"Better Together", "Customers who bought this book also bought", and the link "Explore similar items" will throw up similar books in (and even out of) print.
The only problem with making films about Irish history is that it would be very hard for the Americans to insert their usual all-conquering American-type hero character.
I don't know about that - they'd probably manage to 'do' a 'New York Irish' accent (Like every other 'Irish' subject in American film*) or they'd just drag in Sean Connery (represing his Scottish-Irish Cop role from 'Untouchables' - or was that his Scottish-Russian Captain from 'Hunt for Red October' or 'Scottish-Spanish Immortal' from 'Highlander' or....)
Tom
Have you noticed how most 'Irish' characters in American film (no matter where it's set) seem to come from either New York or Boston
i think the irish stories are beautiful, the children of lyr was always a favourite of mine growing up, the swans would be fantastic from a cinematic point of view, and the wicked step mother routine would have real apeal, it jus would have to be done properly, without any silly "modern" versions of the story
having done Irish history at school I found it to be an interesting subject especially when you try to get at the truth over perceived history. Both the Unionists and Republicans have a stong sense of what they perceive to be the truth about Irish History.
quote:Originally posted by Mr Pyper: having done Irish history at school I found it to be an interesting subject especially when you try to get at the truth over perceived history. Both the Unionists and Republicans have a stong sense of what they perceive to be the truth about Irish History.
Could I recommend "The Catholics of Ulster" by Marianne Elliott ISBN 0-140-293-329
As a Presbyterian living in the North of Ireland, Marianne is Catholic and her book is probably the most refreshing un-baised book on Irish History I have read. She covers as best she can Irelands Iron age up to current times. Her personal persective of having been bought up in Belfast is very sober and clear headed, this author is a credit to our nation.
For Myths I recommend "Faeries" ISBN 0 285 62359 1 It is an Illustrated book and it is beautiful. I visited some Historians recently in Armagh, they gave me a story on the Navan Dragon which has recently been adapted. Hope you get to see the two books I recommended.
Interesting concept: "perceived history". Surely that is just a cop-out for obscuring the truth. The history of Ireland is all too sadly clear.
quote:Originally posted by Mr Pyper: having done Irish history at school I found it to be an interesting subject especially when you try to get at the truth over perceived history. Both the Unionists and Republicans have a stong sense of what they perceive to be the truth about Irish History.
jack doe, You are right, percieved history is a cop out. I would hazard a guess that Mr Pyper was alluding to the same thing concerning his post. My apologies if I am wrong Mr Pyper.
Another thought: perhaps it is BBC History? - a la Simon Sharma?: I note that he writes on the BBC website about the Norman invasion of Ireland that the Normans were informed that the Irish were "primitive", and so ripe for invasion. Is the term "primitive" a scientific term or one normally used by a historian - or does it just disclose the prejudices of Mr Sharma? And should the BBC employ such a man to comment on Irish history? And WERE the Irish primive and in what way?
quote:Originally posted by jack doe: Interesting concept: "perceived history". Surely that is just a cop-out for obscuring the truth. The history of Ireland is all too sadly clear.
quote:Originally posted by Mr Pyper: having done Irish history at school I found it to be an interesting subject especially when you try to get at the truth over perceived history. Both the Unionists and Republicans have a stong sense of what they perceive to be the truth about Irish History.
Primitive may have been to discribe military aspects of culture?
The Normans were more advanced interms of military weapons and tactices. A few centuries later Irish tribes caught up. Another reason for the Normans use of the word Primitive was concerning the dwellings which hardly changed from the Iron age. There was no ventilation even for the Irish ascendancy at the time. The Normans would have started building stone dwellings with "chimneys." The "de Courcy"(sorry bad spelling) were the Norman family who came over around the 1190's.The Irish mocked these building and considered them draughty and lonely. Anyway the Norman territories in Ireland were very small. In the province of Ulster there influence was only around the Ards pennisula and parts of East Antrim I think.
quote:Originally posted by gt: Primitive may have been to discribe military aspects of culture?
The Normans were more advanced interms of military weapons and tactices. A few centuries later Irish tribes caught up. Another reason for the Normans use of the word Primitive was concerning the dwellings which hardly changed from the Iron age. There was no ventilation even for the Irish ascendancy at the time. The Normans would have started building stone dwellings with "chimneys." The "de Courcy"(sorry bad spelling) were the Norman family who came over around the 1190's.The Irish mocked these building and considered them draughty and lonely. Anyway the Norman territories in Ireland were very small. In the province of Ulster there influence was only around the Ards pennisula and parts of East Antrim I think.
It wasn't the Normans who used the word "primitive" (as far as I know). That is the perjorative word used by Mr. Sharma - without any qualification whatsoever.
The fact that the Normans may have had an advanced war machine and may have have lived in "improved" houses hardly justifies the word "primitive".
And it is a disgraceful slight on the people reknowned for their learning throughout Europe -and who, indeed, laid the foundations for modern Europe. I am given to understand that, at the time of the Norman invasion, the Irish were leaders in astronomy.
My view remains valid: Mr Sharma should not be commenting in Irish history - or any history.
quote:Originally posted by gt: Primitive may have been to discribe military aspects of culture?
The Normans were more advanced interms of military weapons and tactices. A few centuries later Irish tribes caught up. Another reason for the Normans use of the word Primitive was concerning the dwellings which hardly changed from the Iron age. There was no ventilation even for the Irish ascendancy at the time. The Normans would have started building stone dwellings with "chimneys." The "de Courcy"(sorry bad spelling) were the Norman family who came over around the 1190's.The Irish mocked these building and considered them draughty and lonely. Anyway the Norman territories in Ireland were very small. In the province of Ulster there influence was only around the Ards pennisula and parts of East Antrim I think.
It wasn't the Normans who used the word "primitive" (as far as I know). That is the perjorative word used by Mr. Sharma - without any qualification whatsoever.
The fact that the Normans may have had an advanced war machine and may have have lived in "improved" houses hardly justifies the word "primitive".
And it is a disgraceful slight on the people reknowned for their learning throughout Europe -and who, indeed, laid the foundations for modern Europe. I am given to understand that, at the time of the Norman invasion, the Irish were leaders in astronomy.
My view remains valid: Mr Sharma should not be commenting in Irish history - or any history.
O.K. don't know who he is, misinterpreted your first post.
It strikes me that mr. Sharma was engaged by the BBC because he gave them the "perceived" history they required.
For instance he glossed over what Britain did in Ireland very neatly: he didn't mention the Penal Laws where the Irish had virtually no rights and where they had to hide in hedges to get some education. He dismissed all talk of the "Famine" being deliberate policy, despite the fact that Thomas Carlyle stated that it was - so that "no Celts lived on the banks of the Shannon", despite the fact that there was more than enough food and the British Army was sent in to take it off the Irish and ship it over to Britain.
The census of 1841 showed about 10.5 million people in Ireland and that of 1851 just over 6 million people - allowing for natural increase, the population in 1851 should have been at least 12 million people. What happened to these people? - if 1 million emigrated, that means 5 million people died, a genocide comparable to any in history. I also note that someone about that time reckoned that Britain was taking $26 million a year out of the Irish economy. So Britain must also owe the Irish tens of billions of pounds.
Are these figures correct? - and if they are not what are the correct figures?. Its about time these matters were properly imvestigated. The BBC won't do it - will Channel4?
Carlyle supported slavery and, in his mind, equated the Irish with blacks describing them as "human swinery" and "a black howling Babel of superstitious savages". Possible the idea of genocide was wishful thinking on his part.
I'm not convinced that the famine was deliberate policy, the British government took measures to try and alleviate the famine, Peel bought foodstuffs from America to distribute to those affected but like every famine relief programme before or since it was "too little too late".
I have read claims that there was food in Ireland but that those affecteed by the famine simply couldn't afford it so it was exported to Britain instead.
I call it potatoe Blight, not famine, Sin Fein love to call it a Famine as do many others. Also Mr. Adams has already asked for your tax money to compensate for this evil stupidity Mr. jack doe. If it doesn't happen you can always sent me a cheque, I live in County Down and need me electricity rewired.
send it to=
Mr. Bitter V. Ictim, How much more can I screw the English Taxpayer, Co.Down, The Six Counties
On a more serious note,
I would have to agree with Fil2 on it not being a deliberate policy, no stupid incompetence might be some were in the middle. Food was indeed taken out of Ireland at this time to feed the work force fodder of English mills. Indian Corn was exported in to address the disaster when it was already to late. Jonathan Swift address the house of commons with distain and stated " maybe they should just eat their own children" ( he said something close as I am sure I'll be corrected).
Take a look at "The Cause of the Irish," this is written by a nationalist who takes a fair look at this issue of the potatoe Blight. I think instead of 10.5 it was closer to 8.5, still quite a bit.
quote:Originally posted by Fil2: Carlyle supported slavery and, in his mind, equated the Irish with blacks describing them as "human swinery" and "a black howling Babel of superstitious savages". Possible the idea of genocide was wishful thinking on his part.
I'm not convinced that the famine was deliberate policy, the British government took measures to try and alleviate the famine, Peel bought foodstuffs from America to distribute to those affected but like every famine relief programme before or since it was "too little too late".
I have read claims that there was food in Ireland but that those affecteed by the famine simply couldn't afford it so it was exported to Britain instead.
The latter is not correct - the food in question was taken from the tenant farmers. And it is the height of illogicality to take food fron Ireland and then bring in Indian Meal from America.
