PDA

View Full Version : Northern Ireland & The U.K.



Scáthach
Friday, December 6th, 2002, 10:22 PM
do u ever want northern ireland to be given back to ireland or do u want it to remain part of britain for ever?
if u live in the north do u see yourself as irish or british?
88

nsrus
Saturday, December 7th, 2002, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by miss~scarling
do u ever want northern ireland to be given back to ireland

Northern Ireland is two thirds of the Irish Province of Ulster it cannot be taken away from Ireland so cannot be 'given back' Thats a piss poor Paul McCartney song.As current there is a British Imperialist identity living in that area who proclaim this area British for ever.This is true in the sense that the island of Ireland is part of the land mass designated the British Isles by cartographers.
In no other sense is it 'British' the inhabitants themselves are incapable of even defing what being 'British' means outside of gerrymandered politics,dubious cartography and savage violence.Why British Nationalists give unconditional support to such people is beyond a rational explanation.The nearest they ever get is that the triad alliance leader has a mate who has a wp tattoo.A case unrequited love methinks.Think Sudeten Germans pre 1938





or do u want it to remain part of britain for ever?
if u live in the north ( east of the Irish province of Ulster)do u see yourself as irish or british?
88

Scáthach
Saturday, December 7th, 2002, 07:46 PM
fair enough 'given back' wasnt the best phrase but as im a dubliner myself i do know what im talking about too :)
i was merely curious to hear other peoples viewpoints.....

nsrus
Friday, December 27th, 2002, 02:19 AM
~for race and nation~

http://www.sinnfein.ie

From your profile i presume that the shinner link is to alert unwary racial patriots of the dangers of marxist usury serving gombeen parochial nationalist parties.

Scáthach
Friday, December 27th, 2002, 02:26 AM
hopefully everyone will soon enjoy www.finegael.ie sinn fein arent the worst we have................

nsrus
Friday, December 27th, 2002, 05:44 PM
In regards to the race issue there is not a fag papers of difference between them.Come to that all of the currently registered political parties in both the Republic of Ireland and north east Ulster all support multi-racialism and a black Ireland.

Racial Patriots have to create there own parties nsrus.com was issued with writs by both FF and FG for putting up a link for people to examine for themselves the facts.

Further your pic you have selected is of a commited multi-racialist,while you may fool some of them here which such imagery those of us who have been,seen and done know better

leonidas
Friday, December 27th, 2002, 09:20 PM
Anyone who supports a political party or partys or otherwise,who espouse that anyone entering these shores is Irish,then that said individual cannot call himself/herself a nationalist.

The individual and those concerned are something else and certainly cannot call themselves irish patriots by their own admissions they are patriotic to all and his strange looking friend.

lochgarman
Saturday, December 28th, 2002, 08:02 PM
"Further your pic you have selected is of a commited multi-racialist,while you may fool some of them here which such imagery those of us who have been,seen and done know better"

My comment on the above is that that organisation this picture represents is a multi faceted one. By that I mean that certain elements are supporters of multi-culturalism & others are not.

If this person or others resists outside invaders that occupy his homeland without carrying out brigandage & attrocities against his own kinfolk and fellow white Irish people with differing political aspirations then he is a patriot.

If he supports bigotry and drug dealing/extortion & marxism/multi culturalism & the invasion of the darkies then he is a traitor.

nsrus
Sunday, December 29th, 2002, 12:25 AM
Exactly and Kathleen McDonah the woman in the pic is a a hot marxist

lochgarman
Sunday, December 29th, 2002, 03:57 PM
My knowledge of the situation in north east Ulster is as follows.

Those involved in the republican movement in city areas such as Belfast in the north seem to be advocates of marxist ideals.

Maybe the shinners are promising the poor unemployed discriminated nationalist people of the cities a utopia that they certainly can't deliver?

However, the situation in country areas such as Armagh & Tyrone is that people want the Crown forces to leave them in peace and go home. I know familes who have members who have been heavily involved in the troubles over the last 30 years who certainly do not want a marxist republic or a Black Ireland.

These same people will always support those who resist British rule in NE Ulster. Also some of them are very wealthly farmers they would not support marxists making their land part of a "stalinist " farming collective. The breakaway republicans have a lot of support in rural areas as some see Sein Fein as a sell out

However the fact remains as I have described above the republican movement is a multi faceted organisation.

nsrus
Monday, December 30th, 2002, 12:41 AM
First Republicanism is a form of government a free Ireland and a Republic of Ireland are not necessarily the same thing.Collins hammered this point prior to the treaty.At the time Unionists/Loyalists were defined as Royalists.For example if the billy boys followed their hero Cromwell ( The first Republican Leader since ancient Athens) and adopted Republicanism as a a preferred form of government i doubt that to many Irish NATIONALIST'S would be to keen on republicanism.

That said Racial Patriots must tap into the patriotic nationalist natural instincts of Irish people.We cannot do that by trying to fit leftist marxist orgs to our own template.Indeed as the alien settlement increases it is in our interests to demonstrate clear blue water twixt us and them.This is why Cira,Rira,Pira and the shinners are so reluctant to take the stand on race in Ireland that their supporters have taken in the UK.

It is time for racial patriots to step up to the plate and show that real nationalism and real patriotism can only exist in a racially aware society.This means putting North East Ulster in perspective.That as current ditching the brits for the currently existing political parties in the Republic will no more ensure real Ireland than the current set up.

If we do not define our own agenda seperate and apart from the shinners we risk being submerged by their sheer clout militarily and politically.

We have one weapon of 'mass destruction' to use and keep using against the distorters and that is the race issue.While the neo-brits of sinn fein might be happy with winston shagging their daughters.As you say Farmer O'Rielly will not be it is our exocet use it in every discussion , debate and correspondence in regard to a 32 Ireland

leonidas
Monday, December 30th, 2002, 01:48 AM
Agreed farmer O Reilly wont like it but either will inner city high unemployment tower block Ross either.

He too will get affected by immigration as this will effect his employment prospects.

Many muds will take up the low paid jobs,whilst claiming on the side of course,you see they all look the same.

More trouble will come when tower block Ross is refused his weekly dole by a mud face behind the local job centre,he will note the disparity in such cases when compared with the new settlers.

Of course of more affliction will be how the settlers are been housed in nice semi's.
This will cause many a restless night.

nsrus
Monday, December 30th, 2002, 02:08 AM
Let us hope that Ross has more balls than the Brits .I suspect most Irish will do the same as the Brits move out of black areas leaving the poorer section of society to it's own devices.In the UK this has endured for 5O YEARS do we have that much time to spare ?

Its gotta be sooner rather than later

Scáthach
Friday, August 22nd, 2003, 10:51 PM
Since one is not allowed to discuss this on SF Ireland may aswell here, ive noticed quite a few people from Sf Ireland have joined up here recently so it could prove interesting :)

My thoughts on it are fairly straightforward -
Ulster is Irish and should be one with the Republic.
It is not all about morals and the immorality inherent in imperialism, rather we seem to sometimes forget it is about people - fuck white uinty with brits when we dont even have unity with our own Irish kin in north east ulster. One step at a time.

Irish parties -
a few years ago one could have said Sinn Fein were our (as in irelands not as in racialists/Wn's) best bet as they APPEAR to be the only party interested in nationalism and gaining a republic, but as this is obviously NOT so (good way to attract the attention of the youth though gerry)we have to look beyond them and at the other parties - FF calling themselves the Republican party today is laughable. None of the other parties really warrant a mention, FG may have right wing roots but present Fine Gaelers do their best to keep people in ignorance of this...you rarely hear about Eoin o Duffy - founding FG member, do you ;)

Irish public opinion.
All Irish people want a republic somewhere deep down or atleast wouldnt say no to one, im fairly sure of this...Anyone who doesnt, well, i question how Irish blooded they even are. It seems to be that the problem is people have forgotten we do not have a full republic - southerners forget, perhaps selectively, that N.E Ulster is ''British property'' and so dont think of a huge problem to be worked on, and believe me there is one.
Ireland is facing many problems, some old like this , some new like immigration, all are important.

Milesian
Friday, August 22nd, 2003, 11:17 PM
In a way, the dreadful treatment of Nothern Ireland's Nationalist community since partition has really backfired.
Perhaps those people in the Six Counties would have eventually settled down for an easy life under British Rule if it wasn't for the discrimination in housing, employment, local government, constant harrasment by police and army, imprisonment without trial, killing of innocent , unarmed protesters, not being able to vote,etc

These things have all increased resentment and alienation amont the nationalists against the British occupiers.
It must be difficult when Loyalists mobs are burning you and others families out of their homes while the police watch without attempting to intervene (or sometimes even taking part in it themselves).

The Brits try to say that Ireland has always been a patchwork of kingdoms constantly at war throughout history and has never been a united country. Howver, that is just plain wrong.
Although the title of Ard Ri (High King) was often symbolic, there was also times when the High King had effective control over all provinces.

On the contrary, Nothern Ireland is the artificial state.
It is wrong to call it Ulster .
The ancient province of Ulster is soread throughout nine modern day counties. Three counties, that is one 1/3 of Ulster is within the Republic of Ireland (Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan).
Partition was deliberately made not along the historic 9 county division, but rather to merely include 6 of the counties, those being the ones containing a Unionist majority and could guarantee a pro-British population for the foreseeable future.
In other words, the border was gerrymandered to suit British interests.
However, the nationalist community of those 6 counties now comprises soemthing like 47% and soon they will be the majority.
That is why the recent census was rushed through by Unionist politicians. They feared that if they waited any longer it may show a Nationalist majority and not a Unionist one, and thefore they would be unable to claim that they represent the wishes of the majority

Ted Roach
Friday, August 22nd, 2003, 11:45 PM
The main thing has to be to get the blacks out first the brits wont kill us thru race mixing but the blacks will.

perter
Friday, August 22nd, 2003, 11:49 PM
I hope those up north see that immigrants will have loyalty to only themselves. But I'd wager old fights are just more fun. The North is Irish, that's for sure. But I don't know if I could call myself an Irish Nationalist, I think I'm a Tribalist. Independant counties at the largest under a confederation to encompase the entirity of Ireland.

So I believe that all of Ireland should be Irish, while British national parties have policies that will demand that NI be British for all time.

I think my beliefs are less barmy then the British there. :rofl

but the mostimportant thing is to send all Non-whites back to where they came from.

Milesian
Friday, August 22nd, 2003, 11:53 PM
The main thing has to be to get the blacks out first the brits wont kill us thru race mixing but the blacks will.

True but then no-one is forced to breed with blacks, but those up north are forced to live under British occupation.It isn't the blacks that shoot nationalists or intimidate and threaten 5 year old children trying to get to school


We shouldn't go soft on one to concentrate on another.
All foreigners, whether British or British West Indian should be ejected.

Milesian
Saturday, August 23rd, 2003, 12:45 AM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Premisyl
I dont mean for you to go into great detail....What are these plantations that you are talking about? How did Britain get Northern Ireland? Also, how did Ireland become independant of Great Britain? What was life like in British occupied Ireland? Maybe I should have surfed the net and learned some things before bringing this up. It's funny how off topic this is, and it's all my fault!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The plantation took place in the 16th century.
It was an attempt by the English monarchs to gain control of Ireland by colonising it.
The land of the native Irish (usually land which had been in their families and clans for centuries) was confiscated (ie. stolen) and the land was given to settlers from England and primarily Scotland.

The Irish never forgot that their lands had been stolen and always carried this greviance with them.
Even down through the generations, their descendants always carried with them the knowledge that those in power were merely thieves who had stolen that which did not belong to them.

In addition, these "planters" were Protestants (loyal to the English Protestant monarch), and they discriminated against the native Catholic Irish.
The most succesful plantation took place in Ulster, which is the reason why there are a million Protestant people in Nothern Ireland today who wish to be British instead of Irish - these are the descendants of the Planters.

The whole of Ireland at one point was under British rule and part of the British Empire.
At Easter on 1916 (due to the British government defaulting on it's promise for Home Rule for Ireland) a group of various men, poets, politicians, teachers, etc decided to stage an uprising with some men they had been training (the Irish Volunteers).
They started off by marching on what seemed to be a routine manouver but then turned around and seized control of Dublin's General Post Office (GPO). This is known as the Easter Rebellion in which Padraig Pearse read the now famous declaration proclaiming the birth of the Republic of Ireland as an independent country, seperate from Britain.

Britain at this time was engaged in the titanic struggle with Germany that was the First World War.
The Germans actually organised 30,000 rifles to be transported to Ireland by U-Boat to aid the uprising.
The British however, sent the army to quell the short-lived rising in Dublin. Eventually sending a Gun-Boat up the river Liffey and shelled Dublin reducing much of it to ruin.
Most of the leaders of the rising were executed and the Irish people's mood turned to that of fury. Shortly after, the original IRA began it's War of Independance, conducting suprisingly sophisticated guerilla style raids and ambushes against the British.
Neither the Irish nor the British could get the upper hand and eventually Prime minister Lloyd George decided that negotiation was the only solution. Ireland signed the Anglo-Irish treaty, which meant that 26 of the 32 counties became the "Irish Free State " which was given "Dominian Status" akin to places such as Canada - having much autonomy but still part of the British Commonwealth and it's parliment still had to take an Oath of Allegiance to the British monarch. Meanwhile part of Ulster became Nothern Ireland and remained under British rule.
And it still is to this day.
The Irish Free State eventually scrapped the Oath and eventually declared itself completely independant and bacame the Republic of Ireland .

As for life in British occupied Ireland....Scathach, you care to fill us in on that part?

Scáthach
Saturday, August 23rd, 2003, 12:58 AM
This will seem an odd place to start but the story of bobby Sands and the hunger strikers has always intrigued me, while we may not have agreed with some of these mens thoughts and activities i think it wise to remember what time they lived in and if they were alive today their strong wishes for an irish catholic, united ireland would decree that they would be anti immigrant - sinn fein of the time or not. We must remember that things are not as simple as they seem - mass immigration is a very modern problem for ireland, and in the 80s and before it was unheard of and young men and women in the north tended to join reactionary groups in the hopes of outing the foreign occupationists, most were not ''communists'' they were signing up as they saw it as the only possible solution. INterment was one of the most offensive, barbaric inhumane things to ever happen in modern Ireland.

''In 1981, ten young men, members of the Irish Republican Army and the Irish National Liberation Army, and prisoners of war (POWs), died on hunger strike while incarcerated in the North of Ireland.

Ten young men who had dared to rise up against the occupying forces in their country, young men whose only hope in life was that, unlike them, their children could grow up free from oppression of their basic human rights, free from discrimination in housing, education, health care and religion, free to live their lives without fear, and free citizens of a United Ireland.

Arrested without evidence, convicted without trials, and stripped of their political status as POWs, these men asked for five basic rights - rights which the British occupied forces could have easily granted - but instead they were left to die, while the world looked on in horror.

This year, 2001, is the 20th anniversary of the deaths of these brave young men. They will never be forgotten, not now while we still struggle for freedom; and not ever, even when justice and freedom are finally won by the people of Ireland.

Beginning with May 5th, the anniversary of the first death, we ask you, in the name of human compassion, to remember these men by participating in a world-wide minute of silence and again on the anniversary of each subsequent death. We ask all of you who detest the injustices the British government imposes on the people of the North of Ireland, and all of you who wish for peace and social justice for all peoples of the world, to join together in solidarity and share a minute of silence in their honour.

Let us never forget:

Volunteer Bobby Sands, IRA - died 5 May 1981
Volunteer Francis Hughes, IRA - died 12 May 1981
Volunteer Raymond McCreesh, IRA - died 21 May 1981
Volunteer Patsy O'Hara, INLA - died 21 May 1981
Volunteer Joe McDonnell, IRA - died 8 July 1981
Volunteer Martin Hurson, IRA - died 13 July 1981
Volunteer Kevin Lynch, INLA - died 1 August 1981
Volunteer Kieran Doherty, IRA - died 2 August 1981
Volunteer Thomas McElwee, IRA - died 8 August 1981
Volunteer Michael Devine, INLA - died 20 August 1981

The five demands they died for were:

1. The Right not to wear a prison uniform;
2. The Right not to do prison work;
3. The Right of free association with other prisoners;
4. The Right to organize their own educational and recreational facilities;
5. The Right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week.

Scáthach
Saturday, August 23rd, 2003, 01:07 AM
im horribly disorganised but random subjects interest me and this is a good article despite the constant mentions of ''racism''


THE IRISH GREAT HUNGER
by John J. Caulfield, III

1997 marked the 150th anniversary of the Irish Great Hunger, a widely known but poorly understood historical event. Most Americans have a vague notion of an Irish "potato famine," but few understand that over a million people died of starvation and related diseases while food was being exported from Ireland in the hundreds of thousands of tons. Far from being a famine, the Great Hunger was actually a human disaster, the culmination of seven hundred years of conflict and colonization, racism and religious discrimination against one people by another that was catalyzed by a simple microorganism, the potato blight.

Since their conquest of Ireland in the 12th century, the English practiced a systematic discrimination against the Irish people. Large scale land confiscation occurred under Oliver Cromwell's policy known as "to hell or Connaught" and Irish landowners who refused to leave their property faced execution or slavery in the West Indies. The Statutes of Kilkenny made marriage between Irish and English a capital offense. The Penal Laws forbade all Catholics to receive an education, enter a profession, vote, hold public office, practice their religion, engage in trade or commerce, purchase or lease land, rent land or own a horse of a certain value. Laws were passed restricting Irish export competition with English trade. The destruction of Irish trade, the land seizures and the penal laws all combined to make the Irish among the poorest of the world's poor.

By 1844, a year before the onset of the potato blight, Ireland was ruled by military occupation. The majority of native Irish were agricultural laborers who lived in conditions of poverty and insecurity and subsisted primaily on the hearty potato, which was introduced to Ireland about 1590. The potato could grow in the poorest conditions with very little effort. This was important because the Irish laborers expended most of their energy in the crops of the English landowners and had very little time to tend their own crops. In 1845 the potato blight microorganism struck, its spores carried by wind, rain and insects from England and the European continent. The blight rotted the potato plants, rendering them inedible. With the destruction of the staple crop, mass starvation of the native Irish began in the summer of 1847. There is still no cure for the fungus which caused the blight.

The same blight had struck the potato crop in America in 1843, and Europe in early 1845. The lack of suffering in those failures was due to the availability of other food. Tragically, despite the potato blight and starvation of the native Irish, huge quantities of food were exported from Ireland to England by the English landowners. Advocating the laissez-faire economic theory of the time, the English government refrained from providing aid for the starving Irish population and even dispatched extra troops to ensure that exports from Ireland to England were not interfered with. James Wilson, the editor of the British publication The Economist, summed up the feeling of the English during this period. "It is no man's business to provide for another," he wrote. "If left to the natural law of distribution, those who deserve more would obtain it." With the end of potato cultivation because of the blight, tens of thousands of Irish tenants lost their ability to pay rent and were evicted from their homes. They were replaced by sheep and cattle which were then exported to England while the Irish continued to starve. Many of those that survived the famine were stricken by the 1848 cholera epidemic that spread throughout the overcrowded workhouses, pauper hospitals and crammed jails all over Ireland.

Eventually, international outcry forced Parliament to introduce some relief measures. However, these were inadequate and poorly managed. Still, Prime Minister Peel was viewed by the English as too liberal toward the Irish and his government was thrown out. His successor, Lord Russell, ordered the end of the brief relief measures.

Between 1845 and 1855, nearly two million people emigrated from Ireland to America and Australia and another 750,000 to England. Thousands of emigrants died on "coffin ships" during the Atlantic crossing and thousands more died of starvation and disease at disembarkation centers.

In 1841 the population of Ireland was estimated to have been over 8 million. By 1851, after the Great Hunger, the population had dropped to 6.5 million, a loss of more than 1.5 million people. After mass starvation, death, eviction and large scale emigration, the British Census Commissioners self-righteously proclaimed in 1851 that Ireland benefited from the famine. In their report to the Prime Minister, the commissioners wrote that "although the population has been diminished in so remarkable a manner by famine, disease and emigration between 1841 and 1851, and has been since decreasing, the results of the Irish census of 1851 are, on the whole, satisfactory, demonstrating as they do the general advancement of the country."

Although a natural blight occurred, it was not a famine as commonly perceived, for the blight affected only one crop. In fact, during the five years of the Great Hunger, millions of native Irish people starved to death or fell victim to preventable disease in a land that exported hundreds of tons of food annually. Rather, the Great Hunger was borne of a purposeful indifference toward humanity exhibited by an oppressive foreign government. It is a reminder that racism is an ancient scourge and that the two races in conflict need not be of different colors. The inhumanity, racism and oppression continue to this day with the British occupation of the north of Ireland.

Milesian
Saturday, August 23rd, 2003, 01:07 AM
They were true heroes, regardless of what anyone's view on the situation is, anyone who is willing to die particulary in such a slow painful way for their believes is worthy of respect.

There are countless songs commemorating those lads, as one of the lines says "For no braver men has Ireland seen, than O'Hara , Hughes, McCreesh and Sands "

I really like "Song for Marcella" which was written about Bobby Sands, although I think one of the most beautiful is one he wrote himself while incarcerated - "Back Home in Derry".

Scáthach
Saturday, August 23rd, 2003, 01:09 AM
have you read his diary?
i hope no one thinks we're closet commies here but a seriously good work, the man truely loved his country and died for it - any ''net nazi'' who wishes to contradict this , remember that.

Milesian
Saturday, August 23rd, 2003, 01:15 AM
have you read his diary?
i hope no one thinks we're closet commies here but a seriously good work, the man truely loved his country and died for it - any ''net nazi'' who wishes to contradict this , remember that.

:silly Well, I don't think wanting to unite and free your country is neccesarily a Communist goal.
In fact, paradoxically, I think Bobby Sand's success in being elected as an Member of Parliment signalled a real move to the left for the IRA.
Before then the more militant IRA had been in charge (remembering these were right-wing Provisionals who had split from the OIRA because they had been tainted with Socialism), after the election success then Sinn Fein started to become the dominant partner moving more into constitutional politics and getting more to the left.

Bobby's diary? No, I haven't actually.
Do you have a link for it or do you have an actual copy?

Scáthach
Saturday, August 23rd, 2003, 01:20 AM
i have a link to it, ill post it shortly and get back to this shortly :)
what i meant when i talked about commies was that todays SF are very very left leaning btw ;)

Milesian
Saturday, August 23rd, 2003, 01:25 AM
Yeah, I know but it's just that I'm getting tired and I'm veering off the subject at hand halfway through my sentences :D

Yeah, if Pearse could see modern day Republicans like those in Sinn Fein, he's have one or two other declarations to make methinks ;)

Thanks for the link in advance, I'm off to bed now with a busy day ahead. First order of the day will be to aid the "cause" by cheering on the only Irish football team to play in Britain :D

Oiche maith mo cuisle agus codlah samh ;)

Scáthach
Saturday, August 23rd, 2003, 01:36 AM
http://larkspirit.com/hungerstrikes/diary.html


I am standing on the threshold of another trembling world. May God have mercy on my soul.

My heart is very sore because I know that I have broken my poor mother's heart, and my home is struck with unbearable anxiety. But I have considered all the arguments and tried every means to avoid what has become the unavoidable: it has been forced upon me and my comrades by four-and-a-half years of stark inhumanity.

I am a political prisoner. I am a political prisoner because I am a casualty of a perennial war that is being fought between the oppressed Irish people and an alien, oppressive, unwanted regime that refuses to withdraw from our land.

I believe and stand by the God-given right of the Irish nation to sovereign independence, and the right of any Irishman or woman to assert this right in armed revolution. That is why I am incarcerated, naked and tortured.

Foremost in my tortured mind is the thought that there can never be peace in Ireland until the foreign, oppressive British presence is removed, leaving all the Irish people as a unit to control their own affairs and determine their own destinies as a sovereign people, free in mind and body, separate and distinct physically, culturally and economically.

I believe I am but another of those wretched Irishmen born of a risen generation with a deeply rooted and unquenchable desire for freedom. I am dying not just to attempt to end the barbarity of H-Block, or to gain the rightful recognition of a political prisoner, but primarily because what is lost in here is lost for the Republic and those wretched oppressed whom I am deeply proud to know as the 'risen people'

Milesian
Saturday, August 23rd, 2003, 01:41 AM
I just sneaked a peak there and thought it remarkable that he kept his humour even during such times:

I ate the statutory weekly bit of fruit last night. As fate had it, it was an orange, and the final irony, it was bitter.

:rofl

Ok, I' really gone now!

Scáthach
Saturday, August 23rd, 2003, 01:45 AM
he was actually quite hilarious wasn't he :D
of course nothing beats NavanMan and the ''PEAS PROCESS'' in my mind...if you have never listened to the last word on today FM that means nothing to you of course..

oiche mhaith!

Scáthach
Saturday, August 23rd, 2003, 02:49 AM
this is quite good, blunt and to the point. i didn't read all of it but i presume he has it right!

http://www.rootsweb.com/~fianna/history/

Milesian
Saturday, August 23rd, 2003, 10:56 AM
Hmm, I dunno.
There are some points in the pre-historic timeline I'd disagree with.
It has the Gaels arriving circa 100BC, over a thousand years after the Milesians, yet the Milesian's were the the bringers of Gaelic culture to Ireland.

Also it has Ireland inhabited by tribes known as Scotti at one point.
The Scotti weren't a seperate people or tribes, they were just Irish who had taken to the seas to plunder nearby lands so they are still the same people that had been living their previously.

Apart from that.....;)

It is difficult as the Celts did not leave written records, so much of the early history of Ireland is based on specualtion and conjecture.

Scáthach
Sunday, August 24th, 2003, 02:09 AM
so i was wrong to presume he was right then? :(

:D

Rhydderch
Wednesday, January 5th, 2005, 06:27 AM
In addition, these "planters" were Protestants (loyal to the English Protestant monarch), and they discriminated against the native Catholic Irish.
The most succesful plantation took place in Ulster, which is the reason why there are a million Protestant people in Nothern Ireland today who wish to be British instead of Irish - these are the descendants of the Planters.
Well, probably the majority are; but it only takes a look at their surnames to know that a large proportion are of native Irish descent. Also, many Irish surnames were Anglicised (as I'm sure you know), so having an apparently English surname does'nt guarantee that someone (even if he's Protestant) is of English descent.

Appalachian
Wednesday, January 5th, 2005, 06:33 PM
I have a proposal that may indeed please you Irish nationalists, though I doubt there'll be many takers until you lot come to power. :)

I'd like to extend an open invitation to all the English and Scots of Northern Ireland to migrate here to America. We could use a fresh infusion of the blood that built this nation.

Milesian
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 01:46 PM
Well, probably the majority are; but it only takes a look at their surnames to know that a large proportion are of native Irish descent. Also, many Irish surnames were Anglicised (as I'm sure you know), so having an apparently English surname does'nt guarantee that someone (even if he's Protestant) is of English descent.

Indeed, almost 50% of Northern Ireland's population are native Irish of the Nationalist community with their surnames being Gaelic Irish or Anglified Gaelic. The majority of Unionist surnames are Scottish or English in origin

Milesian
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 01:48 PM
I have a proposal that may indeed please you Irish nationalists, though I doubt there'll be many takers until you lot come to power. :)

I'd like to extend an open invitation to all the English and Scots of Northern Ireland to migrate here to America. We could use a fresh infusion of the blood that built this nation.


It's a nice idea, although the Unionists in NI maintain that they want to be British citizens at all costs, so I'm not sure how they would greet the offer.
Of course, when Northern Ireland is inevitable returned to the rest of the country, we will then see just how truthful that claim is.

Appalachian
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 03:38 PM
I admire your confidence. :)

Milesian
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 04:36 PM
I admire your confidence. :)

Thanks :)

Although to be fair, the signs do point that way.
Northern IReland was originally created with it's borders rigged due to Unionist pressure.

If they had made the borders around the historic Nine Counties of Ulster, then the Unionist majority would have been very tenous.
So instead, they gave 1/3 of Ulster back to the Republic and drew the border around the Six North-Eastern Counties of Ulster to create Northen Ireland. These six counties were more densely populated with Unionists and they believed this would give them a permanent in-built artifical majority, effectively allowing them to rule that part of Ireland for the forseeable future.

However, things haven't turned out that way.
Now, three of the six counties of NI have Nationalist majority populations, and in all the overall population of NI isn't far off a 50/50 situation.

In fact the last census of the province was rushed through by Unionist politicians for fear that a delay would show an overall Nationalist majority, thereby rubbishing any pretense that maintaining British rule there was based on the democratic voice of the people there.

I guess this might well be why the Powersharing at Stormont has been revived after all these years, why London has given Dublin a greater say in how things are run, and why the IRA have now decided to call off hostilities.
It might well be that everyone knows that re-unification is inevitable (although not everyone may accept it), and thus the way for intigrating North-East Ulster with the rest of Ulster and Ireland is being gradually eased in.


In reality, the Unionists will not have any real problems becoming Irish citizens. Their economic, poltical and religious rights are guranteed by the constitution of the Irish Republic which is far more than the Nationalists have had under British rule.

However, for many hardline Loyalists I think it's a matter of principle.
They have been used to seeing themselves as superior and having the Nationalists live as second class citizens for longer than anyone can remember, automatically being in political and economic control. The idea of even sharing power with almost half of their neighbours (whom some have been raised to hate with a pathological hatred), far less joining them in the Irish Republic would be anathema to many of them.

Appalachian
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 04:50 PM
If they had made the borders around the historic Nine Counties of Ulster, then the Unionist majority would have been very tenous.
So instead, they gave 1/3 of Ulster back to the Republic and drew the border around the Six North-Eastern Counties of Ulster to create Northen Ireland. These six counties were more densely populated with Unionists and they believed this would give them a permanent in-built artifical majority, effectively allowing them to rule that part of Ireland for the forseeable future.

Nothing like some good ol' fashioned gerrymandering! We know all about it here, too, though in our case it's primarily to give power to Blacks in the South.


I guess this might well be why the Powersharing at Stormont has been revived after all these years, why London has given Dublin a greater say in how things are run, and why the IRA have now decided to call off hostilities. It might well be that everyone knows that re-unification is inevitable (although not everyone may accept it), and thus the way for intigrating North-EAst Ulster with the rest of Ulster and Ireland is being gradually eased in.

Yeah, I've been following this a bit, though I must confess that my knowledge on the subject is limited. My burning questions are these:

1.) In your honest opinion, how do you think the Protestants, Loyalists, et al will be treated in the event of reunification?

2.) Do you anticipate much of a fight from die-hard Unionists in the event that the British government announces a hand-over, or do you think the government will be able to keep a lid on hostilities?

Milesian
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 05:13 PM
Yeah, I've been following this a bit, though I must confess that my knowledge on the subject is limited. My burning questions are these:

1.) In your honest opinion, how do you think the Protestants, Loyalists, et al will be treated in the event of reunification?

I genuinely believe that they will have little trouble at all.
The Republic is a much more pluralistic and secular country now, and the Catholic Church has taken an almighty battering there.
Loyalists will not be deprived of divorce,contraception, etc as they might have done 30- 40 odd years ago.

Also, the Republic's constitution gurantees their rights.
Even Republicans (including the IRA) recognise these rights, as it was part of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic that Pearse read out from the GPO at the Easter Rebellion of 1916, and all Republicans venerate it as creed.

True, Republicans have killed Protestants in the past, but these have been reprisals againt Loyalists. They were killed for their politics and actions against Nationalists, not because of their religion. In fact, Irish Republicanism was created by Protestants and the early father of Irish Republicanism were Protestants. Those men are still celebrated as heros today by Republicans.

In Dublin not so long ago, Protestants even held an Orange March. So I think Dublin is sincere about safegurading their culture and customs.
In saying that, they might not be so accomodating in letting provocative and sectarian marches go right through Nationalist areas and housing estates, but as long as they are allocated somewhere they can do this away from people whom it will offend and incite, then I don't consider this unreasonable at all


2.) Do you anticipate much of a fight from die-hard Unionists in the event that the British government announces a hand-over, or do you think the government will be able to keep a lid on hostilities?

Good question.

I believe the Unionists will likely split into three groups in the event of Re-Unification

1) Those who will adapt and become Irish Citizens like their co-religionists who have been living in the Republic for the last 80-odd years and will go on as before

2) A minority who will feel their desire to remain British too strong, and will relocate to the UK (and I feel Britain has a responsibility to them to accomodate them in that case, for if they can accomodate thousands of non-British immigrants then they can surely accomodate their Unionist subjects)

3) Loyalist hardliners who will begin a campaign of guerrila warfare against the Irish Republic and pretty much carry on as they (Loyalist paramilitaries) are doing just now (most are not on ceasefire and none of them have decomissioned even a single bullet)

I would hope this last group would be a very small minority and last only a small amount of time. Even better, they don't materialise at all. One can hope.

In any event, it would be a better situation than a return to complete civil war as happened in the past

Appalachian
Wednesday, January 12th, 2005, 11:14 PM
I genuinely believe that they will have little trouble at all. I certainly hope you're right.


The Republic is a much more pluralistic and secular country now, and the Catholic Church has taken an almighty battering there.
Loyalists will not be deprived of divorce,contraception, etc as they might have done 30- 40 odd years ago. Are there currently laws relating to these things in the Republic? Are they 'legal'? Still frowned upon?



True, Republicans have killed Protestants in the past, but these have been reprisals againt Loyalists. They were killed for their politics and actions against Nationalists, not because of their religion. In fact, Irish Republicanism was created by Protestants and the early father of Irish Republicanism were Protestants. Those men are still celebrated as heros today by Republicans. I've always gotten the impression that this is about much more than just religion. I think that religion often just plays the role of a rallying-cry or an organizing force in these matters, while the real roots of the conflict lie elsewhere. As another example, how much of the Palestinian/Jewish conflict is really due to animosity over religion, and how much of it is due to simple interethnic strife and fighting over the land?


In Dublin not so long ago, Protestants even held an Orange March. So I think Dublin is sincere about safegurading their culture and customs.
In saying that, they might not be so accomodating in letting provocative and sectarian marches go right through Nationalist areas and housing estates, but as long as they are allocated somewhere they can do this away from people whom it will offend and incite, then I don't consider this unreasonable at all. Of course, then they'll claim they're being marginalized and kept out of the public eye. This sort of thing often becomes a vicious circle.




Good question.
Thanks. You've given some good answers thus far. :)



I believe the Unionists will likely split into three groups in the event of Re-Unification

1) Those who will adapt and become Irish Citizens like their co-religionists who have been living in the Republic for the last 80-odd years and will go on as before

2) A minority who will feel their desire to remain British too strong, and will relocate to the UK (and I feel Britain has a responsibility to them to accomodate them in that case, for if they can accomodate thousands of non-British immigrants then they can surely accomodate their Unionist subjects)

3) Loyalist hardliners who will begin a campaign of guerrila warfare against the Irish Republic and pretty much carry on as they (Loyalist paramilitaries) are doing just now (most are not on ceasefire and none of them have decomissioned even a single bullet) Sounds like a likely outcome. As I said before, I'd be happy to see any of them who want to emigrate come to the States! We could use the help of such a feisty bunch.


I would hope this last group would be a very small minority and last only a small amount of time. Even better, they don't materialise at all. One can hope. Indeed. I certainly understand how easily bad blood can build up between two peoples (I even know I'm guilty of it, as I'm sometimes known to take a jab at a Yankee or two), but it still pains me to think that such fratricidal conflicts are going on when bigger struggles are beginning to play themselves out on the world stage.


In any event, it would be a better situation than a return to complete civil war as happened in the past I'll keep my fingers crossed for all of you, Republican and Loyalist alike.

Rhydderch
Friday, January 14th, 2005, 11:49 AM
...when Northern Ireland is inevitable returned to the rest of the country...Do you mean when Ireland becomes part of the British Commonwealth, under the British crown? That way, Ireland would have no division, but would be a whole country, like Scotland or England ;)

Milesian
Friday, January 14th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Do you mean when Ireland becomes part of the British Commonwealth, under the British crown? That way, Ireland would have no division, but would be a whole country, like Scotland or England ;)


You mean going back to before the 1920's and starting from scratch again?
Isn't one Anglo-Irish War enough?

I think Oscar Wilde had a better idea. Ireland should rule Britain. :D

Rhydderch
Saturday, January 15th, 2005, 12:22 PM
You mean going back to before the 1920's and starting from scratch again?
Isn't one Anglo-Irish War enough?What I meant was perhaps you mean the Irish would one day be willing to rejoin the Commonwealth under the monarchy; no war involved.

But more seriously, why do the Irish want to be separate from Britain? The reason I ask this question is not because I'm puzzled about why they (you) want to be separate (I know of many possible reasons), I'm just wondering what your point of view is.

I think Oscar Wilde had a better idea. Ireland should rule Britain. :DWas'nt Oscar Wilde himself "Anglo-Irish"?

Britain already has a well established monarchy, and is a larger, stronger nation (or nations); it would be more practical that the British monarchy rule Ireland :)

The thing is, it's not (or need'nt be) a matter of England ruling over Ireland or any other country in the Commonwealth. The fact being that the British monarchy rules (or at least is intended to!) those countries and it also rules England. A common idea in Australia (especially perpetuated by anti-Royalists) is that the English rule us, and therefore we should "grow up" and become a republic; but that idea is, of course, erroneous.

Anyway, it was the Scottish monarchy which originally United the Kingdom, and for practical reasons, it was moved to the larger and more centrally located city of London.

morfrain_encilgar
Saturday, January 15th, 2005, 12:52 PM
But more seriously, why do the Irish want to be separate from Britain? The reason I ask this question is not because I'm puzzled about why they (you) want to be separate (I know of many possible reasons), I'm just wondering what your point of view is.

Well, you must know that Ireland suffered quite badly under occupation and this still happens now in Northern Ireland.


Britain already has a well established monarchy, and is a larger, stronger nation (or nations); it would be more practical that the British monarchy rule Ireland.

I think one problem with this idea is the state of the British monarchy.


Anyway, it was the Scottish monarchy which originally United the Kingdom, and for practical reasons, it was moved to the larger and more centrally located city of London.

Its true that Traditional monarchies werent nation states but family states, and it was better that way. But the United Kingdom and British Empire took a nasty turn. Dont forget the Act of Union was after the Glorious Revolution happened.

Rhydderch
Monday, January 17th, 2005, 01:32 AM
Well, you must know that Ireland suffered quite badly under occupation and this still happens now in Northern Ireland.The suffering was not necessarily because of occupation although it was in some cases (of course); but it is often grossly exaggerated.

Religious intolerance, for instance, caused suffering not only in Ireland but also in Britain (especially Scotland).

I think it's also quite conceivable that the problems in Northern Ireland today would be largely eliminated if they united with the Republic but under the British crown.
Much of the tension is probably caused by the Unionist concern that they might come under the domination of the Republic etc.


I think one problem with this idea is the state of the British monarchy.That's true, and they seem determined to self-destruct. I suppose I'm thinking more in ideal terms.
I wonder whether the Irish want to be separate simply because it's the British monarchy.


Its true that Traditional monarchies werent nation states but family states, and it was better that way. But the United Kingdom and British Empire took a nasty turn. Dont forget the Act of Union was after the Glorious Revolution happened.Which bit was the nasty turn?

morfrain_encilgar
Monday, January 17th, 2005, 09:32 AM
Religious intolerance, for instance, caused suffering not only in Ireland but also in Britain (especially Scotland).

Thats true but things like Bloody Sunday still go on in Northern Ireland, but not in Scotland.


Which bit was the nasty turn?

The government of the British Empire by shopkeeper souls, was a decline away from Traditional monarchy and the British Empire was an Empire in name only, created and managed to suit the financial interests of a few rich opressors and a monarchy that was more concerned with them than with Germanic, aristocratic values.

The decline started with the English Revolution which had mostly failed, it got much worse with the Glorious Revolution and then with Disraeli the values of the British Empire hit rock bottom.

Rhydderch
Monday, January 17th, 2005, 11:48 AM
Thats true but things like Bloody Sunday still go on in Northern Ireland, but not in Scotland.But that has little to do with religious intolerance or suffering under occupation; there is a conflict there and evil deeds are perpetrated by both sides. I don't think it can really be compared with the Government-instigated tortures and executions for not conforming to the established Episcopalian religion.
I also doubt that separation from Britain would put an end to the conflict.


The government of the British Empire by shopkeeper souls, was a decline away from Traditional monarchy and the British Empire was an Empire in name only, created and managed to suit the financial interests of a few rich opressors and a monarchy that was more concerned with them than with Germanic, aristocratic values.That may be so in many cases, but I can't see that it applies to the whole of the British Empire.


The decline started with the English Revolution which had mostly failed, it got much worse with the Glorious RevolutionCromwell's rule was quite successful over all, and religious persecution ended.
It's regrettable that his eldest son Richard took over on his father's death; the evidence indicates that his younger son was more like Oliver, and that he intended that son to take over, rather than Richard; some had proposed that Cromwell should become king (and presumably his succeeding son), and British history could have been a lot better for that, also the terrible reign of Charles II would have been avoided.

The Glorious Revolution may not have been a rosy time, but it was certainly a better prospect than a reign of James II, which probably would have ushered in yet another period of religious persecution.

morfrain_encilgar
Monday, January 17th, 2005, 12:09 PM
That may be so in many cases, but I can't see that it applies to the whole of the British Empire.

Well it was something that got worse over time.


Cromwell's rule was quite successful over all, and religious persecution ended.

If it wasnt for the Glorious Revolution, then Cromwell would be seen to have failed in establishing his changes to England. After Cromwell, the English had enough of Puritanism and were returning to more Traditional values.


The Glorious Revolution may not have been a rosy time, but it was certainly a better prospect than a reign of James II, which probably would have ushered in yet another period of religious persecution.

I was referring to the long term effects caused by the Glorious Revolution and its shopkeeper values imported from the financial centres of the Dutch.

Rhydderch
Monday, January 17th, 2005, 01:01 PM
If it wasnt for the Glorious Revolution, then Cromwell would be seen to have failed in establishing his changes to England.Well yes, because his changes would not have been upheld by James II, but reversed; but his rule itself was, in my opinion, successful and beneficial.

After Cromwell, the English had enough of Puritanism and were returning to more Traditional values.What would those traditional values be, and in what respect would they be preferable to Puritanism?

Milesian
Monday, January 17th, 2005, 02:05 PM
But more seriously, why do the Irish want to be separate from Britain?


Why does Portugal want to be seperate from Spain?
Why does Denmark wish to be seperate from Germany?

You could argue that the countries above have far more in common with each other than England and Ireland.


The reason I ask this question is not because I'm puzzled about why they (you) want to be separate (I know of many possible reasons), I'm just wondering what your point of view is.

I'm a Nationalist. I want a United, Gaelic and Free Ireland.


Was'nt Oscar Wilde himself "Anglo-Irish"?

I believe so, yes :)


Britain already has a well established monarchy, and is a larger, stronger nation (or nations); it would be more practical that the British monarchy rule Ireland :)

Oh well, when you put it like that.....;)


The thing is, it's not (or need'nt be) a matter of England ruling over Ireland or any other country in the Commonwealth. The fact being that the British monarchy rules (or at least is intended to!) those countries and it also rules England.

In other words it's just ruling in theory but with no real effect on the day to day government of those countries? Why even bother then?


A common idea in Australia (especially perpetuated by anti-Royalists) is that the English rule us, and therefore we should "grow up" and become a republic; but that idea is, of course, erroneous.

Keeping the Commonwealth connection in Australia could be argued as it is primarily a country made of British descendents anyway. Although I'm sure the aboriginals or people of non-British extraction might think differently.
The New World colonies are always in a different boat from lands in the Old World.


Anyway, it was the Scottish monarchy which originally United the Kingdom, and for practical reasons, it was moved to the larger and more centrally located city of London.

The Scottish Stuart dynasty united the Crowns for a period (while they held power), but the Union between Scotland and England/Wales happened in 1707, after King William and his Ducth Jewish financiers had usurped the throne, probably to get control of the Scottish mint amongst other reasons.
Although the Union is actually null and void according to Scots Law.

Milesian
Monday, January 17th, 2005, 02:11 PM
The suffering was not necessarily because of occupation although it was in some cases (of course); but it is often grossly exaggerated.

It would be nice to think that the Penal Laws were just an exagerration. Unfortunately, they are historical fact.


Religious intolerance, for instance, caused suffering not only in Ireland but also in Britain (especially Scotland).

It was politics and imperial colonisation as much as religion.
The religious aspect came relatively late on in proceedings and were formented not a little by the British in a "Divide and Conquer" manner


I think it's also quite conceivable that the problems in Northern Ireland today would be largely eliminated if they united with the Republic but under the British crown.

When Ireland was entirely under British rule before the Anglo-Irish treaty, the whole of Ireland was afflicted by bloodshed, not just the six counties currently occupied. I don't think Loyalist hatred will evaporate if the Republic miraculously decided to give back all it's hard-won independence.
The troubles are centuries old, they didn't start with Irish Independence. All Irish Independence did was to relieve 26 counties of strife. The fact that it continues in those areas still under British rule highlights where the problems lie.


Much of the tension is probably caused by the Unionist concern that they might come under the domination of the Republic etc.

I'm afraid no-one from Ireland itself would make this suggestion.


That's true, and they seem determined to self-destruct. I suppose I'm thinking more in ideal terms.
I wonder whether the Irish want to be separate simply because it's the British monarchy.

The Irish want to be seperate because they are Irish, not British.
Same as many Scots, Welsh and even English want to belong to their respective nations and not a political invention named Britain.

It's a bit like if Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia Indonesia and Papua New Guinea all decided to form a political union called "The United Federation of South-East Asia and Oceania", and become one country.
I would think some Australians would not recognise it and still think of themselves as Australians. Now added to that, imagine that Australia has a culture that was thousands of years old and it's people had been living there long before the peoples of some of those other nations settled in that part of the world. In addition, imagine that over the centuries the Malaysians had a military occupation going on in Australia and tried to destroy Australian language, culture, religious belief and identity and replace it with their own.
Then you get some idea.


Which bit was the nasty turn?

Betetr question - when was it not nasty? :P

morfrain_encilgar
Monday, January 17th, 2005, 02:17 PM
What would those traditional values be, and in what respect would they be preferable to Puritanism?

The Traditional values are aristocratic leadership, a sense of place, and the idea that heritage is more impoirtant than money.

A nation is defined by its heritage and Puritanism in England was a break with centuries of an English past, for a society based on Old Testament ideas. It swept away centuries of folk traditions which they thought were Papist, and worst of all, the Puritans borrowed materialistic values from the Jews they admired. This drastic change in social attitudes in England and Scotland is what allowed the British Empire to become infiltrated by shopkeeper souls.

And then where the English Revolution had failed to corrupt the English into materialism, the Glorious Revolution brought materialism more pemanently to England and Scotland.

Milesian
Monday, January 17th, 2005, 02:33 PM
The Traditional values are aristocratic leadership, a sense of place, and the idea that heritage is more impoirtant than money.

A nation is defined by its heritage and Puritanism in England was a break with centuries of an English past, for a society based on Old Testament ideas. It swept away centuries of folk traditions which they thought were Papist, and worst of all, the Puritans borrowed materialistic values from the Jews they admired. This drastic change in social attitudes in England and Scotland is what allowed the British Empire to become infiltrated by shopkeeper souls.

And then where the English Revolution had failed to corrupt the English into materialism, the Glorious Revolution brought materialism more pemanently to England and Scotland.


Actually, that reminded me.

The Protestants in Ireland suffered under the Penal Laws as well (not as much as the Catholics granted). As they were non-conformists, they were given the status of "Recusants". Thus, only those who belonged to the established church had full rights, in other words a very tiny percentage of the population. The difference between non-conformist Protestants and Catholic was usually only that between "The King's Rebels" and "The King's Enemies"

The Presbyterians of Ireland were amongst those most opposed to the Union and the foremost proponents of Irish independence. They sought Catholic Emancipation and were the founders of Irish Republicanism. At it's height, this political though took shape in the "Society of United Irishmen" and they organised a falied rebellion (with French aid).
Alarmed at the thought of native Irish and colonist planters joining together to boot Britannia out of the country, they rounded up most of the United Irish leaders, and formed instead the "Orange Order". Withing a decade or two, this sectarian wedge had safeguarded British rule in Ireland, with a populace divided by hatred and bloodlust.

morfrain_encilgar
Monday, January 17th, 2005, 06:24 PM
Actually, that reminded me.

The Protestants in Ireland suffered under the Penal Laws as well (not as much as the Catholics granted). As they were non-conformists, they were given the status of "Recusants". Thus, only those who belonged to the established church had full rights, in other words a very tiny percentage of the population. The difference between non-conformist Protestants and Catholic was usually only that between "The King's Rebels" and "The King's Enemies"

Yes, the "Croppy Boys".

Milesian
Monday, January 17th, 2005, 11:50 PM
Yes, the "Croppy Boys".

You know your stuff :)

It was probably radical Protestants who had returned from France and imported the new hairstyle with them and this spread to the Catholics as well. They wore their hair cropped short as was the fashion in post-Revolutionary France, as I'm sure you know.
It was a sign of rebellion and defiance against British rule.
There is an "Orange" song called "Croppys Lie Down" about what they would do to anyone they found wearing their hair in such fashion.
In truth though, to the average Irish Catholic, little was known of Revolutionary France's ideals. Certainly one French officer who landed with a French Army to aid an insurrection wrote how aghast he was at the Irish who met them carrying statues of the Holy Virgin and singing the praises of France and the Pope. He wryly commented of how he wondered what their reaction to them would have been like if they knew they had recently been in Italy and kicked the Pope out of Rome ;)
They probably still looked on the French as the eternal enemy of England, to whom huge numbers of Irish "Wild Geese" had went to serve with distinction in France's Irish Brigades. Doubtful they realised the complete transformation France had undergone from a Catholic monarchy to a secular, liberal, anti-clerical Republic. Still, the French viewed Ireland as being the first objective in any eventual invasion of England and thus were only happy to come to the "aid" of the Irish.

In any case for the Irish, the French were simply saviours who would help deliver them and restore them to the old freedoms and way of life they still remembered fondly, even if only in stories and song.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, January 18th, 2005, 12:32 AM
You know your stuff :)

It was probably radical Protestants who had returned from France and imported the new hairstyle with them and this spread to the Catholics as well. They wore their hair cropped short as was the fashion in post-Revolutionary France, as I'm sure you know.
It was a sign of rebellion and defiance against British rule.
There is an "Orange" song called "Croppys Lie Down" about what they would do to anyone they found wearing their hair in such fashion.
In truth though, to the average Irish Catholic, little was known of Revolutionary France's ideals. Certainly one French officer who landed with a French Army to aid an insurrection wrote how aghast he was at the Irish who met them carrying statues of the Holy Virgin and singing the praises of France and the Pope. He wryly commented of how he wondered what their reaction to them would have been like if they knew they had recently been in Italy and kicked the Pope out of Rome ;)
They probably still looked on the French as the eternal enemy of England, to whom huge numbers of Irish "Wild Geese" had went to serve with distinction in France's Irish Brigades. Doubtful they realised the complete transformation France had undergone from a Catholic monarchy to a secular, liberal, anti-clerical Republic. Still, the French viewed Ireland as being the first objective in any eventual invasion of England and thus were only happy to come to the "aid" of the Irish.

In any case for the Irish, the French were simply saviours who would help deliver them and restore them to the old freedoms and way of life they still remembered fondly, even if only in stories and song.

The French Revolution was just another revolution against Tradition, and a successor to the English Revolution, and the invasion of Rome destroyed the Traditional Occident. Napoleons aim was for the Revolutionary French Empire to replace it, and instead Revolutionary America has now taken that role, as more degeneration from the Tradition.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, January 18th, 2005, 01:29 PM
Why does Portugal want to be seperate from Spain?
Why does Denmark wish to be seperate from Germany?


You could argue that the countries above have far more in common with each other than England and Ireland.

I would argue that the similarity is probably comparable to that between England and Ireland, but the countries you mention might even have less in common.



In other words it's just ruling in theory but with no real effect on the day to day government of those countries? Why even bother then?

I think you've misunderstood my statement. It should be true rule but it should’nt be thought of as one nation ruling over the others; rather, one monarchy ruling over those nations.

Keeping the Commonwealth connection in Australia could be argued as it is primarily a country made of British descendents anyway. Although I'm sure the aboriginals or people of non-British extraction might think differently.
The New World colonies are always in a different boat from lands in the Old World.

I'm not trying to say the relation between Ireland and Britain is the same as with Australia; the reason I brought that up was to highlight a common misconception, and indeed it probably occurs in Scotland and Wales as well.


I know of at least one Roman Catholic family of full-blooded Irish descent who are very much in favour of the British connection, and I think it is quite probably the same with the majority of such people in my area.


As for the Aborigines, I'm not sure about percentages but certainly a large proportion of them are Royalists. I doubt they are any less in favour of the connection than those of British descent, sometimes they even seem more keen on it.



The Scottish Stuart dynasty united the Crowns for a period (while they held power), but the Union between Scotland and England/Wales happened in 1707, after King William and his Ducth Jewish financiers had usurped the throne, probably to get control of the Scottish mint amongst other reasons.

He was invited by the British primarily because they feared another series of persecutions.



It would be nice to think that the Penal Laws were just an exagerration. Unfortunately, they are historical fact.

And as you say the Presbyterians, who were largely of Scottish descent, also suffered under those laws; and people in Britain suffered under similar laws at times

The Penal laws were not something I was referring to as an exaggeration.



When Ireland was entirely under British rule before the Anglo-Irish treaty, the whole of Ireland was afflicted by bloodshed, not just the six counties currently occupied. I don't think Loyalist hatred will evaporate if the Republic miraculously decided to give back all it's hard-won independence.

The troubles are centuries old, they didn't start with Irish Independence. All Irish Independence did was to relieve 26 counties of strife. The fact that it continues in those areas still under British rule highlights where the problems lie.

Did you think I was saying the trouble started with independence? I know Irish history better than that.

What about those in Northern Ireland who don't wish to separate with Britain? If they are'nt a majority, they are certainly a significant part of the population.

I doubt that the hatred and strife will evaporate if Northern Ireland unites with the Republic.



I'm afraid no-one from Ireland itself would make this suggestion.

In case I got mixed up there, I'll just clarify that by Unionists I meant those who wish to remain part of the United Kingdom; I was referring to the trouble which they cause. On the other side, of course, the trouble is largely caused by terrorists who want to be part of the Republic.



The Irish want to be seperate because they are Irish, not British.

Same as many Scots, Welsh and even English want to belong to their respective nations and not a political invention named Britain.

Being under the same monarch does'nt "banish national loyalties". The Scots have coexisted peacefully with the English for hundreds of years; "Nationalism" and a desire to separate are relatively recent phenomena.

Besides, Scotland, Wales and England were all formed as political constructs, and they've had much in common culturally (etc.) since antiquity; but I don't advocate an amalgamation.



It's a bit like if Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia Indonesia and Papua New Guinea all decided to form a political union called "The United Federation of South-East Asia and Oceania", and become one country.

So presumably you think that the Irish are about as different from the English as British people are from Malaysians etc.

The thing is, the Irish and English are relatively similar (looking at the bigger picture); and as well as the centuries of English rule, the two peoples have been side by side for hundreds, even thousands of years, though of course under different names.

It simply cannot be compared with a “United Federation of South-East Asia and Oceania”; even a union between countries as different as Denmark and Bulgaria could’nt be compared with such a federation.


If Ireland had been an independent nation all through then it would be a different matter; a union would probably seem as odd as one between France and Spain. But whether or not one argues about the legitimacy of the initial English conquest, it is a fact of history that Ireland was for hundreds of years under the English (and British) crown, and part of it still is; together with the fact that the Irish are now basically an English-speaking people and I doubt that that can be reversed, even though perhaps some would like to think so.


I would think some Australians would not recognise it and still think of themselves as Australians.

Scots and English generally consider themselves to be Scottish and English in spite of their unity.



Now added to that, imagine that Australia has a culture that was thousands of years old and it's people had been living there long before the peoples of some of those other nations settled in that part of the world. In addition, imagine that over the centuries the Malaysians had a military occupation going on in Australia and tried to destroy Australian language, culture, religious belief and identity and replace it with their own.

Then you get some idea.

I assume you’re saying that the English people are derived from much later settlers; as I’ve tried to demonstrate on other occasions, that idea is historically inaccurate. True, some of the English would be, but what I have researched leaves no doubt in my mind that, by and large, they are basically descendants of the Celtic population of Roman times.


Although it’s often bit hard to analyse a historical situation, I think that the periodical attempts in which the English tried to suppress Irish culture etc. were both wrong and unwise; yet they must be taken in context; the English did’nt set out with that aim in mind; they found that their Irish subjects were consistently disloyal, and they presumably felt that the differences were a hindrance to the peace there, so instead of wasting resources trying to retain control, they felt it would be better to instil the Irish with “civilised” manners.

But history has shown that successful kings and emperors have generally allowed local customs and culture; the Romans are an example, and their subjects often tended to adopt many Roman customs eventually in spite of being conquered.


Betetr question - when was it not nasty? :PIf you think it was generally nasty, then I disagree with you ;)

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, January 18th, 2005, 02:10 PM
Being under the same monarch does'nt "banish national loyalties". The Scots have coexisted peacefully with the English for hundreds of years; "Nationalism" and a desire to separate are relatively recent phenomena.

Youre right that State Nationalism is a concept of recent centuries but people have always acted in their national interests because its what gives people an identity, not the state (whatever form the state has).


Besides, Scotland, Wales and England were all formed as political constructs, and they've had much in common culturally (etc.) since antiquity; but I don't advocate an amalgamation.

Scotland was itself a union of nations which remained seperate, but the Welsh, Irish and English werent political constructs. Ethnicities are organic, not artificial.

Milesian
Tuesday, January 18th, 2005, 03:11 PM
I would argue that the similarity is probably comparable to that between England and Ireland, but the countries you mention might even have less in common.

In what way?
Ireland and England do not even share a similar ethnicity.
The only things they share in common are those which were imposed on the Irish. The Irish are only English-speakers because it was imposed on them, one way or another. They only shared they same government for a few centuries because it was imposed on them

At least Portugal/Spain, and Denmark/Germany share a common ethncity, a common linguistic group, etc

They have enough difference however to see themselves as something different enough to warrant seperate identities.
The vast majority of Irish do not see themselves as English or British. You cannot force them to. History has shown that already



I think you've misunderstood my statement. It should be true rule but it should’nt be thought of as one nation ruling over the others; rather, one monarchy ruling over those nations

And if they majority do not wish to be ruled by a foriegn monarch?


I know of at least one Roman Catholic family of full-blooded Irish descent who are very much in favour of the British connection, and I think it is quite probably the same with the majority of such people in my area.[/size

I don't see what that proves.
I know familes in England of Irish Catholic descent who consider themselves fully British and don't consider themselves as Irish. If they want to be British then fine. That doesn't mean that 99% of Irish people in Ireland want to be British subjects, Catholic or otherwise.


As for the Aborigines, I'm not sure about percentages but certainly a large proportion of them are Royalists. I doubt they are any less in favour of the connection than those of British descent, sometimes they even seem more keen on it

As I said, the New World and the Old World are in a different boat


He was invited by the British primarily because they feared another series of persecutions

He was invited by the Puritan Parliament (who were hardly supported by all the English people) to prevent a Catholic Restoration, the ending of persecution against Catholics, and the removing of their privilges.

Of course King Billy didn't give a damn about that, he simply wanted Britian taken out of the equation with his war with France and to be able to secure it's manpower and resources for his own ends, which is why he didn't bother hanging around long after his victory.

His financiers had another set of motives yet again.


And as you say the Presbyterians, who were largely of Scottish descent, also suffered under those laws; and people in Britain suffered under similar laws at times

Indeed, although they didn't suffer as much as Irish Catholics.
Anyway you look at it, the Laws were injust and oppressive to huge numbers of people, and worthy of being destroyed.


The Penal laws were not something I was referring to as an exaggeration

You mentioned that suffering was exagerrated and the Penal Laws certainly caused suffering that was all too real and accurate




Did you think I was saying the trouble started with independence? I know Irish history better than that

What about those in Northern Ireland who don't wish to separate with Britain? If they are'nt a majority, they are certainly a significant part of the population

It didn't bother them that the majority of the Irish wanted to be seperate for centuries, so it's somewhat hypocritical to start worrying about what they want now that their stranglehold is finally slipping. They should be free to move to the UK if that is what they desire. Who would stop them? The problem is not about them wanting to be British, the problem is that they want to keep part of Ireland as British territory, which is a whole different ball game.




doubt that the hatred and strife will evaporate if Northern Ireland unites with the Republic

Then perhaps there is a need to move the troublemakers?


In case I got mixed up there, I'll just clarify that by Unionists I meant those who wish to remain part of the United Kingdom; I was referring to the trouble which they cause. On the other side, of course, the trouble is largely caused by terrorists who want to be part of the Republic

Actually, if you look at the statistics you will find that Loyalists have been the main perpetrators of violence for over a decade now.
Unlike the IRA, many Loyalist groups are not on ceasefire, nor have they decomissioned a single bullet or renounced violence


Being under the same monarch does'nt "banish national loyalties". The Scots have coexisted peacefully with the English for hundreds of years; "Nationalism" and a desire to separate are relatively recent phenomena

The Scots were still fighting the Jacobite Wars after the Union.
Today, countless Scots are nationalistic. The SNP is far more numerous in Scotland than Conservatives or Liberal Democrats (the 2nd and 3rd main parties in the UK at the moment).

In addition, groups such as Scottish Liberation Army, Settler Watch, etc all indicate that there is a very strong Anti-Union feeling within Scotland.



So presumably you think that the Irish are about as different from the English as British people are from Malaysians etc


Well, you take my analogy too literally. It merely highlighted a point.
Certainly they are culturally, ethnically, linguistically and even gentically distinct from the English. That's fact.


The thing is, the Irish and English are relatively similar (looking at the bigger picture); and as well as the centuries of English rule, the two peoples have been side by side for hundreds, even thousands of years, though of course under different names

Ok, so please elaborate in what ways they are similar.
Not necessarily disagreeing, just wondering how you view it.

Of course, they have been living side by side over the centuries primarily due to conquest and colonisation. Although it must be said that recent genetic tests didn't find any evidence of "English" input into Ireland.


It simply cannot be compared with a “United Federation of South-East Asia and Oceania”; even a union between countries as different as Denmark and Bulgaria could’nt be compared with such a federation.

As I said, it wasn't meant as being literal, it was an analogy.

Although they would both consist of people seperated by culture, language, customs, genetics, etc. So it does have some truth to it.


If Ireland had been an independent nation all through then it would be a different matter; a union would probably seem as odd as one between France and Spain. But whether or not one argues about the legitimacy of the initial English conquest, it is a fact of history that Ireland was for hundreds of years under the English (and British) crown,

And the fact that most of Ireland is now independent is also a fact of history. And it may well be that Northen IReland will also be independent from Britian will also be a fact of history. and it may be that England, Scotland and Wales also become soveriegn and independent again will also becoem a fact of history. History is dynamic, it changes. If it did not then Ireland would nenevr have come under British rule in the first place


and part of it still is;

At the present moment,yes.
We were discussing what might happen in the future


together with the fact that the Irish are now basically an English-speaking people and I doubt that that can be reversed,

they speak English because their own language amonst other things was suppressed for centuries. It still is in the North to a degree. In 2003, a 12 year old boy was assulted by the PSNI for answering them in his own language. In any case, everyone in the Republic learns Irish from a young age, and most have a decent grasp on the language even if not fluent. That's not to speak of the Gaeltachts around the country where Irish is the first, everyday language of the people.


even though perhaps some would like to think so

Or rather, some people would like to think it cannot be reversed ;)


Scots and English generally consider themselves to be Scottish and English in spite of their unity.

Exactly, which makes a bit of a mockery of the word "unity"


I assume you’re saying that the English people are derived from much later settlers; as I’ve tried to demonstrate on other occasions, that idea is historically inaccurate. True, some of the English would be, but what I have researched leaves no doubt in my mind that, by and large, they are basically descendants of the Celtic population of Roman times

I haven't seen that. I have seen genetic research which indicates that a remnant of Celtic people did indeed interbreed and remain behind. But the English are genetically distinct from the Irish and large parts of Wales and parts of Scotland which represent "Pre Anglo-Saxon" genetic populations.

In any case, there was never any unity between the Britons or the Gaels.
Why start now, even if the English are just Germanicised Celts?




Although it’s often bit hard to analyse a historical situation, I think that the periodical attempts in which the English tried to suppress Irish culture etc. were both wrong and unwise; yet they must be taken in context; the English did’nt set out with that aim in mind; they found that their Irish subjects were consistently disloyal,

They were disloyal because a foreign people and culture were trying to assert their conquest over them.



and they presumably felt that the differences were a hindrance to the peace there, so instead of wasting resources trying to retain control, they felt it would be better to instil the Irish with “civilised” manners.

Ironic, considering it was the Irish who sent missionaries to "civilise" the Barbarian Angles and Saxons once they had overun Britain ;)

In any case, that is usally the motive when one culture tries to destroy another culture (in this case an older and richer culture to boot). It tends to be done to destroy resistance to the rule of the new people and assimilate them. I don't see that makes their actions anymore noble or benevolent


But history has shown that successful kings and emperors have generally allowed local customs and culture; the Romans are an example, and their subjects often tended to adopt many Roman customs eventually in spite of being conquered

If this had been the case, there might very well have been less resistance and Ireland might simply be part of England today.
But successive slaughters, cultural and religious suppression, etc have simply made it far too late for any of that now. The English didn't see the Irish as the same people as them, nor did they see them as equal. Thus we are where we are today


If you think it was generally nasty, then I disagree with you ;)

Then we disagree, not for the first time ;)

Bluterbe
Tuesday, January 18th, 2005, 04:00 PM
I'm lucky about the fact, that nationalitie is not about language. Millions of turks would be german, etc.
Irish are a own nation, britons are a word for people that lives in England, Scotland and Wales.
I hope one day north-ireland will be a part from a independent irish republic!

Rhydderch
Wednesday, January 19th, 2005, 01:40 AM
It swept away centuries of folk traditions which they thought were Papist, and worst of all, the Puritans borrowed materialistic values from the Jews they admired. This drastic change in social attitudes in England and Scotland is what allowed the British Empire to become infiltrated by shopkeeper souls.


The Puritans knew that many folk traditions were of ancient pagan origin, but that the Roman Church tended to allow pagan customs, or even encourage them, so in that sense they probably tended to consider such traditions to be part of the “Papist” background of England; as one later writer said, that Church often (figuratively speaking) hangs “a cross around the neck of the local pagan idol”.


But if you think the Puritans had materialistic values, I can’t see that you’ve read their writings, because they certainly were’nt materialistic. If any materialism entered England at the time it cannot have been due to the Puritan influence, and of course the Puritans were opposed by many in England and often persecuted.

And although they believed the Jews were God’s people as a nation (and a nation which would, as such, eventually accept Christ as the Messiah), they were not admirers of the contemporary Jews, who they believed were generally anti-Christian and rejecting the Messiah.

The Puritans were not against traditional aristocratic leadership either.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, January 19th, 2005, 06:40 AM
The vast majority of Irish do not see themselves as English or British. You cannot force them to. History has shown that alreadyOf course they don't, and they should'nt be forced to. And as I said a union under the British crown would not make them such.


And if they majority do not wish to be ruled by a foriegn monarch?And they are not; what I'm saying is that being ruled by the British monarch, for a number of reasons which i've stated, would not be an absurd suggestion.
But as you say, the Republic of Ireland is now a historical fact, and it would be wrong to force it on an unwilling population.


I don't see what that proves.
I know familes in England of Irish Catholic descent who consider themselves fully British and don't consider themselves as Irish. If they want to be British then fine. That doesn't mean that 99% of Irish people in Ireland want to be British subjects, Catholic or otherwise.It was'nt intended to prove anything about Ireland; I was replying to what you said about Australia.


He was invited by the Puritan Parliament (who were hardly supported by all the English people) to prevent a Catholic Restoration, the ending of persecution against Catholics, and the removing of their privilges.Cromwell was a Puritan, and he said that he would not interfere with matters of conscience, which I think is representative of the general Puritan view.
Of course, they considered Catholicism to be heretical, but they did'nt advocate persecution of Catholic people.


Indeed, although they didn't suffer as much as Irish Catholics.
Anyway you look at it, the Laws were injust and oppressive to huge numbers of people, and worthy of being destroyed.I agree with that.


It didn't bother them that the majority of the Irish wanted to be seperate for centuries, so it's somewhat hypocritical to start worrying about what they want now that their stranglehold is finally slipping. They should be free to move to the UK if that is what they desire.But by the same reasoning, advocates of a union with the Republic could move there if they want to be "Irish".

If you're complaining about English injustice in Ireland, then is'nt it hypocritical to advocate the same thing for others? The fact that one's enemies have done something bad in the past does'nt legitimise doing the same thing in the present.


Actually, if you look at the statistics you will find that Loyalists have been the main perpetrators of violence for over a decade now.
Unlike the IRA, many Loyalist groups are not on ceasefire, nor have they decomissioned a single bullet or renounced violencePerhaps it will be different this time, but I can't help being cynical about those ceasefires; too often they are meaningless.


The Scots were still fighting the Jacobite Wars after the Union.
Today, countless Scots are nationalistic.To say "the Scots" implies the Scottish nation in general. But in general, Scots were anti-Jacobite, and in the battle of Culloden there were more Scots fighting against the Jacobites than for them. The Jacobites were generally Roman Catholic, but the Scottish nation was basically Protestant at the time.


In addition, groups such as Scottish Liberation Army, Settler Watch, etc all indicate that there is a very strong Anti-Union feeling within Scotland.And as I said that is a recent phenomenon. The Scots have historically been comfortable with the Union.
I suspect it is supported by Britain's enemies; the old method of divide and conquer.


Of course, they have been living side by side over the centuries primarily due to conquest and colonisation. Although it must be said that recent genetic tests didn't find any evidence of "English" input into Ireland.When I said side by side I was referring to the fact that the two nations are geographically close.

As far as I know, the genetic tests only surveyed two or three Irish towns, which is'nt really representative of the whole country. And much, perhaps almost all of the English colonisers of Ireland were genetically similar anyway; but I would expect that the great majority in most of Ireland would be of native Irish descent.




As I said, it wasn't meant as being literal, it was an analogy.Well, I knew it was'nt literal, and of course I never presumed that you thought the Irish were that different from the English. I just think it really can't even be compared.


they speak English because their own language amonst other things was suppressed for centuries. It still is in the North to a degree. In 2003, a 12 year old boy was assulted by the PSNI for answering them in his own language. In any case, everyone in the Republic learns Irish from a young age, and most have a decent grasp on the language even if not fluent. That's not to speak of the Gaeltachts around the country where Irish is the first, everyday language of the people.They are basically an English-speaking people, for whatever reason.
I don't think an isolated assault by the PSNI (I don't know what that is by the way) can be classed as supression.
The Gaeltachts around the country would not amount to any more than about 100,000 people would they?


Or rather, some people would like to think it cannot be reversed ;)I think a reversal would be an unwise, unnecessary and isolationist policy. In my case, I would'nt say I "like" to think that it can't, I simply think it is highly unlikely.
Would you like to see it reversed, and do you think it's possible?

You may have a different opinion but I doubt that most Irishmen would support such a reversal.

At any rate, I have no antipathy towards Gaelic. I like the language and most of my ancestors probably spoke it at one time or another.


Exactly, which makes a bit of a mockery of the word "unity"I don't see that it does. It's a political union between similar peoples, I suppose it's a bit like a fixed alliance.
And even people from the same country have different identities in a sense; the people of Yorkshire and Devon would regard themselves as Yorkshiremen and Devonians, and they differ in customs and traditions. The same could be said of any two counties and yet they are still united.


I haven't seen that. I have seen genetic research which indicates that a remnant of Celtic people did indeed interbreed and remain behind. But the English are genetically distinct from the Irish and large parts of Wales and parts of Scotland which represent "Pre Anglo-Saxon" genetic populations.I assume you're referring to the Blood of the Vikings survey again. They found that the majority of English were genetically "Pre Anglo-Saxon". Only York and a couple of towns in Norfolk were aberrant.
Now also many of the towns were Viking settlements; Vikings tended to settle thickly in walled towns so I think those towns are not necessarily representative of the whole area, and indeed Llanidloes in Wales had one of the highest "Germanic" percentages, which is probably due to Vikings rather than Anglo-Saxons. Added to this is the fact that the Beaker folk consisted of Dinarics, Cordeds and Borrebies, and the latter two are common in North Germany and Denmark. I think that perhaps 20% of the apparently "Germanic" DNA in much of eastern and southern England is probably from those "pre Anglo-Saxons".

So while DNA tests are helpful and interesting, they don't show you the whole story; the other evidence must be looked at as well.

Here is something I posted on the evidence:

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=250578#post250578


In any case, there was never any unity between the Britons or the Gaels.
Why start now, even if the English are just Germanicised Celts?Well, the point I'm been making is that it would be nothing "new"; it's not a matter of "starting now". But I've said that it should'nt be forced on an unwilling population.

I would argue that the English are'nt really Germanicised either. In a sense they are, with the language for instance. But, by and large, I think traditions and culture seem to show more Celtic than Germanic influence.

I think the English are probably no more Germanicised than the French.


They were disloyal because a foreign people and culture were trying to assert their conquest over them.All that mattered to the English at the time is that they were disloyal.


Ironic, considering it was the Irish who sent missionaries to "civilise" the Barbarian Angles and Saxons once they had overun Britain ;) I put "civilise" in quotation marks for a reason, because that's how they saw it. However, we're talking about more than just the early Mediaeval period; but it seems to me that the early English kingdoms were more coherent and civilised than those of Ireland, and I think this probably largely reflects continuing Roman influence in Britain.
And I don't think many people would agree that the later Irish were more civilised than their English counterparts; many of the Irish of the 1600's were virtually pagan savages; the expression "wild Irish" did'nt come about for nothing. One could perhaps argue the same for some of the English of the time (including the Border folk perhaps) but I think such "wildness" in England was not as wild nor as widespread as in Ireland.
So the desire to civilise was not groundless, even though it was misguided and attempted by unwise means.


I don't see that makes their actions anymore noble or benevolentWell no, it does'nt. But seen in the context of the contemporary English point of view makes it seem less terrible than some would make out.


If this had been the case, there might very well have been less resistance and Ireland might simply be part of England today.It would'nt necessarily have become part of England, but it may have been a peaceful part of the Kingdom like Wales or Scotland.


But successive slaughters, cultural and religious suppression, etc."successive slaughters" could be exaggeration. While slaughters have taken place, paying special attention to them can distort the picture, and indeed slaughters have taken place on both sides. Slaughters have taken place between England and Scotland, and between different factions in civil wars.
It's just not as simple as suffering Irish versus oppressive and brutal English.

English rule was oppressive at numerous times, but that's not the whole picture; and it's oppressiveness has often been exaggerated.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, January 19th, 2005, 08:29 AM
in this case an older and richer culture to boot
That's a matter of opinion.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, January 19th, 2005, 08:50 AM
the Welsh, Irish and English werent political constructs.Wales was formed because it was never conquered by (or never incorporated into) an Anglo-Saxon kingdom; England was formed out of the kingdoms conquered by Anglo-Saxons and their subsequent spreading of those kingdoms. I would call that a political construct.

I think many of the Celtic Kingdoms which came under Anglo-Saxon rule probably remained as separate from the Anglo-Saxons as the Picts in Scotland did from the Scots.

Ireland is not a political construct; in fact it is partly geographical.

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, January 19th, 2005, 10:43 AM
Wales was formed because it was never conquered by (or never incorporated into) an Anglo-Saxon kingdom; England was formed out of the kingdoms conquered by Anglo-Saxons and their subsequent spreading of those kingdoms. I would call that a political construct.

Nations arent the same thing as states.

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, January 19th, 2005, 11:08 AM
The Puritans knew that many folk traditions were of ancient pagan origin, but that the Roman Church tended to allow pagan customs, or even encourage them, so in that sense they probably tended to consider such traditions to be part of the “Papist” background of England; as one later writer said, that Church often (figuratively speaking) hangs “a cross around the neck of the local pagan idol.

And folk traditions have better continuity where there was no Reformation and Counter-reformation.


But if you think the Puritans had materialistic values, I can’t see that you’ve read their writings, because they certainly were’nt materialistic. If any materialism entered England at the time it cannot have been due to the Puritan influence, and of course the Puritans were opposed by many in England and often persecuted.

The Puritans were cetrtainly financial materialists like the Jews are, and the rise of the Puritans is associated with the origins of capitalism in Britain. And their literalist beliefs denounced mysticism as superstition too.


And although they believed the Jews were God’s people as a nation (and a nation which would, as such, eventually accept Christ as the Messiah), they were not admirers of the contemporary Jews, who they believed were generally anti-Christian and rejecting the Messiah.

On the contrary, the English Revolution actually allowed the Jews back into England. This certainly suggests that the present Anglo-Saxon Protestant alliance with the Jews (which wasnt a sentiment shared by Luther) was already in place at the time of the English Revolution.


The Puritans were not against traditional aristocratic leadership either.

The Puritans did try to abolish the Engish monarchy.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, January 19th, 2005, 12:47 PM
And folk traditions have better continuity where there was no Reformation and Counter-reformation.Pagan folk traditions anyway; those which are inherently non-Christian. And whether that's seen as good or bad depends on one's beliefs.


The Puritans were cetrtainly financial materialists like the Jews are, and the rise of the Puritans is associated with the origins of capitalism in Britain. And their literalist beliefs denounced mysticism as superstition too.What would be opposite (or a better alternative) to financial materialism?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "literalist beliefs".


On the contrary, the English Revolution actually allowed the Jews back into England. This certainly suggests that the present Anglo-Saxon Protestant alliance with the Jews (which wasnt a sentiment shared by Luther) was already in place at the time of the English Revolution.Allowing the Jews back into England does'nt mean they were admired; it simply means they were no longer persecuted. Puritan views on Jews were probably similar to their views on Roman Catholics; they did'nt advocate persecution but both were still regarded as heretical.

It may be a different matter if they were invited as Jews; but that did'nt happen, or did it?


The Puritans did try to abolish the Engish monarchy.Puritans overthrew Charles II, but it was'nt simply because he was a king;there was even a move for Cromwell to become king.
But if I remember rightly, many Puritans (especially their Presbyterian counterparts in Scotland) opposed the execution of Charles II, and among those with Puritan beliefs today, debate still goes on about the legitimacy of it.
But Charles was a murderer, and no-one should be above the law. This is how Cromwell saw it and that's why he had Charles executed; but he only did so after great reluctance, because he held to the Biblical teaching of reverence for one's rulers.

I'm sure the Puritans were'nt anti-aristocracy; that was more of a feature of the "Levellers", who were denounced by the Puritans.

morfrain_encilgar
Wednesday, January 19th, 2005, 01:55 PM
Pagan folk traditions anyway; those which are inherently non-Christian. And whether that's seen as good or bad depends on one's beliefs.

I would argue that they werent non-Christian because of Christianisation, as its unlikely that anyone in Britain who was practising these customs wasnt Christianised, and considered themselves to be a part of an older religion.


What would be opposite (or a better alternative) to financial materialism?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "literalist beliefs".

The alternative to financial materialism, would be devotion to our traditional values which governed our lives before their replacement by capitalism. And by literalist beliefs I mean the Puritans had a strict adherence to a book of laws, without religious mysticism.


Allowing the Jews back into England does'nt mean they were admired; it simply means they were no longer persecuted. Puritan views on Jews were probably similar to their views on Roman Catholics; they did'nt advocate persecution but both were still regarded as heretical.

It may be a different matter if they were invited as Jews; but that did'nt happen, or did it?

I would argue that this did happen, because the Jews financed Cromwell to return to England, just as Jews financed the Russian Revolution to overthrow the Tsar in the Russian Empire.

Rhydderch
Thursday, January 20th, 2005, 05:03 AM
I would argue that they werent non-Christian because of Christianisation, as its unlikely that anyone in Britain who was practising these customs wasnt Christianised, and considered themselves to be a part of an older religion.They would'nt have considered themselves non-Christians, but many of their folk traditions were not compatible with adherence to Biblical laws and values (and therefore non-Christian), because the Bible condemns practices which are inherently pagan.

Boerncian
Friday, January 21st, 2005, 06:50 PM
Thanks :)

Although to be fair, the signs do point that way.
Northern IReland was originally created with it's borders rigged due to Unionist pressure.

If they had made the borders around the historic Nine Counties of Ulster, then the Unionist majority would have been very tenous.
So instead, they gave 1/3 of Ulster back to the Republic and drew the border around the Six North-Eastern Counties of Ulster to create Northen Ireland. These six counties were more densely populated with Unionists and they believed this would give them a permanent in-built artifical majority, effectively allowing them to rule that part of Ireland for the forseeable future.

However, things haven't turned out that way.
Now, three of the six counties of NI have Nationalist majority populations, and in all the overall population of NI isn't far off a 50/50 situation.

In fact the last census of the province was rushed through by Unionist politicians for fear that a delay would show an overall Nationalist majority, thereby rubbishing any pretense that maintaining British rule there was based on the democratic voice of the people there.

I guess this might well be why the Powersharing at Stormont has been revived after all these years, why London has given Dublin a greater say in how things are run, and why the IRA have now decided to call off hostilities.
It might well be that everyone knows that re-unification is inevitable (although not everyone may accept it), and thus the way for intigrating North-East Ulster with the rest of Ulster and Ireland is being gradually eased in.


In reality, the Unionists will not have any real problems becoming Irish citizens. Their economic, poltical and religious rights are guranteed by the constitution of the Irish Republic which is far more than the Nationalists have had under British rule.

However, for many hardline Loyalists I think it's a matter of principle.
They have been used to seeing themselves as superior and having the Nationalists live as second class citizens for longer than anyone can remember, automatically being in political and economic control. The idea of even sharing power with almost half of their neighbours (whom some have been raised to hate with a pathological hatred), far less joining them in the Irish Republic would be anathema to many of them.No offense my nationalist friends but there's plenty of pathological hatred among the Catholics.When there are Prod enclaves in Catholic areas of Northern Ireland they are treated every bit as bad as any Republican has ever been treated.If were to believe all the Republican propaganda on this thread the IRA never produced a thug all Nationalists are saints all Loyalist dimwits.The Constitution of the Irish Republic would scare any Protestant away.You're guaranteed freedom as long as you obey Roman Catholic laws ,such as no divorce,no contraception,and a host of other ones.
Ireland historically was always divided there were Kings of Ulster,munster and so on.To hear Nationalist myth makers there was one Ard Ri after another in Irish history. Many Ulsterman would like to see an independent Ulster free of the UK and the Republic. The idea of being ruled by the most Catholic government in the world is not very appealing.Particularly given the horrendous problems with pederasty of some its clergy and the coverups. If you look at the percentage of Protestants in the republic now and what it was before the republic you can clearly see how not prejudiced and welcoming the Republic was. I don't think any of you haver actually lived in Ulster or you would no that hate is ingrained in both sides. I have lost two family members under the age of 14 to IRA bombers. They did not deserve that nor do the poor catholic innocents killed by loyalists. Recently some Loyalist in a Catholic enclave had the audacity to fly a union jack,his loving nationalist neighbors surrounded him and drove a screwdriver into his brain killing him. Boycots of Loyalsit merchants are common so they will be driven out of business,anyone who shops there is beaten up by local Sinn Fein thugs. Of course the loyalists do the same crap,but please do not paint Republicans as nothing but martyrs.
In a new Europe and Ulster Republicwith guaranteed separation of church and state and perhaps dual citizenship with the UK or Republic would solve this issue. Once again the United Ireland myth is just that, it never existed even the Irish langauge has branchs that are very difffernt from each other and it is near impossible for one in one gorup to understand one in another.
What is important is that both cultures survive,that neither people oppress the other ,and that we are not inundated with the unwashed massesof multiculturalism.I am not a Christian I don't give a good Thorburn's Damn about king or Pope or kirk.I care about my race and my culture.If there are people in Ireland weho care more about those old hoary Semite religions than keep their culture and race ,then they are going to end up like the American Indian who was too busy fighting each other to fight the white man,that is extinct or on a reservation.
As I said in another thread Time to bury the hatchet,and not in each other's head!
Triumphalism about the ultimate unification of Ireland and ridiculously naïve sanctimonious one sightedness, and flogging dead horses is not going to bring about change. Both sides glory in their ski mask thugs, who cold care less about anything other than theri drug,prostitution and extortion rackets.What kind of patriotic heroes rob banks, and run bordello's? The answer is the Irish Republican Army,and the Ulster Volunteer Force.You might say my motto is save the Irish peoples,screw the Irish governments. Unity throgh Truth not coersion!

Scáthach
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 12:40 AM
You do realise that Constitutions are amended through time and social change don't you? The rest of your musings aren't worth noting, I just saw you mentioned the ''Catholicism'' of the Constitution in your other thread.

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 01:20 AM
such as no divorce,no contraception,and a host of other ones.
I think most traditional Protestants would be as in favour of those laws as any traditional Roman Catholic.
The problem laws for Protestants there would be those which discriminate directly against them. I don't think I know anything about Irish Republic laws by the way, so I don't know if there are any such laws.

Milesian
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 11:16 AM
I think most traditional Protestants would be as in favour of those laws as any traditional Roman Catholic.

I'm not sure. I suppose evangelicals and fundamentalists would be against contraception perhaps. Not sure what their stance on divorce is.
Starting with the Church of England's Lambeth Council in the 1930's, most Protestant denominations have changed their ruling on artifical contraception to permitting it now.

As for divorce, the Church of England was created specifically to allow Henry VIII to divorce so I'm not sure how against it they would be. It is certainly permissible


The problem laws for Protestants there would be those which discriminate directly against them. I don't think I know anything about Irish Republic laws by the way, so I don't know if there are any such laws.

I may be biased, but I can't think of any which would discriminate against them.
Artifical contraception is freely available in the Republic, they could divorce, they would be free to practise their religion......there is even an Orange Walk planned in Cork! :|

The only thing they might be deprived of is abortion, which is still illegal in the Republic for the moment. But I believe it is also illegal in N.I., where it differs from the rest of the UK and this position is supported by the majority of Unionists and Nationalists.

Unlike N.I. where one Unionist politician once declared it to have a "Protestant Parliament for a Protestant People", the Constitution of the Republic has always maintained Religious Freedom and non-Discrimination against either Catholic or Protestant. This is based on the Procalmaition of the Irish Republic read out by Pearse at the GPO during the Easter Rebellion.
Part of it reads:


The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

This is in stark contrast to Northern Ireland which has long maintained an active policy of discrimination against Catholics there.

The lot of Protestants currently living in the Republic is a much happier one than that of Catholics living in the North.

Milesian
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 11:55 AM
No offense my nationalist friends but there's plenty of pathological hatred among the Catholics.When there are Prod enclaves in Catholic areas of Northern Ireland they are treated every bit as bad as any Republican has ever been treated.

Which enclaves are you reffering to?



If were to believe all the Republican propaganda on this thread the IRA never produced a thug all Nationalists are saints all Loyalist dimwits.

I haven't seen propoganda which says that. If I did, I wouldn't believe it.
There were certainly progressive Unionists who marched with Catholics to protest against their treatement. Additionally, I'm sure there are Republican thugs just as there are everywhere else.


The Constitution of the Irish Republic would scare any Protestant away.

It doesn't scare away the Protestants that live in the Republic.
Why would guaranteeing civil liberties frighten Protestants away?


You're guaranteed freedom as long as you obey Roman Catholic laws ,

Where in the Constitution does it say that?
That might have been the case if Maria Duce had gotten it's way, but De Valera rejected their proposals.


such as no divorce,

I'm sure you can divorce in the Republic


no contraception,[

Artifical contraception is available in the Republic


and a host of other ones.

Like what? Abortion? That's also illegal in Northern Ireland and is a position supported by Nationalists and Unionists alike.



Many Ulsterman would like to see an independent Ulster free of the UK and the Republic.

You mean Loyalists as opposed to Unionists?
The problem with that is that the don't either realise or care that N.I is not the same thing as Ulster. Ulster also incorporates 3 counties which have been part of the Republic since it's inception. I don't think you'd find much support there for an independent Ulster. It also explains the bemusment on the faces of people living in Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan when someone like Paisley says - "Ulster says No!" :D


The idea of being ruled by the most Catholic government in the world is not very appealing.

Most Catholic government in the world? Hardly



Particularly given the horrendous problems with pederasty of some its clergy and the coverups.

Obviously this only happens within the Catholic Church, right?


If you look at the percentage of Protestants in the republic now and what it was before the republic you can clearly see how not prejudiced and welcoming the Republic was.

Do you have the figures to hand?


I don't think any of you haver actually lived in Ulster or you would no that hate is ingrained in both sides.

Who said it wasn't?


I have lost two family members under the age of 14 to IRA bombers.

You have my sympathy


They did not deserve that nor do the poor catholic innocents killed by loyalists.

Innocents on either side are undeserving of death. Agreed.


Recently some Loyalist in a Catholic enclave had the audacity to fly a union jack,his loving nationalist neighbors surrounded him and drove a screwdriver into his brain killing him.

Yes, that is the climate people live in the north.
It also happened with a Catholic family for flying a Tyrone flag after the Galeic football finals in 2003. In saying that, most of my neighbours, Catholic or Protestant wouldn't fly their respective flags out of manners and consideration for those around them. It would likely be interpreted as a provocative act, due to the circumstances in which we live


Boycots of Loyalsit merchants are common so they will be driven out of business,anyone who shops there is beaten up by local Sinn Fein thugs. Of course the loyalists do the same crap,but please do not paint Republicans as nothing but martyrs.

As I said before, I have never stated that one side can do no wrong.
That's untrue


In a new Europe and Ulster Republicwith guaranteed separation of church and state

Which is anathema to Catholics.


and perhaps dual citizenship with the UK or Republic would solve this issue.

Interesting proposition although whether either side would go for that is doubtful.
For Republicans it is a token gesture which falls far short of their objective of a United Ireland.
For Unionists, it's the thin end of the wedge which would be resented greatly and seen as merely a stepping stone to a United Ireland


Once again the United Ireland myth is just that, it never existed

Similar to the myth that Ulster has always been seperate from the rest of Ireland? Ireland has been united before, it was in the time of Brian Boru.
Certainly the Northen Ui Neill and Connacht still maintained a degree of autonomy, but they did acknowledge the authority of the Ard Ri.
That was pretty much the situation for many centuries. Pretty much like the devolved status in the UK just now.


even the Irish langauge has branchs that are very difffernt from each other and it is near impossible for one in one gorup to understand one in another.

Try getting someone from Cambridge to understand a Geordie and you end up with much the same situation. It doesn't inferr that English language doesn't exist in a meaningful way. Dialects exist in any language. The difference is mainly in the way it is spoken. If you asked a speaker of Munster dialect to write a letter to a speaker of Ulster dialect, it would be understandable.


What is important is that both cultures survive,that neither people oppress the other and that we are not inundated with the unwashed massesof multiculturalism

That seems reasonable.


I am not a Christian I don't give a good Thorburn's Damn about king or Pope or kirk.

I don't agree as I don't adhere to obsolete Scandinavian Neo-Paganism, but you are entitled to your beliefs.



I care about my race and my culture.

As do I. Commendable :thumbsup


If there are people in Ireland weho care more about those old hoary Semite religions than keep their culture and race ,then they are going to end up like the American Indian who was too busy fighting each other to fight the white man,that is extinct or on a reservation.

Interesting analogy, although in truth the religious aspect is a relatively new problem in the overall scheme of Irish resistance to British encroachment.
One only needs to look at the union between Catholics and Protestants fighting for independence in the formation of the United Irishmen. Unfortunately, the Brits introduced the Orange Order after their defeat and commented gleefully that many Protestant United Irishmen were afterwards being seduced from their former loyalties.

It's worth remembering that Irish Republicanism originated with the Presbyterians of Belfast, and those men such as Wolfe Tone are still honoured by Republicans today.



As I said in another thread Time to bury the hatchet,and not in each other's head!

I hope that can be.


Triumphalism about the ultimate unification of Ireland and ridiculously naïve sanctimonious one sightedness, and flogging dead horses is not going to bring about change.

Quite. Mere hard talk never accomplishes much


Both sides glory in their ski mask thugs, who cold care less about anything other than theri drug,prostitution and extortion rackets.

That reminds me, I have a discusion elsewhere to reply to :)


What kind of patriotic heroes rob banks, and run bordello's?

Well said.


The answer is the Irish Republican Army,and the Ulster Volunteer Force.

Allegedly, yes.


You might say my motto is save the Irish peoples,screw the Irish governments. Unity throgh Truth not coersion!


Amen :thumbsup

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Do you have the figures to hand?

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/protestants_1861_1991.html

Milesian
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 02:16 PM
Thank you Rhydderch.

That's quite informative.
It seems that the main points in the decline are:

Protestants close to the newly created border decided to up sticks and move several miles "up the road" into N.I.
This would make sense as in N.I. they would be at a distinct advantage in terms of housing, employement, etc.
If I were them and could gain by moving to the north rather than remaining in the Republic and being on a more even keel with everyone else, then I probably would have done too.

It's telling that most of the Protestants who didn't live near the broder remained where they were. Thus it was simply a matter of convenience.
If life was really so unappetising under the Republic, I'm sure that distance wouldn't have been enough to prevent a mass Protestant exodus.

The other main point seems to be that Protestants inter-married with Catholics. Due to the Church's rules, Protestants would have converted (as my own grandmother did) and raise a Catholic family.

So Protestant breeding habits played a role as well.


Also, I would think that the withdrawl of the British after the treaty, including tens of thousands of military, police, etc would also affect the demographics. I imagine the majority of them would also have been Protestant


According to the website there was some incidents of intimidation of border Protestants by the IRA (* Note the IRA by this time was an outlawed organisation which had already been engaged in a Civil War with the Government forces of the Republic). I wouldn't condone that in any way, but without knowing some background details of the targets I wouldn't like to jump to conclusions. If these were just ordinary people targeted simply because of their religion, then it would be condemnable and actually against Republican creed.

All in all though, it looks like the decline is mainly due to relocation restricted to the border area, which would provide significant financial benefits for Protestants who would gain from a system in the North which discriminated heavily in their favour, and secondly conversions to Catholicism.

Rhydderch
Saturday, February 19th, 2005, 02:30 AM
As for divorce, the Church of England was created specifically to allow Henry VIII to divorce
That was a major turning point in the English Reformation which gave it royal support and recognition. There is a lot more to the Reformation in England (and the formation of the Church of England) than Henry and his divorce.