How far do Sources 2 and 3 challenge the impression of the Land League given by the cartoonist in Source 1?

by eskimoblonde2000 (student)

Britain and Ireland- sources essay

Source 1 is from a cartoon in Punch, 1881. From this source I get a very negative image of the Land League. The use of words on the ‘tentacles’ of the Irish Devil-Fish, ‘terrorism’, ‘anarchy’ and ‘rebellion’ gives the impression that this group of people were very dangerous, using violent tactics to get what they wanted.

The size and number of tentacles the creature has shows us that the Land League was a large group of people, and the way that the Devil Fish has grip of Gladstone and the rocks gives us the impression that the Land League was a very strong movement that were going to hold on no matter what the circumstances were. Source 3 supports this as it suggests that the movement had a lot of backing from the Irish public ‘All classes are purchasing arms openly’ implying that the size of the support for the movement was massive therefore making them a stronger movement that would be able to get what they wanted.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The use of words on each of the tentacles also gives us the impression that the Land League were a very violent movement that were willing to use violent tactics in order to achieve the results that they wanted. The use of the word ‘terrorism’ gives us the impression that actually the Land League were an extremist group even though in Source 2, a propaganda poster where the Land League states its aims, the League suggests that they use ‘Temperate but firm resistance to oppression and injustice’ which gives the audience of the poster at the time the impression that the League weren’t willing to use violent tactics but that they were going to handle the situation in a calm and ‘temperate’ manner. So here we are given a completely different impression of the Land League, it puts them in a positive light.

Also we see that the expression on the ‘monster’s’ face and the way that it is pushed up into the corner indicates that the movement was very vulnerable and it is also shown that Gladstone had a lot of power and we see this by the way he is holding onto the knife, he is clearly very determined to defeat this movement. This has similarities to Source 3. Source 3 suggests that the Land Leagues tactics weren’t as militant as the press made them out to be ‘Petty little outrages are magnified in the English press’, this links in with Source 1 because they both suggest that the Land League aren’t as strong and forceful as they have been made out to be but actually they are very vulnerable.

The Land League itself wrote source 2 so we are probably going to infer that the poster is going to be reliable because why would the league lie about their tactics and aims? However, the source could also be taken in a different way, some might disagree and say that because the Land League wrote the poster they could have changed the way they put their movement across in order to get support, because without support the movement isn’t going to work. Similarly, Source 3 is written by Michael Davitt, the leader of the Land League, so he is probably going to slightly exaggerate the situation in order to gain support from the Americans. So the source probably isn’t the most reliable.

In conclusion, I think that Sources 2 and 3 mainly challenge the impression of the Land League given by the cartoonist in Source 1. I think this because Source 2 gives a very different perspective of that that we are given in Source 1 and this is similar with Source 3. In Source 1 the Land League are shown to be a violent, dangerous, and strong yet vulnerable movement that would use extremist tactics to get the results they wanted. In direct contrast to this Source 2 gives us the impression that the Land League was a calm and temperate movement that’s main interests were to help the people of Ireland. Similarly, in source 3 it is implied the Land League were being targeted by the press and that they really weren’t as bad as they were being made out to be and this heavily contradicts what we are being told in Source 1.

Chloe Hunt