Thanks for the comment. Yes, it is easy to debunk, but at times I feel like a voice in the wilderness. But thanks for making me like I am having some sort of impact! :-)
For me there has been an absence of good history, an understandable reticence to dwell on a painful past. That created a vacuum which film producers, authors and latterly, podcasters, filled according to their knowledge or lack of it. That seems to be changing with people better equipped now to look at Irish history full in the face as it were, without wondering if the feelings of their nearest neighbour have been hurt or having to constantly apologise for having suffered a bad history. Podcasts like this are helping that process along.
Thanks for the comment. In academia, since the late 1960s a lot of good history has been produced (and in the area I am most interested in, the sixteenth century, since the 1990s). However, this takes a while to filter into 'popular' history and is unfortunately too often undermined by biases related to the national question.. But I am positive (or maybe naive)
Thank you for this important essay on ' bad history'. The need to have ones prejudices justified by the majority of people. Two cases in point is the assumption that the modern kilt is somehow traditionally Scottish. In fact the modern kilt is Victorian and the Clan Tartan also a Victorian invention. This was so effective that most Scots believe in the myths created by the Victorians and ignore the fact that the wearing of the kilt was banned by Victoria's predecessors. The Buffalo Bill Roadshow, which toured Europe in the turn of the twentieth century suggested Indians (Native Americans) should whoop and holler while beating their hands against their mouths would create a visual and aural spectacle. In real battle this was never used as it would alert the enemy to their presence. Native Americans preferred stealth as a battle tactic. The 'new' tactics employed by the travelling show was so effective that most Native Americans believe the whooping to be 'traditional'. In short, the Victorians were swept up in a frenzy of Romanticism from the obsession with Leprechauns, (garden gnomes version) to the need for spectacle and wishful thinking, things we are still saddled with today.
Excellent points. The mad thing about tartan is that so many people believe it. Some Scottish companies invented in recent decades tartans for the Irish counties! Worse many people (perhaps mostly American) seem to believe that these are real. In relation to the clan system, from being something confined to parts of the highland, even surname in Scotland seems to claim to being a clan nowadays... The world is a little crazy!
3.38 Gerald of Wales 😂 A man inordinately proud of his Welsh and Norman ancestors. Not that its any consolation but the only race he hated more than the Irish were the English. He was rather rude about his fellow churchmen as well. Watched a film about Bruce's campaign in Ireland and they'd stuck in an actor playing Gerald with an accent like King Charles III.
My brother retired from teaching 15 years ago or more. I remember well telling me that only 5 students were sitting history for the Leaving Cert that year. May I tie that in to my working in a bar, Long Island, New York, in 1976, where over 6 months I never met one student who had studied History, Geography, Sociology (my subjects) as university subjects. On returning to Ireland and telling this to my friends they obviously asked, "What were they studying?" to which my reply was that "One dollar and two dollars make three"...these business and management subjects that yet didn't exist in irish schools or universities. And, here you are, wide open for not alone bad history but all the rest. When studying history in the 1970's the large lecture halls were fairly full. I wonder what they are like today?
I studied in a Christian brothers school in Stillorgan, Dublin. Finished in 1985. I did both history and geography for the leaving cert. Both had around 30 students (history perhaps a little more), between 1/3 and 1/4 of the year. After that I went to UCD. History was one of the most popular subjects in Arts (economics and Psychology were probably most popular, then English and History. You also had History of Art and Greek and Roman Civilization). I have a feeling that STEM and Business related subjects have really taken off to the detriment of History etc. However, I always remember being told that general subjects like History etc were preferred by employers, as these graduates were very adaptable, compared to those who had overspecialised.
One example of bad history: the Gaels did not live in towns. Yet, the Pipe Roll of Cloyne 1200s-1300s indicates that the town of Cloyne was established , and planned (!), by Bishop David Mac Ceallaigh O Giollapatrick of Cloyne, hardly a foreigner. Nearby Midleton is actually Mainistir na Corann, a town founded by the Gaelic Irish Cistercian monks of the abbey of the same name.
I think at one stage you could have added Glendalough to the list and probably a few others. Most of these would have been connected to monasteries/monastic settlements I think
Suggestion for another video: Worst History (in regard to Ireland). The worst history, in regard to Ireland, is portrayal of invasions from Iberia bringing Gaelic language to Ireland and invasions from Ireland bringing Gaelic language to Scotland, as being factual. What makes this history so bad is that it is oft repeated, and it is used by anti-Gaelic bigots to prove "Gaelic was never spoken here." People have to think Gaelic (or any Celtic) language is a lightweight patois that could flit about from one place to another to believe these invasions occurred (the belittling name for the language, "Primitive" Irish, helps perpetuate the myth). It also helps if the believers do not realize that Gaelic language is an Indo-European language. It also helps for believers to not analyze just what it would entail for Iberians to invade Ireland during the Iron Age and what it would entail for Irish to invade Scotland after the Scots had resisted the Romans for hundreds of years and before the Irish began importing Scots as Gallowglass. We now know to a scientific certainty, thanks to history provided by DNA study, that the ancestors of the Gaels (and almost certainly the ancestor of Gaelic language) arrived in Britain from the continent around 4500 years ago. Indeed, "Gaelic was spoken here" is true for Britain--and it was a transition language between Indo-European and Old Irish--anything but "primitive."
Good point. I have thought about doing a video like this. There are two problems, one is being spoiled for choice (how many times have I seen recently people talk of Tuatha de Danann as real...). The second is having to name facebook or youtube accounts. For example, I recently watched (part of ) a video about so-called Irish slaves in the US, which claimed that they were the Americas before African slaves. It was by someone claiming to be a US army officer and university professor, He claimed that at the battle of Kinsale the English captured many thousand of Irish prisoners who were sold to Spain, who then used them as slaves in the Amazon, therefore the Irish were slaves in the Americas before blacks, because this was before the first slaves in what is now the US. 1) There were black slaves in Portuguese and Spainsh territories much earlier. 2) the English hung the few hundred Irish prisoners they captured at Kinsale. 3) THey were at war with Spain and the latter welcomed the Gaelic Irish, especially because the Irish served in the tercios in Flanders,. How to reply to this video without ending up getting sued?? Or getting in a 'war' with those who like this so-called history. I am thinking about what you suggest, just have to wonder about the context. I am thinking of a series of bad history videos. On mythology, the famine, etc... THanks again for the comment, which has got me thinking!
Would you have any solid book recommendations for an accurate (As accurate as they can be expected to be) account of ancient Irish history? Not the rose tinted goggles stuff you see everywhere
@forasfeasa You are a gentleman, Thank you. I very much enjoy your videos. They clear up all the modern fog in the stories for the better or to the detriment of somes enjoyment.
Thank you for calling the 'Glorious Revolution' as a coup d'etat! I've described it to English visitors as the 'last successful invasion of England.' It went down badly with them. I still can't imagine why. 😉
I was actually stealing the phrase from an article I read many, many years ago (in the 1980s) in a collection edited (I think) by Richard Kearney... But you are right it was the last successful invasion of England (and there were many between Hastings and it..)
The general ignorance about history is arguably driven by people's understandable desire to see their ancestors as heroes or victims, or preferably both. No one wants to be told that they were just as big a set of rascals as the other lot. As for King Billy quite a lot of people seem to forget that William and Mary were James' daughter and son-in law. Revolution? Family feud? Reminds me of the time that the barons got so sick of King John that they invited the son of the King of France to rule instead. King John, now there's a fellow that's equally loved both sides of the Irish Sea.
@@AcolyteOfAoibheall Yes, I seen people posting on social media that they are the great-great-great grandchild of Lord such and such, King such as such, never of a peasant, an artisan, a weever... Actually King John doesn't get much press in Ireland, all people really know that there are two castles named after him (apart from Robin Hood) :-)
Very interesting. Thanks 👍. I have noticed more terrible historical images on the net , some are very funny. You would fear for education standards in schools/colleges with the ease of AI though. Authenticity will be the big selling point for history/art/media in the future.
Some AI is getting good in terms of images. Most is not, or when the image is good, it is wrong in other ways. However, what is going to be like in 10 years (or even less..) A bit scary!
Somebody has to do it.... Mind you I usually get good responses, so somebody is listening :-) It's not the deaf I mind, it is those who are very loud about particular opinions...
I have an instragram and facebook channel for my walking tours (Instagram - asenseofplace.ie and Facebook - A Sense of Place Kerry). But my main channel is this TH-cam channel
The British and Irish black history industry is producing a great deal of bad history these days. For example: Roman emperor Septimius Severus being black (North African, not black). Very dark skinned Cheddar Man (we don't know what he looked like but he was Western hunter-gatherer). "Prehistoric Irish people were dark skinned and had blue eyes a new documentary claims". The Mauri of Mauretania on Hadrian's Wall being black (Berber people, not black and not related to modern Mauritania). Abbot Hadrian of Canterbury being black (North African and not black). Beachy Head Lady being sub-Saharan (not black, DNA tests indicate she was from Cyprus). Stonehenge being built by black people (no). All the race-swapped historical people on TV and in film (Queen Charlotte, Anne Boleyn, Gladys Moss, Bess of Hardwick etc.)
I would not call it a black history business, especially not in relation to Ireland. Nor would I call all of these examples bad history. I have read about the claims about Early Irish being dark skinned. It is based on genetics work, so it may be accurate. What does dark skinned mean in this context? Darker than now? Non-white? I think the same goes for Cheddar man. His skin colour (dark not black) is again based on genetics. Moreover, much of this is a reaction to previous history where almost everyone was white (including Jesus and Egyptians). Attitudes to colour change a lot - I can remember reading English comics and watching British TV programmes when I was younger which implied that Spanish and Italians were basically non-white. British and American attitudes to race are very different to those of Spanish/Portuguese speaking countries. For example, the Americans had the one drop rule, meaning anyone with one drop of blood was black. Whereas go to Brazil, there are many distinct gradations of colour and numerous mixed categories. Indeed, in Brazil in the 15th and 16th centuries, black as a colour was used for native Americans or black slaves born in Brazil, whereas anyone who came from Africa was given the colour African. In relation to TV, there has always been race swapping - look at Godfather II (at least the parts in Cuba). Cubans are all white. in it Go to Cuba now and you will see loads of black people. The same can be said for Colombia. Probably in the examples you give there are some mistakes. And yes, some of these can lead to Bad History. I know there is (or was, not sure if he is still alive) a US history professor who argued that the Egyptians were black. I think he was mistaken, but in this case, I think I would need to read his work before commenting much on it. I have never seen any comments about Stonehenge and skin colour..
@@forasfeasa My point is that they are examples of attempts to connect Irish and British history with sub-Saharan Africans. White people obviously have a range of skin colours (from alabaster white to dark olive) but darker skin doesn't automatically mean sub-Saharan black. One of the scientists involved in the very dark Cheddar Man reconstruction said on TV that we don't know what he looked like although the DNA analysis showed that he was Western hunter-gatherer. The reconstruction was in the news but a later correction didn't get any publicity so it was was ideological and not scientific. Jesus is depicted differently in each culture so he's not always shown as white. Recent DNA analysis of ancient Egyptians suggested that they were closer to people of the near East or western Europeans so probably not a huge stretch for Europeans to play them. Late in ancient Egyptian history there was a Nubian Dynasty, sometimes called "Black Pharaohs" so there are probably some exceptions. The claim about Stonehenge being built by black (or brown) people is in a recent book for children: Brilliant Black British History. The aim is clearly to create a new history for the UK. Another example is the BBC's Horrible Histories song "Been Here From the Start" song which includes a lot of the early false history. The specific examples that I gave are all mistakes, usually deliberate, to alter the history of Europe. They are contradicted by historical records and DNA testing. One of the most common tricks is to conflate "Africa" and "black" to give an impression that non-black African history (e.g. Roman North African colonies on the south coast of the Mediterranean) is connected to sub-Saharan Africans.
@@georgebailey98 I understand better now. Things can easily be picked up and twisted. A researcher says one thing, it get reported and the copy editor picks one sentence, this is what gets reported on... and slowly good research gets changed!
@@forasfeasaI believe that the Nubian Kingdom of Kush shared a lot of culture with Egypt and temporarily effected a reverse-takeover of Egypt. So there probably were black pharoahs at some points in history. But it's a long stretch from that to suggest all the Egyptians were black.
I think there's a desire to counteract the way black people have been marginalised in depictions of history until very recently. Watching the latest series of Wolf Hall there are some black actors, which seems fair enough in principle as there were black people in Tudor England and indeed in the service of Henry VIII. But probably not among his privy councillors..still more likely than Mel Gibson's performance in Braveheart though and I'm sure some people thought that was a documentary.
Bad history is bad history. But fictional history taught as fact can be worse. I find that history is not so much taught badly in schools in England, but routinely used as a form of nationalist propaganda. How many pre university level students across England understand the 21st century country they inhabit evolved from a succession of pivotal invasions, conquests and colonisations since 1AD. First the Romans, next the Germanic Angles and Saxons in 4AD, Nordic Vikings in 7AD and in 1066 the Franco Normans. While women under Brehon law may have had limited rights to divorce, these rights were certainly more progressive compared to the draconian, church advocated anti divorce laws embedded in the Irish Constitution 1937; laws repealed in 1995. Women had rights to divorce if subjected to violence and serious domestic abuses under Brehon law. These rights were not afforded in Bunreacht na hÉireann. One could argue the changes to Bunreacht na hÉireann allowing divorce restored Irish laws to a more liberal Gaelic world under Brehon law.
Interesting points about English history. I had presumed they would learn the basics of English history. I have a feeling I was wrong! In relation to Brehon Law and Bunreacht na hÉireann, that is also an interesting point, but they were produced in two very veru different systems, it is hard to compare them. Mind you I would like to see someone write an article doing so :-)
@@ruadhbutler9143 Your books about the Norman invasion are good. They come across as well researched and are well written. Historical fiction has and has a role to play in history (I used to love Rosemary Sutcliffe novels when I was a kid). However, there has always been good historical fiction and bad historical fiction. I also used to read Biggles books when I was a kid... they had a very romantic and probably one sided view of history. Another example is Outlander. I have never read them, but I managed to watch 1.25 episodes before giving up, too many sterotypes. Moreover, the fact that the Culldoen grave of teh clan of the fictional hero is suffering from visits of fans, points to another problem with bad hsitorical fiction! (I think I have just written the script for a new video! Things to do on the train! ) Will you ever return to your Norman world?? :-)
Bad history was always around, today is just easier to debunk it, thanks to channels like yours!
Thanks for the comment. Yes, it is easy to debunk, but at times I feel like a voice in the wilderness. But thanks for making me like I am having some sort of impact! :-)
Criminally underrated channel.
Go raibh maith agat! Hopefully more people will agree with you :-)
@@forasfeasaTá fáilte romhat. I’m sure they would, if only the algorithm would recommend it to more people! :)
For me there has been an absence of good history, an understandable reticence to dwell on a painful past. That created a vacuum which film producers, authors and latterly, podcasters, filled according to their knowledge or lack of it. That seems to be changing with people better equipped now to look at Irish history full in the face as it were, without wondering if the feelings of their nearest neighbour have been hurt or having to constantly apologise for having suffered a bad history. Podcasts like this are helping that process along.
Thanks for the comment. In academia, since the late 1960s a lot of good history has been produced (and in the area I am most interested in, the sixteenth century, since the 1990s). However, this takes a while to filter into 'popular' history and is unfortunately too often undermined by biases related to the national question.. But I am positive (or maybe naive)
Thank you for this important essay on ' bad history'. The need to have ones prejudices justified by the majority of people. Two cases in point is the assumption that the modern kilt is somehow traditionally Scottish. In fact the modern kilt is Victorian and the Clan Tartan also a Victorian invention. This was so effective that most Scots believe in the myths created by the Victorians and ignore the fact that the wearing of the kilt was banned by Victoria's predecessors.
The Buffalo Bill Roadshow, which toured Europe in the turn of the twentieth century suggested Indians (Native Americans) should whoop and holler while beating their hands against their mouths would create a visual and aural spectacle. In real battle this was never used as it would alert the enemy to their presence. Native Americans preferred stealth as a battle tactic. The 'new' tactics employed by the travelling show was so effective that most Native Americans believe the whooping to be 'traditional'. In short, the Victorians were swept up in a frenzy of Romanticism from the obsession with Leprechauns, (garden gnomes version) to the need for spectacle and wishful thinking, things we are still saddled with today.
Excellent points. The mad thing about tartan is that so many people believe it. Some Scottish companies invented in recent decades tartans for the Irish counties! Worse many people (perhaps mostly American) seem to believe that these are real. In relation to the clan system, from being something confined to parts of the highland, even surname in Scotland seems to claim to being a clan nowadays... The world is a little crazy!
3.38 Gerald of Wales 😂 A man inordinately proud of his Welsh and Norman ancestors. Not that its any consolation but the only race he hated more than the Irish were the English. He was rather rude about his fellow churchmen as well. Watched a film about Bruce's campaign in Ireland and they'd stuck in an actor playing Gerald with an accent like King Charles III.
My brother retired from teaching 15 years ago or more. I remember well telling me that only 5 students were sitting history for the Leaving Cert that year. May I tie that in to my working in a bar, Long Island, New York, in 1976, where over 6 months I never met one student who had studied History, Geography, Sociology (my subjects) as university subjects. On returning to Ireland and telling this to my friends they obviously asked, "What were they studying?" to which my reply was that "One dollar and two dollars make three"...these business and management subjects that yet didn't exist in irish schools or universities. And, here you are, wide open for not alone bad history but all the rest. When studying history in the 1970's the large lecture halls were fairly full. I wonder what they are like today?
I studied in a Christian brothers school in Stillorgan, Dublin. Finished in 1985. I did both history and geography for the leaving cert. Both had around 30 students (history perhaps a little more), between 1/3 and 1/4 of the year. After that I went to UCD. History was one of the most popular subjects in Arts (economics and Psychology were probably most popular, then English and History. You also had History of Art and Greek and Roman Civilization). I have a feeling that STEM and Business related subjects have really taken off to the detriment of History etc. However, I always remember being told that general subjects like History etc were preferred by employers, as these graduates were very adaptable, compared to those who had overspecialised.
One example of bad history: the Gaels did not live in towns. Yet, the Pipe Roll of Cloyne 1200s-1300s indicates that the town of Cloyne was established , and planned (!), by Bishop David Mac Ceallaigh O Giollapatrick of Cloyne, hardly a foreigner. Nearby Midleton is actually Mainistir na Corann, a town founded by the Gaelic Irish Cistercian monks of the abbey of the same name.
I think at one stage you could have added Glendalough to the list and probably a few others. Most of these would have been connected to monasteries/monastic settlements I think
@forasfeasa well, I live in Midleton, and cloyne is just 6 km away, so I kept it local.
Suggestion for another video: Worst History (in regard to Ireland). The worst history, in regard to Ireland, is portrayal of invasions from Iberia bringing Gaelic language to Ireland and invasions from Ireland bringing Gaelic language to Scotland, as being factual. What makes this history so bad is that it is oft repeated, and it is used by anti-Gaelic bigots to prove "Gaelic was never spoken here." People have to think Gaelic (or any Celtic) language is a lightweight patois that could flit about from one place to another to believe these invasions occurred (the belittling name for the language, "Primitive" Irish, helps perpetuate the myth). It also helps if the believers do not realize that Gaelic language is an Indo-European language. It also helps for believers to not analyze just what it would entail for Iberians to invade Ireland during the Iron Age and what it would entail for Irish to invade Scotland after the Scots had resisted the Romans for hundreds of years and before the Irish began importing Scots as Gallowglass. We now know to a scientific certainty, thanks to history provided by DNA study, that the ancestors of the Gaels (and almost certainly the ancestor of Gaelic language) arrived in Britain from the continent around 4500 years ago. Indeed, "Gaelic was spoken here" is true for Britain--and it was a transition language between Indo-European and Old Irish--anything but "primitive."
Good point. I have thought about doing a video like this. There are two problems, one is being spoiled for choice (how many times have I seen recently people talk of Tuatha de Danann as real...). The second is having to name facebook or youtube accounts. For example, I recently watched (part of ) a video about so-called Irish slaves in the US, which claimed that they were the Americas before African slaves. It was by someone claiming to be a US army officer and university professor, He claimed that at the battle of Kinsale the English captured many thousand of Irish prisoners who were sold to Spain, who then used them as slaves in the Amazon, therefore the Irish were slaves in the Americas before blacks, because this was before the first slaves in what is now the US. 1) There were black slaves in Portuguese and Spainsh territories much earlier. 2) the English hung the few hundred Irish prisoners they captured at Kinsale. 3) THey were at war with Spain and the latter welcomed the Gaelic Irish, especially because the Irish served in the tercios in Flanders,. How to reply to this video without ending up getting sued?? Or getting in a 'war' with those who like this so-called history. I am thinking about what you suggest, just have to wonder about the context. I am thinking of a series of bad history videos. On mythology, the famine, etc...
THanks again for the comment, which has got me thinking!
Gresham's Law: "Bad money drives out good." Sadly, the same tends to happen with history. too.
Good point... unfortunately, I can't really disagree with you :-(
One on the truth of Samhain/ Halloween would be great mate
Give me a little while... :-) Thanks for the coffee
@@forasfeasa It`s like certain Viking shows they get all their history wrong and people believe it or pirate shows
@@waynemcauliffe-fv5yf exactly... or like the so-called history channel
@@forasfeasa Yes
If I ever go to Australia, I would love to do a video on the Eureka stockade
Would you have any solid book recommendations for an accurate (As accurate as they can be expected to be) account of ancient Irish history? Not the rose tinted goggles stuff you see everywhere
I do, but I can't give them now as I am away from home. In a day or so, I'll send some.
@forasfeasa You are a gentleman, Thank you. I very much enjoy your videos. They clear up all the modern fog in the stories for the better or to the detriment of somes enjoyment.
Thank you for calling the 'Glorious Revolution' as a coup d'etat! I've described it to English visitors as the 'last successful invasion of England.' It went down badly with them. I still can't imagine why. 😉
I was actually stealing the phrase from an article I read many, many years ago (in the 1980s) in a collection edited (I think) by Richard Kearney... But you are right it was the last successful invasion of England (and there were many between Hastings and it..)
The general ignorance about history is arguably driven by people's understandable desire to see their ancestors as heroes or victims, or preferably both. No one wants to be told that they were just as big a set of rascals as the other lot. As for King Billy quite a lot of people seem to forget that William and Mary were James' daughter and son-in law. Revolution? Family feud? Reminds me of the time that the barons got so sick of King John that they invited the son of the King of France to rule instead. King John, now there's a fellow that's equally loved both sides of the Irish Sea.
@@AcolyteOfAoibheall Yes, I seen people posting on social media that they are the great-great-great grandchild of Lord such and such, King such as such, never of a peasant, an artisan, a weever... Actually King John doesn't get much press in Ireland, all people really know that there are two castles named after him (apart from Robin Hood) :-)
Very interesting. Thanks 👍. I have noticed more terrible historical images on the net , some are very funny. You would fear for education standards in schools/colleges with the ease of AI though. Authenticity will be the big selling point for history/art/media in the future.
Some AI is getting good in terms of images. Most is not, or when the image is good, it is wrong in other ways. However, what is going to be like in 10 years (or even less..) A bit scary!
Excellent discourse, bulla boss
THanks| Go raibh maith agat
You are roaring at the deaf. Especially in this island.
Somebody has to do it.... Mind you I usually get good responses, so somebody is listening :-) It's not the deaf I mind, it is those who are very loud about particular opinions...
Excellent video and worthy of a much wider audience. Do you have an Instagram channel?
I have an instragram and facebook channel for my walking tours (Instagram - asenseofplace.ie and Facebook - A Sense of Place Kerry). But my main channel is this TH-cam channel
The British and Irish black history industry is producing a great deal of bad history these days. For example:
Roman emperor Septimius Severus being black (North African, not black).
Very dark skinned Cheddar Man (we don't know what he looked like but he was Western hunter-gatherer).
"Prehistoric Irish people were dark skinned and had blue eyes a new documentary claims".
The Mauri of Mauretania on Hadrian's Wall being black (Berber people, not black and not related to modern Mauritania).
Abbot Hadrian of Canterbury being black (North African and not black).
Beachy Head Lady being sub-Saharan (not black, DNA tests indicate she was from Cyprus).
Stonehenge being built by black people (no).
All the race-swapped historical people on TV and in film (Queen Charlotte, Anne Boleyn, Gladys Moss, Bess of Hardwick etc.)
I would not call it a black history business, especially not in relation to Ireland. Nor would I call all of these examples bad history. I have read about the claims about Early Irish being dark skinned. It is based on genetics work, so it may be accurate. What does dark skinned mean in this context? Darker than now? Non-white? I think the same goes for Cheddar man. His skin colour (dark not black) is again based on genetics.
Moreover, much of this is a reaction to previous history where almost everyone was white (including Jesus and Egyptians). Attitudes to colour change a lot - I can remember reading English comics and watching British TV programmes when I was younger which implied that Spanish and Italians were basically non-white. British and American attitudes to race are very different to those of Spanish/Portuguese speaking countries. For example, the Americans had the one drop rule, meaning anyone with one drop of blood was black. Whereas go to Brazil, there are many distinct gradations of colour and numerous mixed categories. Indeed, in Brazil in the 15th and 16th centuries, black as a colour was used for native Americans or black slaves born in Brazil, whereas anyone who came from Africa was given the colour African. In relation to TV, there has always been race swapping - look at Godfather II (at least the parts in Cuba). Cubans are all white. in it Go to Cuba now and you will see loads of black people. The same can be said for Colombia.
Probably in the examples you give there are some mistakes. And yes, some of these can lead to Bad History. I know there is (or was, not sure if he is still alive) a US history professor who argued that the Egyptians were black. I think he was mistaken, but in this case, I think I would need to read his work before commenting much on it.
I have never seen any comments about Stonehenge and skin colour..
@@forasfeasa My point is that they are examples of attempts to connect Irish and British history with sub-Saharan Africans. White people obviously have a range of skin colours (from alabaster white to dark olive) but darker skin doesn't automatically mean sub-Saharan black.
One of the scientists involved in the very dark Cheddar Man reconstruction said on TV that we don't know what he looked like although the DNA analysis showed that he was Western hunter-gatherer. The reconstruction was in the news but a later correction didn't get any publicity so it was was ideological and not scientific.
Jesus is depicted differently in each culture so he's not always shown as white. Recent DNA analysis of ancient Egyptians suggested that they were closer to people of the near East or western Europeans so probably not a huge stretch for Europeans to play them. Late in ancient Egyptian history there was a Nubian Dynasty, sometimes called "Black Pharaohs" so there are probably some exceptions.
The claim about Stonehenge being built by black (or brown) people is in a recent book for children: Brilliant Black British History. The aim is clearly to create a new history for the UK. Another example is the BBC's Horrible Histories song "Been Here From the Start" song which includes a lot of the early false history.
The specific examples that I gave are all mistakes, usually deliberate, to alter the history of Europe. They are contradicted by historical records and DNA testing. One of the most common tricks is to conflate "Africa" and "black" to give an impression that non-black African history (e.g. Roman North African colonies on the south coast of the Mediterranean) is connected to sub-Saharan Africans.
@@georgebailey98 I understand better now. Things can easily be picked up and twisted. A researcher says one thing, it get reported and the copy editor picks one sentence, this is what gets reported on... and slowly good research gets changed!
@@forasfeasaI believe that the Nubian Kingdom of Kush shared a lot of culture with Egypt and temporarily effected a reverse-takeover of Egypt. So there probably were black pharoahs at some points in history. But it's a long stretch from that to suggest all the Egyptians were black.
I think there's a desire to counteract the way black people have been marginalised in depictions of history until very recently. Watching the latest series of Wolf Hall there are some black actors, which seems fair enough in principle as there were black people in Tudor England and indeed in the service of Henry VIII. But probably not among his privy councillors..still more likely than Mel Gibson's performance in Braveheart though and I'm sure some people thought that was a documentary.
Iontach mar is an gnáth! 👍
Go raibh maith agat!
💯👏👏👏
Thanks a lot :-)
Bad history is bad history. But fictional history taught as fact can be worse. I find that history is not so much taught badly in schools in England, but routinely used as a form of nationalist propaganda. How many pre university level students across England understand the 21st century country they inhabit evolved from a succession of pivotal invasions, conquests and colonisations since 1AD. First the Romans, next the Germanic Angles and Saxons in 4AD, Nordic Vikings in 7AD and in 1066 the Franco Normans. While women under Brehon law may have had limited rights to divorce, these rights were certainly more progressive compared to the draconian, church advocated anti divorce laws embedded in the Irish Constitution 1937; laws repealed in 1995. Women had rights to divorce if subjected to violence and serious domestic abuses under Brehon law. These rights were not afforded in Bunreacht na hÉireann. One could argue the changes to Bunreacht na hÉireann allowing divorce restored Irish laws to a more liberal Gaelic world under Brehon law.
Interesting points about English history. I had presumed they would learn the basics of English history. I have a feeling I was wrong! In relation to Brehon Law and Bunreacht na hÉireann, that is also an interesting point, but they were produced in two very veru different systems, it is hard to compare them. Mind you I would like to see someone write an article doing so :-)
Smashing stuff Eoin! Hopefully this historical fiction (heavy emphasis on the latter (!)) writer hasn't muddied the water too much.
@@ruadhbutler9143 Your books about the Norman invasion are good. They come across as well researched and are well written. Historical fiction has and has a role to play in history (I used to love Rosemary Sutcliffe novels when I was a kid). However, there has always been good historical fiction and bad historical fiction. I also used to read Biggles books when I was a kid... they had a very romantic and probably one sided view of history. Another example is Outlander. I have never read them, but I managed to watch 1.25 episodes before giving up, too many sterotypes. Moreover, the fact that the Culldoen grave of teh clan of the fictional hero is suffering from visits of fans, points to another problem with bad hsitorical fiction! (I think I have just written the script for a new video! Things to do on the train! ) Will you ever return to your Norman world?? :-)
@forasfeasa hope so! Dublin is the next destination for Raymond le Gros...
@@ruadhbutler9143 Looking forward to it. A battle that took place on what is now Dame Street??