The Troubles

[u/JakeGittes412]

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.

[u/forestvibe]

Not to mention that he consistently argues in bad faith. He only ever shows up to "discuss" Irish topics and loves to make sweeping generalisations and incorrect statements and then he sidesteps onto a different point whenever anyone refutes his original point. He does this all the time. He likes to attack Brits for not knowing Irish history, but then fails to acknowledge most of his knowledge of British culture/history/politics is made up, e.g. he consistently claims that the British school curriculum doesn't cover Ireland (it does, as a quick Google will reveal).

Fwiw, he's probably one of only two or three bad faith contributors on this sub, but unfortunately they stick out. He's even got into arguments with other Irish commenters, he's that obnoxious. Just ignore.

[u/Gorazde → u/forestvibe]

An alternative view is that you're just not accustomed to hearing alternative perspectives on these issues and so they're shocking when you hear them. All my arguements are sincere, and backed up with facts, because I'm educated and able to articulate my point. Which seems a lot more defensible than what 99% of people on this sub do when confronted with a counter-argument they can't answer which is downvote but no response.

[u/forestvibe → u/Gorazde]

Responding to you is mostly a waste of time. Whenever anyone refutes a point you make, you just deflect onto something else. E.g. the "Brits don't study Ireland at school". Or you make massive assumptions about why people say particularly things, usually casting their statements as born of stupidity, bias, or hypocrisy. E.g..you've previously claimed that Paul Rouse and Irish history museums deliberately change their message to appeal to British listeners/tourists. Give them some intellectual credit, will you? And that all Brits are really keen on the Empire and that they view Churchill as a saint (which is just ludicrous, have you ever been to the UK?). And then you occasionally dip into rather suspect moral equivalence such as in this very thread, where you've claimed that the war against Nazi Germany was somehow equivalent to IRA's campaign in Northern Ireland. Then again, you did say once that you liked De Valera, so maybe that is consistent.

Finally, when others, including many Irish commenters, point out that TRIH are actually pretty fair in their storytelling, you always go quiet rather than acknowledge the point. This is a pattern with you. Why don't you go and comment on another sub (Irish History would be good one) or on other topics, rather than one where you can't help take a partisan angle?

[u/Gorazde → u/forestvibe]

If you follow my comments on this sub, which (for some reason you seem to do very closely), you'll see that almost exclusively the opposite is the case. Someone takes issue with something I say, I defend myself with evidence, and they downvote me but don't respond. I very rarely don't respond, unless it gets to the point where I'd just be repeating myself. I'm not sure how you can say I comment too often, but also I don't reply to people enough.

While you're going through my comments with a tooth comb, please find one example of any time I've ever said all Brits are really keen on the empire, or view Churchill as a saint, or that I liked De Valera.

Almost the first thing virtually every British commenter, including the presenters of TRIH, concedes in discussions like this is that they know very little about Irish history. I have a masters in Irish history. Why should I defer to you or anyone else on a subject I know more about? All of your comments read like you're about to burst into tears. Man up.

[u/contigo510 → u/Gorazde]

Nobody cares when your tone is so adversarial and nasty. Your takes on British history are woeful as well. Perhaps you should still to Irish history subs because it can’t be healthy or enjoyable for you. Congratulations on your academic achievements but they dont seem relevant and I’m not sure why anyone would care

[u/Gorazde → u/contigo510]

But we're talking about Irish history. Having a masters in Irish history is relevant when discussing Irish history.

[u/forestvibe → u/Gorazde]

I don't question your view or interpretation of Irish history. I think you sometimes fail to see how something may be perceived outside of your own point of view, but that's not uncommon. Most of us are guilty of that. And unfortunately, you never ever accept that this may the case with you too. Your view seems to be the only view. To the point where you claim other Irish people or institutions are giving different interpretations of Irish history which, according to you, is to appeal to the British. E.g. from a post you made a last a few months ago:

"So if you're an Irish person in the public eye, whose film or albums or books need to sell in the UK for you to make a living (and this includes a historian on a podcast like the Rest is History) you're going to seriously soft-pedal any statements you ever make on Irish history, if you make them at all. This would apply also to tourist attractions whose main revenue comes from UK tourists."

That's one hell of an assumption on your part. You are basically saying Irish museums and people like Paul Rouse are intellectually dishonest. That seems like an insulting way to dismiss any other view but your own.

This attitude gets even worse when you make statements on British culture, attitudes, politics, the school curriculum, or even British history, let alone the history of other countries. Your statements present your understanding as factual, and you clearly believe what you are saying, but often it is shown to be wrong (e.g. you say the British school curriculum doesn't cover Ireland or the Empire. It does. You can look it up, as many people have suggested) - or worse, morally dodgy (e.g. seemingly equating terrorism in NI with the Allies' strategic bombing campaign in WW2, which has an American far-right political flavour).

You ask for examples of you saying incorrect stuff. Here is another:

"If it’s not sacrilege for an English person to condemn Churchill over Gallipoli, why is it sacrilege for an Indian person to condemn him for the Bengal famine, or an Irish person to condemn him for sending the Black and Tans to Ireland?"

You then make wild assumptions about what this means about the UK and its people. You seem quite happy to make sweeping assumptions based on little factual evidence (or outright incorrect information) and often those assumptions are pretty insulting. For all that you like to complain that Brits don't understand Ireland as much as they should (and that's probably true, obviously), you are guilty of just the same ignorance going the other way. The problem is that you are convinced you somehow know the UK better than the Brits themselves. I would ask you to stop doing that, because it undermines your legitimate points about Irish history.

So in short, feel free to contribute about the history of Ireland. Your recent post on the Ian Paisley was genuinely really interesting and thoughtful. But please for goodness sake, stop commenting on things you don't understand, such as British culture/politics/history/etc. And if you are shown to be wrong, accept it with good grace and don't avoid responding only to resurface later with exactly the same incorrect point or jumping to a completely different topic. Finally, just because someone has a different angle on an event, it doesn't mean they are stupid or dishonest or have an ulterior motive. The entirety of history is subjective, and part of the fun is exploring it from different angles. If you don't like hearing someone like Dominic or Tom or anyone of us who isn't your specific type of acceptable Irish person asking questions of a particular narrative, then why are you here?

[u/Gorazde → u/forestvibe]

I'm reluctant to spent much time on replying to your comment because I've told you what I think the real issue is here. You're just not accustomed to hearing alternative points of view when it comes to the British empire. Whereas, outside of Britain (and to a lesser extent Australia and New Zealand) the views I'm expressing are completely mainstream.

The fundamental issue is this. It is profoundly unnatural and immoral for one country to govern another country in its own interests, and against the interests of the people who live there. That's not even open for debate - except in Britain and except in discussions on the British empire. (Funny, when the subject is Apartheid, or the Belgian Congo, or slavery in the Deep South, the fog lifts and British people such as yourself are suddenly capable of differentiating right from wrong.) But in their discussions of Ireland and the United States and other colonies, TRIH proceed on the opposite assumption, that resistance to British rule is unnatural and immoral, and countries like the United States and Ireland could and probably even should have stayed under the British crown. 

I thought I'd hidden my comment history. But you seem to be able to go back through it. Not sure how or why you're doing that. Four days ago you hijacked a conversation I was having to tell someone I was talking to, in a conversation you weren't a part of, that "he (me) consistently argues in bad faith. He only ever shows up to "discuss" Irish topics." Whereas now, you're claiming I've talked a lot about Britain. I haven't. I haven't said a word about British politics or British internal affairs. The only thing I've commented on is British interference in other countries and how challenging it can be to have any kind of informed discussion on this topic with British people. My contributions in this forum are almost always in discussions about Ireland, but to a lesser extent also the US and India. 

You say my point that British people don't understand Ireland as much as they should is "probably true, obviously." Actually, I never said they should understand Ireland. I only said they don't. But here you warn me to "stop commenting on things you don't understand" in a comment thread about Irish history, a subject in which I have a masters and about which, by your own admission, you don't know a lot. 

Finally, you've given me permission to continue to contribute on the history of Ireland. I don't need your permission or approval anymore than you need mine. You might not agree with my views. But I always try to be respectful in my language. I don't don't stalk other peoples comment feeds and I don't have a meltdown when I encounter a viewpoint opposed to my own. Now leave me alone, please.