Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 80

Thread: Northern Ireland & The U.K.

  1. #61
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Bluterbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Last Online
    @
    Subrace
    nordid-faelid
    Gender
    Politics
    NS
    Posts
    96
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post AW: Northern Ireland & The U.K.

    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!
    Meine Gewalt ist die Gewalt des Freien, der sich weigert, sich zu unterwerfen. Die Schöpfung ist gewaltsam. Leben ist gewaltsam. Geburt ist ein gewaltsamer Vorgang. Ein Sturm, ein Erdbeben sind gewaltsame Bewegungen der Natur. Meine Gewalt ist die Gewalt des Lebens. Es ist keine Gewalt wider die Natur, wie die Gewalt des Staates, der eure Kinder ins Schlachthaus schickt, eure Gehirne verblödet und eure Seelen austreibt! - Klaus Kinski

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 07:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: Northern Ireland & The U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by atlanto-med
    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.

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 07:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: Northern Ireland & The U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by Milesian
    The vast majority of Irish do not see themselves as English or British. You cannot force them to. History has shown that already
    Of 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 violence
    Perhaps 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.p...578#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 benevolent
    Well 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.
    Last edited by Rhydderch; Wednesday, January 19th, 2005 at 07:51 AM.

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 07:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: Northern Ireland & The U.K.

    in this case an older and richer culture to boot
    That's a matter of opinion.

  5. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 07:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: Northern Ireland & The U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by atlanto-med
    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.
    Last edited by Rhydderch; Wednesday, January 19th, 2005 at 10:15 AM.

  6. #66
    Disinterested
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 13th, 2005 @ 10:17 PM
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Politics
    Folkish
    Posts
    1,403
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Northern Ireland & The U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhydderch
    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.

  7. #67
    Disinterested
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 13th, 2005 @ 10:17 PM
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Politics
    Folkish
    Posts
    1,403
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Northern Ireland & The U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhydderch
    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.

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 07:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: Northern Ireland & The U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by atlanto-med
    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.

  9. #69
    Disinterested
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 13th, 2005 @ 10:17 PM
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Politics
    Folkish
    Posts
    1,403
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: Northern Ireland & The U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhydderch
    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.

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 07:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: Northern Ireland & The U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by atlanto-med
    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.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Northern Ireland Political Selector
    By Taras Bulba in forum Northern Ireland
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: Sunday, June 23rd, 2019, 01:20 AM
  2. Northern Ireland: Most Support Staying in UK
    By Englisc in forum Northern Ireland
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, September 13th, 2016, 09:38 AM
  3. Joint Sovereignty for Northern Ireland?
    By Liberator Germaniae in forum Northern Ireland
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Tuesday, March 27th, 2007, 10:56 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •