Reddit reviews A History of Scotland: Look Behind the Mist and Myth of Scottish History
We found 4 Reddit comments about A History of Scotland: Look Behind the Mist and Myth of Scottish History. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Phoenix
For a good general overview of Scotland's history you can't go far wrong with Michael Lynch's Scotland: A New History and my dad says that Neil Oliver's book A History of Scotland is good as well. I've not read it myself, but given that it's aimed at a general audience instead of historians it's possibly more readable than Lynch's book.
For modern Scottish history Tam Devine's book The Scottish Nation: 1700-2007 is a pretty good start. I find him quite readable, but it's more of a social history than a dates and facts history. I've taken against him a bit lately as he keeps sticking his oar in whenever there's a social issue on the go (Rangers going into administration was the latest), but I can't fault him for his knowledge and research work. I've a lot of respect for him as a historian.
The articles on Scottish History on Wikipedia tend to be quite well written, researched and sourced so you might find more specific books and information from their footnotes.
This is awesome. I've been trying to learn more about the history of British Isles. So far I've really enjoyed Neil Oliver's A History of Scotland (also on iPlayer) and the History in an Hour books, 1066 and The Medieval Anarchy, by Kaye Jones.
Is there a larger version of this map? Or anything similar - but again, larger - focusing on the early makeup of the peoples of the isles? I'm looking for a new poster :)!
Neil Oliver's History of Scotland (http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Scotland-Neil-Oliver/dp/0753826631) is very good, and light enough.
The history you mention is a lot more complex and long, so it's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel refuting your comment. What I point out below takes away the spun, nice and black and white 'history' we (in the UK) were taught in school. The history I learned at home was somewhat different, so I've spent a good part of 20 years investigating it.
Neil Oliver put together an excellent history more aligned to what actually happened, rather than the propagandised (written by the victor) history you mentioned. However, if you like books, these are a good start:
This is an excellent resource on the highland clearances. Growing up I was told of how ancestors were thrown off their land, their language and way of life destroyed, betrayed and left to starve by their clansmen for greed and power - then, if they still lived they were ultimately thrown to all corners of the earth looking for a survivable way of life or in fact slavery...
One part of the Irish side of the family was enslaved and sent to the Caribbean (didn't learn about the Irish slaves at school, did you?...). And of course other parts of the family lived (if they were lucky) through what some have called the Irish Holocaust
I spent a period of my youth incredibly angry at 'the powers that be/were' as they stood by and let these genocides happen for two reasons; greed and lust for power. Hence my long interest in history written by those on the receiving end of monarchist, aristocrat and religious policies. These people's ancestors still inhabit the castles and own the land taken at the time.
I woke up one day a long time ago now, clear in the knowledge I had a bad case of Stockholm syndrome brainwashed into me via the 'education' and corporate media. Hence, I'll refute comments such as yours til I'm pushing up the daisies - because it's admittedly a very successful, but deliberate attempt by those in power to tell us what they want us to hear.
In respect to your 'mass extermination of the indigenous people of those islands? (New Zealand)' - again, you're very misinformed on the facts as they've been laid down. For starters, The Maori committed their own genocide before the white man turned up. Then, yes the British monarchy's minions did their usual and committed terrible acts - no change there then, but from the above, I'm sure you'll have picked up which side I stand on, i.e. not 'royal'.