{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0184645286686103, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007774538386783284, 'mean_word_length': 5.39751552795031, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The 1641 Rebellion and Ireland’s Contested Pasts

The 1641 rebellion elicited three distinct historical narratives. The first, put most cogently by John Temple, held that the government had engaged on a reform programme to benefit both natives and newcomers, until the Irish, guided by their priests, attempted to massacre the entire Protestant population, and would have succeeded but for providential intervention. Old English authors countered by acknowledging that the Gaelic Irish had attacked the settlers, but only because they had been treated unjustly by officials. They denied that a massacre had ensued, and argued that the Old English themselves had resorted to arms only to defend their patrimonies and their king from Puritan enemies in both Britain and Ireland. The third response, formulated in vernacular verse, detailed the mistreatment of Gaelic lords, explained how they had been forced to defend themselves, lamented the destruction that ensued when Cromwell invaded, and left their redemption to Providence.