A good primary source for this question would be Peter Beresford Ellis' Eyewitness to Irish History which presents, amongst other things, the majority of the Penal Laws which affected Catholics and non-Anglicans alike for the majority of the time they were in effect. Catholics, Non-Conformists (Calvinists), and other non-Anglicans were barred from holding office or being elected to any position, could not vote, could be pressed into service by any landholder Anglican for whatever price he named (refusal brought beatings, arrest, and deportation), Catholics and non-Conformists were barred from receiving education at home or abroad (on penalty of death in most cases), could not own a horse worth more than 5 pounds sterling, were barred from owning weapons, were forced to divide their property evenly amongst their heirs, and so on.
Additionally, the book chronicles the treatment of non-Conformists and Catholics at the hands of Cromwell's army (Cromwell only stayed for a year in Ireland, but his son-in-law was arguable just as happy to be malicious and cruel towards the Irish) including 50,000 Irish sent into slavery in Barbados and the razing of entire towns.
That being said, many of the radicals and revolutionaries of Ireland were Protestants, even Anglicans, who were outraged at the treatment of their fellow Irishmen; Theobald Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet, and Charles Stuart Parnell were all Protestants.
But the Wind that Shakes the Barley takes place int he immediate run-up to the 1916 uprising to the middle-ish part of the Irish Civil War. During the film's first half, you are treated to the lawlessness and butchery of the infamous "Black and Tans" and "Auxies" who DID go door-to-door killing innocent people suspected of being Feinian/IRA. THey mass-raped, burned people out, and generally ran roughshod over people with little or no oversight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_Tans
The Black and Tans' behavior, coupled with battle exhaustion of the British public, made the fight against the revolution untenable and thus brought both sides to the negotiation table.
TL;DR: it is a qualified "Yes" - the English were (to borrow a phrase) "Right bastards" towards Irish (Catholic and non-Conformists) during much of the time they ruled the island, with few exceptions.
This is a very interesting question.
I know the area where the Wind That Shakes the Barley was made and it's where my mother grew up and the depiction is quite accurate.
This is a very specific period of history surrounding Irelands independence when constitutional means to change the system of government had become mired in politics.
One problem with the movie is the political message when the catalyst behind the warwas the rrevival of the irish language, especially in that region.
It helps to look at Ireland as being the original British Colony, which it was, and where the their system of colonial administration developed and as the prototype.
The depiction of a colonial power and actions of it's army is always subjective as it depends on the historiography and this is depicted from an irish perspective. So yes, it is accurate and it's how colonial armies behave. The study of Irish history is interesting for others as a comparator. Ideas and methods were tried and tested, that's often why when the issue of Irish slavery comes up there is so much argument as opposed to looking at it as the original colony and colonial experiment. (When the US was a still a colony it's residents were able to gauge British policy by what had happened in Ireland ).
Irish independence was also the harbinger of the end of the British Empire in the 20th century.
I hope this helps put some perspective into it.
There are a few interesting video links on the web that I can find for you if you are interested in Ireland in the media. A movie "the Lad from the Old Country " made on location in Ireland in 1910 and Brendan Behan, the writer, and others on a Canadian current affairs show in the 1950's discussing colonialism.
I have found a link for the killings of Pat & Harry Loughrane in Galway.
The author is the teacher and historian Cormac O'Comhrai.
It's a chilling read and would describe similar events to the movie.
I'm new to Reddit, so just finding my way through this very interesting discussion.
If the titular question is the topic we're supposed to be on here ("Were the British as cruel to the Irish as they're depicted in The Wind that Shakes the Barley?"):
There is no question that the torture and atrocities depicted in The Wind That Shakes the Barley were a feature of the British Imperial forces throughout the Empire, at that period. Rather, what was shown in that movie was as sanitized, toned down version, as one would expect, for a theatrical version.
Roger Casement was knighted for exposing that white colonists running plantations in British holdings in Africa had cut off children's limbs for not working fast enough; and other horrific practices, which you will be spared a catalogue of here.
The Cromwellian forces slaughtered every man, woman and child in Drogheda in that 17th century. It was not the only town to receive that or similar treatment.
Torture by the British in Northern Ireland during the Troubles is still an issue: and British cover-up & denials are still at issue.
Genocide and atrocities were standard-issue tactics in British 700-year efforts to reduce Ireland to a British colony; even if it meant wiping out the existing population, their culture language & history,
That battle is still going on today, in subtler ways; not least of all in the battle over what really happened in Irish history.
Some books I'd like to recommend; touching on a number of issues raised in this thread:
I'd also like to say that I disagree that the movie "Michael Collins" is not a good representation of that history.
It condenses & uses the sort of short-hand nutshell story-telling that's characteristic of film treatments in general. So it's not the whole story in literal detail.
However, it gets it right generally to an astonishing extent.
It's hugely popular in Ireland, as one of the best films on a very painful, dificult history that is still hotly debated today. That says a good deal.
It's generally agreed, by all but the most rabid Collins-bashers, that the young republic likely would have developed a good deal differently, had Collins lived.
The movie doesn't say DeValera was involved in his death. But it does point out the remarkable circumstance that Collins was in the place where he died due to an offer to meet with DeValera for a peace conference.