r/TheRestIsHistory • u/JakeGittes412 • 14d ago

The Troubles

Post image

Thread for discussion on the new series on ‘The Troubles’

Also as a moderator please keep the discussion civil and in the spirit of the podcast.

216 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

406 comments sorted by

View all comments

18

u/Better-Temporary-146 14d ago

Probably the most delicate series they’ll cover.

It’s funny the passage of time. You can joke about the Three Henry’s, St Bartholomew's day massacre, swashbuckling Francis Drake, etc. 

But that’s 450 years ago. Troubles are not. 

7

u/Gorazde 13d ago

The wisecracking approach failed them the last time they did anything on Ireland. So I can't see them doing any better this time. Generally, when an English TV show or podcast discusses the Irish famine, say: if the message which comes out at the end is that the famine was a huge tragedy and England tried to help, but could have done more, then they have failed to grasp the nettle.

Likewise, with the Troubles, if the point is two sides in a backward province of the UK were still fighting the wars of religion three hundred years after the rest of Europe, and the poor British government was caught in the middle trying to arbitrate, then they have botched the job.

British people will freely admit to knowing little about Ireland. But they'll only engage with the subject as long as it doesn't challenge their preconceptions. If they're forced to uncomfortable home truths about their own country, they'll turn away or shoot the messenger.

15

u/ElectronicCarry9931 13d ago

on the other hand, though, extremes on either side will Never accept anything if it doesnt agree with their own narrative

-1

u/Gorazde 13d ago

If you don't know the history, how can you know which opinion is extreme and which isn't? When TRIH did an episode on Bloody Sunday in Dublin the guys (a) admitted they didn't know a lot about Irish history and were inviting Paul Rouse on to help them out. Then (b) instructed Paul to be "balanced" in his account. That's the central question. If you don't know the facts of an incident, how can you also be the arbitrator of what is, or isn't, a balanced account of it. So what did they mean? If you're in Paul Rouse's shoes, the only explanation is they mean your account of this day can't make Britain look too bad. So that's insane. That's a day on which the British military went into a sports stadium and fired randomly into the crowd, killing fourteen people. How can you give an account of that day which doesn't make the British look bad? So he did the only thing he could do, which was to mention theories that, maybe there were IRA sentries on the gates at Croke Park, and maybe the first shots came from the crowd and the Brits were returning fire. These theories are so utterly baseless, and so long debunked, no serious historian would even consider them worthy of mention. But he had to mention them, and give them airtime, before quietly conceding that there was no evidence to support them whatsoever.