Tory Mp Irish famine

[Barill22]

Andrew Griffith is al over the news for appearing to make a derogoratory remark about the Irish famine.

Any thoughts? I cant seem to link an article, but if you google his name youll see it

Why would there only be room to teach three topics?

I went to school in Ireland and I learned about all of those topics. And we also covered many more topics in history.

It's not entirely true that 'English ariatocrats' were to blame, though many were major landlords and saw the failure of the potato crop as an opportunity to clear tenants off their lands and put cattle or sheep there instead. But they weren't alone.

The famine affected different regions in varied ways, depending on whether areas had been primarily subsistence level farming or otherwise before the failures (over several years) of the potato crop, and even in areas where farming was a step up from subsistence, there were still many landless laborers or subsistence level farmers with tiny plots and very sub standard dwellings.

There was a protestant/ Anglo Irish landowning class and an RC/ Irish landowning class under the level of the aristocracy, and there was another absentee landlord class who lived in Dublin or London or other cities and employed managers or agents to run their holdings. Merchants in the cities participated in the export of food.

Some landlords were famously helpful to their tenants while some were notoriously brutal. In general, the poorest suffered the most. They died or boarded ships to literally anywhere else outside Ireland, in desperation.

I think the worst part of that time is that the English landlords stole the land from the irish using force,

then rented their own land back to them at extortionate prices

Same (though I had left school before several of the events took place).

The approach to teaching history in the UK is very poor compared to the Irish approach, imo.

Did you? Well, that was quite a lot to cover in a school curriculum. You must have had an excellent history teacher.

Any thoughts on the socioeconomic consequences of the The Black Death, or what the impact of the Harrying of the North might have on Northern English communities today, eight centuries later? These are areas of interest of mine, so I'm keen to hear your perspective.

Also, what were the 'many more' topics? I'm genuinely interested in this vast, in-depth school history curriculum and how it was taught.

You both missed my point. The point was making you choose a topic from the thousands throughout human history, because you simply can't learn everything in school.

That was the era of the plantations and confiscations.

But after that (in particular after Catholic Emancipation in 1829), land was bought and sold and the rising middle and umc classes of both Irish and English origin benefited.

I’m all for understanding your history but the Irish do seem to be welcoming the victim platform too much, especially third/fourth generation Irish in the UK who have zero experience of any of this.

Im also interested to hear about how history is taught in UK schools.

How do they only cover three topics. Surely its more. They are in secondary school for years in the UK. Surely they cover more than three topics?

You asked me what else I learned in school

i remember studying ancient history, early civilizations, relics that they had found, how civilizations developed.

We studied the history of Ireland and anglo irish relations.

We studied England's history including the black death and the industrial revolution

i remember studying world war 1 and world war 2. We also studied the roman empire and important events in european history.

There were more, but they are examples of what I remember doing

Teaching by topic and hopping from century to century isn't the best approach.

Survey courses give students a far better idea of cause and effect and the general sweep of human life on the planet.

When I was in primary school we started with Irish Neolithic settlements and worked our way onward through recorded history, looking at the development of agriculture, trade, invasions, movement of people, language change, landmark laws and their effects, development of transport, administration, suffrage, rebellions, political history up to 1960ish. Then in secondary school we did it all again, concentrating on modern political and social history from the French Revolution on, and encompassing the wider world, with Ireland's position within it examined.

They don't only teach three topics! You missed my point entirely. I was challenging you to choose a limited number of topics from the thousands available, i.e. you can't teach everything in depth.

Most but not all of those listed by you are covered in the UK too. Personally I agree with you - think the English history curriculum is too narrow, but the curriculum is crowded and time is wasted on SATs etc.

@JasmineAllen yes but plenty don't even realise the role of paramilitaries or the British government.

So then theres no need for me to choose three topics in your hypothetical question. As schools always teach more than three topics.

But im interested to talk to you about history. You said youre interested in it.i also love history

It was in our GCSE History lessons in London in 1989, bog standard crappy comprehensive.

I don't mean it's complicated as in there's too much information, I mean it's complicated because it's difficult to see who is in the 'right' and who is in the 'wrong' because that changes constantly and each side can simultaneously be wrong and right - if you see what I mean.

Do they?? Where is your evidence for this?
How much do you know about Irish History?

Why? is there some intrinsic link between the potato and Irish people? That’s pretty offensive to me as an Irish person. Someone should be able to make a comment about potatoes without it being automatically linked to Irish people fuck me!

I am amazed no one has (quite fairly) blamed Gove yet. He practically single handedly rewrote the secondary history curriculum. One of the things he railed against for example was the teaching of war poets and the use of Blackadder because they were 'too negative'. He was keen for us only to learn (or to both sides) the glories of the British Empire and, in Geography, there was an (aborted) move towards both sidesing Climate Change.

I learnt loads about Irish history in school in Scotland in the 80s.

I have taught since the 90s and never come across an English curriculum with any post 1800 Irish history in it. I think it is there on A level specs but wouldn't be chosen necessarily as there are so many topics to choose from and teacher specialisms are often a bit restricted by textbook choice, school programmes of study and their own historical specialisms.

The Tudors are in vogue and there is a bit of Irish history in there.

Students I teach learn more about the Empire and the Troubles through English Lit GCSE and film studies GCSE and A level tbh.

The empire in general does get some coverage.

I think this is true. A neighbour of my mum in Spain had a daughter studying history at a University in England and her daughter said they hadn't studied any Irish history in primary or secondary school also in England.

I'm Irish and quite offended by it.

Actually they often do only study three or four topics for GCSE/ A level. They do some topics in depth and others in breath. There is usually a mixture of UK and international history. For example they might study Germany 1890-1945; Conflict and tension in Asia 1950-1975; Health and the people 1000- present; Norman England 1066-1100.

This is all they will study for two years. They will come out knowing a lot about very selective bits of history depending on which topics their teacher has chosen, but very little else. A level is even more selective, just three topics.

When they are younger they will study some history but this is often chronological so unless you choose GCSE history. There are broad topics, Ireland and Home rule is optional within the ideas, political power, industry and empire section. Most topics are optional so it depends on the specific teacher and their interests as to what is covered.

Not saying it is right. They should be much more informed. Fortunately my dc are very well informed through their own independent studies but I would not rely on school to teach any specific parts of history.

You need to look up the definition of a famine and the coffin ships to America too.

Still not too soon in my opinion

Ok cool so in your opinion, when can we start making jokes about slaves? The holocaust?
Slaves must already be fair game seeing as that was before the Irish Famine and we only need to wait, what 100 years or so before it’s ok for MPs to make holocaust jokes?

You mean 174 years ago. My granddad's dad survived it, so it feels kind of recent to me. Hunger and emigration from rural Ireland continued until the 1970s - so not isolated, and not 200 years ago.
However it was a silly clumsy thing to say anyway. In 1847 -51 seed potatoes were not (normally) eaten but planted to grow great big watery "Lumper" potatoes. The crop failure may have been exacerbated by overuse of a single high-yield variety which was susceptible to the blight. (Iiuc - I am not a botanist). Vulnerable varieties are banned / restricted to this day aiui.
The Scottish seed potato - and all seed potatoes suppliers - is vital to providing food for future generations. Potatoes are superfood. Let's focus on getting the right regulations and learning the right lessons from history.