First and why do I have to watch Public History? It is so dry. In any case, I think by the very fact of considering this topic one assumes people are clued into the same places historians are. The Revolutionary Period is more a celebration and resurgence of past injustices rather than an attempt to discover something new about the past through our present or vice-versa. I am guessing few are going to question whether the Easter Rising (1916) was just or the Irish War of Independence (1919-1921) or the Irish Civil War (1922-1923). The socialists will have a field day (I mean the Democratic Programme (1919).) whilst everyone else points out how it was appeasement more than manifesto or even the Irish Republican Army's atrocities and whether the British really were these big baddies. If that was addressed more clearly then sure I could see the point but it was a skim more than a dunk. I do not know what I am rambling about now but it is fun to watch these videos. Edit: What does "English (Ireland)" mean exactly? Edit2: I think the biggest problem is the focus on revolution as opposed to Constitutional change which Bishops, Charles Stewart Parnell and the peasants especially were involved in. Parnell is seen as a hero but aside from his undoubtedly scandalous association with the Irish Republican Brotherhood he was a constitutionalist (If more picking up where Britain left off as the Irish National Land League shows.) and an effective Parliamentarian. It may also help one see the strange circumstance of the social and democratic revolutions already happening and thus aid in the disestablishment of the revolutionary and republican inertia created as proven by The Troubles (1969-1998). Although not irrelevant, I risk exposing my ignorance as opposed to the average Irishman, the progress up to 1916 is criminally unrealised. Labour progress for example was immense in Britain whilst comparatively quiet in Ireland from what I can infuse. Finally what was the revolution, was it just separatist socialist republicanism (No.) or did it involve more? That to me is the issue that has not been divulged. Edit3: The differences between the treatment of the Articles of Agreement (1919-1921) 50 years later and now is that the parties in power had an incentive to do it that way. It matters less today sure but it certainly did then, I mean look who was President.