the false flag of holocaust-fear and self-defense. Helicopters spewing red hot white phosphorous on hospitals and schools... No doubt you have seen the images, but I can't believe it didn't make you stop and rethink your beliefs.

I see that you can buid an argument based on reason. So please open your eyes to the documentary record instead of stepping into the trap of propaganda that you yourself say you despise. I am by no means a bleeding heart, but I can understand the struggle of the Palestinians even better than the struggle of the Irish. So can you, if you would just look.

[–] tom_prendergast 15 years ago

I was born in England of Irish parents and I think I understand the situation better than some others. Whilst there were atrocities committed on both sides in the Civil War, it needs to be borne in mind that the British has just fought a ruinous war several years before and the Black and Tans were formed from battle hardened WW1 soldiers. However, it should be noted that many of the savage acts ascribed to them were in fact committed by the Auxiliary Division and the RIC.

You say that many British do not understand those times, which is true in the main, but it should be pointed out that De Valera was a nasty piece of work as well, pompous and ignorant for the most part. How else can you explain the fact that during WW2, there was a German Embassy in Dublin and when Hitler died De Valera sent his condolences to the Germans. Churchill even offered him Northern Ireland in return for the use of the western ports but he was turned down in no uncertain terms. I wonder what he would have imagined would have been Ireland's fate if the Nazis had won the war? I think you only need to look to how they treated the Slavs to see what the likely outcome would have been.

I also believe that De Valera was instrumental in having Michael Collins killed as he saw him as a dangerous figure who stood in his way and his rise to power, I wonder how many Irish people are taught about that?

[–] motivator52 15 years ago

tom, i take on board everything you have said but the last two lines are sort of flawed/exaggerated.

firstly, there's no proof de valera gave the order for collins to be killed. the only thing to even suggest that was neil jordan's film 'michael collins' and even in that he didn't actually give the order - it implied he knew about the ambush.

secondly, it was a civil war to do with removing the english from ireland - collins was not a politician and had no desire to be, in fact it is well known that he hated that side of it. therefore to suggest de valera saw him as a figure in his way in terms of de valera's desire to become president is really off the wall. if anything de valera felt very let down by the deal collins had returned and he very possibly believed that collins' death was a necessary evil which needed to be completed in order to win the civil war, even though de valera's side were basically defeated at that stage.

lastly, for the record, irish people ARE taught about the huge conflict between de valera and collins and the guerilla / violent tactics used by both, particularly during the civil war when the irish were fighting each other but also the war of independence against british forces.

i am aware that certain irish links existed between the IRA and the nazis as they were both fighting against the english at the time - i don't think it's very fair to go to far down this route though because the massive majority of irish people thought hitler and the nazis were bloody nutbags and countless irish men fought and died in both world wars, most of them as part of the english army.

[–] Nathars 15 years ago

Tom Prendergast....

The IRA in the Civil War was led by Liam Lynch. He was a sworn enemy of the Treaty and was one of the final casualties of that conflict.

DeValera was sidelined in the Civil War. He had a huge political role leading up to it and indeed after it but during it no.

He was far from being an ignorant man. I don't like using the term. In it's strict meaning it means uneducated. There is a cure for ignorance but no cure for stupidity.

In the strict sense a person can be ignorant and intelligent at the same time. In fact it might be better employed to apply to Michael Collins more so than DeValera (who was a well regarded mathematics practitioner with a deep interest in Quarternions).

It would suit some to have someone to blame for everything. Life is not really like that, and neither is the proper study of history. One guy died and went to heaven whilst his perceived nemisis survived and must therefore be diabolical.
The is a simplistic human perspective and toally false.

By the way the film Michael Collins has been ridiculed by most historians as amost utterly revisionist.

The Pooka

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hotrodder 14 years ago

Evanmang, 95% of Englishmen (and I daresay Australians about their history) don't know much about the Anglo-Irish War nor do they care, to them a Black and Tan is a drink. Why should they? It's just an rather obscure little war in a much larger historical record all of which bears little relation to day to day living. Many people are a bit dim about WW1 and WW2 never mind anything else.
Most people just don't think about the war of Independence with the Irish any more than they would about the Crimean or Zulu Wars.
Nor do they feel guilt about activities they bear no personal responsibility for.
I could argue that the guilt some Americans feel for the treatment of blacks and the Indians in the USA is a reflection that both groups still get the sh!tty end of the stick in many ways these days.

"I was left in no doubt as to the severity of the hangover when the cat stamped into the room."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Troughboss 14 years ago

To the OP. I agree with you 100%. I (unfortunately) am English but was raised in the main by an Irish Grandparent. Although I studied History up to "o" Level standard not once was I taught about Cromwell's persecution of The Catholics, the causes of The Great Famine, or the actions of The Black and Tans. However I was taught, at great length about the evil Catholic Guy Fawkes. I was reprimanded at school aged 8 for refusing to celebrate November 5th and again aged 10 for questioning the "greatness" of Cromwell.
The English do not understand much regarding Irish history as it is swept away from The national Curriculum.
I have visited Ireland on many occasions and you can imagine how upset I felt when i was referred to as a "Tan" in a small pub in Skibbereen.

[–] andynorthern89 14 years ago

Hey, to the OP

I read your post with interest and although I agree with some of your points, I disagree with others. As a note I am English, so any points are probably bias but without my intention:)

-I'm Irish and all irish people have been educated extensively on what happened during the war of independence and the civil war

I've never studied in Ireland so this is only from my personal experience with Irish friends. I have one Irish friend who knows Anglo-Irish history through and through but from his admission, this was mainly from his own research. Other Irish friends I have are clearly less well informed, one never having heard of the Irish civil war and I often feel there is a sense of patriotism that blinds them sometimes.

-They receive absolutely minimal education on the history of ireland. They are too busy learning about henry viii's wives and the victorians.

True at school I did not start to learn about Irish history untill A-level (for which I am half thankful, as it is an extremely complicated subject which spreads such a huge span of time that teaching younger children will in my opinion not give them a clear view of it). Too busy learning about Henry VIII's wives? Well Henry VII's wives caused protestantism, which has a fairly big link with Irish history no? Further from this British history is huge, education up to gcse's can only look at so much, for example: the independence movement in India and America or the Fawklands war are equally not looked at. (Despite this I agree, that Irish history should focus more in British classes.

-"some accused england of being heavy handed'. This was similar when the famine was mentioned and it said 'at the time, many suggested the english could have done more to help the irish'. I mean talk about understatements."

All I can really say about this is that this was not my experience of it, however my history teacher had a phd, and if i recall correctly did his theisis on some part of Anglo-Irish history so I may have just been lucky

and again with Oliver Cromwell, I have never been taught of his as a hero.

This is not to slate your posts, because I agree most English people probably are ignorant of Anglo-Irish history. anyway ive half forgotten my point because i should have gone to bed hours ago. Ive not actually seen the film anyway, my lecturer reccomended it - must find a copy

[–] mary-stokes 14 years ago

"One english colleague said to me 'yeh but it happened nearly a hundred years ago, get over yourselves'."

How rude. He'd get his face torn off in the US if he said that to an African or native American.

That's untrue. I don't hear it being said to native Americans but I do hear that said to black people often whenever slavery or Jim Crow (which wasn't even a hundred years ago) is brought up. They either tell them to get over it or move back to Africa and after saying that MANY times as a response to blacks white people, so far, still have their faces in tact.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (15764547) 14 years ago

Thanks for sharing, but I can honestly tell you that I constantly had it drummed into me at school that Cromwell was far from a hero, and told of the violent history of the Anglo-Irish conlict. I was educated in Yorkshire by the way, but my Mother is Irish.
The "English" are by no means completely ignorant of Irish history as your generalisations seem to insinuate.
Not sure if you're aware of this but it was an "English" director (Ken Loach) who made this film. Also, I assume that when you use the term "English" you actually mean British. The Blacks and Tans were comprised of BRITISH WW1 veterans.
Otherwise, a fantastic film. Congratulations Mr. Loach!

Flowers are essentially tarts; prostitutes for the bees.

[–] Clyde_Donovan 14 years ago

'yeh but it happened nearly a hundred years ago, get over yourselves'. This was a clear indication he just didn't get it

Like most people maybe he didn't like being preached to, you give the impression you start all this sh!t, that English guy couldn't care less but you need to take the moral high ground and drill him on the Anglo/Irish conflict even though he probbaly doesn't wnat to discuss history in general.

[–] mermaids998 14 years ago

People never want to hear about anything that represents their identity in a poor light. That's probably the only reason he was bothered by what she was saying.

[–] tenkisoratoti 14 years ago

Ultimately most English people don't care and why the hell should they.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hotrodder 14 years ago

Perhaps you too should learn your history- Cromwell wiped out the garrison at Drogheda and they were English soldiers, who just happened to be Royalists. Cromwell had Irishmen in his army too BTW. I'd like to see the "whole villages" bit proved too, even the massacre at Drogheda is now thought to have been exaggerrated in the past- and it's Irish Historians who are saying this, not English ones. Yes, civilians wwere killed, there's no doubt thee but not "whole villages". Cromwell's main beef was with the Royalists, not the Irish so much, and and for this reason he had happily butchered thousands of his fellow Englishmen in the English Civil War.
If you knew your history you would know there also had been massacres of Protestants by Royalist supporting Irishmen too so it's very much a two way street.
Do I care trhough? No, I bloody well don't. It's nowt to do with me living here in the 21st Century FFS- it's in the distant past and done by men with far different morals and ideals than mine. Cromwell was a man driven by religion believing he was in the right and God was on his side, and where have we seen mentalities like that since?
I suggest you do some reading, mate, before you knock other peoples knowledge.

"I was left in no doubt as to the severity of the hangover when the cat stamped into the room."

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

they should care because their ancestors are responsible for dreadful atrocities including widescale slaughter of women and children - whole villages of irish people were wiped out by cromwell

Presumably then you think the Irish should care that their ancestors left Ireland and stole North American Indian land and treated the Indians like *beep*

What's good for the goose...an' all that.

[–] michael-hughes-3 14 years ago

BuckFrobisher.

If it's wrong it's wrong..... simple as that.... don't use another's wrong to justify one of your own. It's called having low standards. That's all.

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

BuckFrobisher.

If it's wrong it's wrong..... simple as that.... don't use another's wrong to justify one of your own. It's called having low standards. That's all.

Who is justifying anything? Just pointing out that very few nationalities and races can honestly say their ancestors are whiter than white. Having shameful ancestors isn't exclusive to the British.

If Brits should feel shame for their ancestors then so should the Irish.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

^

Plastic Paddy-never-been-to-Ireland.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

My daddy was posted to RAF Lakenheath during his service with the USAF, we went to visit the old homestead when we were on vacation.

Why don't you plastic Paddies give Boston and Chicago etc back to the Native Americans and go 'home' to Dublin and Cork then?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Troughboss 14 years ago

Perhaps the entire population of the globe can all go back to Africa

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]