800 years

Fratton Fred · 19-12-2006 4:39pm

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Thats complete and utter bull! Britain and Ireland are seperate nations with seperate languages, seperate customs, seperate sports, seperate beliefs - religious and political, divided by a body of water, and the majority of people on this 'smaller island' never wanted or signed up to this union. Theres absolutely no justification for making a comment like that!

England, Wales and Scotland are seperate countries with differing cultures and languages. As are the Basques and the Bretaignes, Native Americans and American Immigrants (or whatever they call the British, Irish, Dutch, French etc settlers that have arrived thee over the last three hundred years).

European history is such that basically countries fell into two categories, the Conquerors and the conquered. Ireland was the latter and had the misfortune of being next door to one of the conquering nations.

I'd argue that, although Britain was not exactly a benevolent occupier, it could have been a lot worse under the Portugese or Spanish.

vesp · 19-12-2006 7:20pm

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Britain and Ireland are seperate nations with seperate languages, seperate customs, seperate sports, seperate beliefs - religious and political, divided by a body of water,

What has the body of water to do with it ? 'Tis only a short distance, on a good day you can see Scotland from N. Ireland. Besides, is Scicily independent of Italy?

Our language, culture etc are not very different , as are our interests, sports, TV programmes etc.
Everyone watches Man utd in English.

Capt'n Midnight · 19-12-2006 9:07pm

Gurgle wrote:

Before the famine the population of Ireland was 8 million, after the famine 4 million.

And yet the official numbers are still approx. 1 million dead, 1 million immigrated.

What happened to the other 2 million?

if 1 million immigrated then there are 4 million missing

the numbers are very round, also the 4 million was a lot later not in the same generation or even the one after , changes in inheritance meant that people got married later/had kids later/didn't have kids. Also there was continuous emmigration later on too and probably a higher mortality rate too for a while so there was a decline in population after the initial drop.

google for info on the population at various dates and you will see the drop

Capt'n Midnight · 19-12-2006 9:17pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

I'd argue that, although Britain was not exactly a benevolent occupier, it could have been a lot worse under the Portugese or Spanish.

During the times of the plantations we were treated very much second class even as savages in manner not unlike they treated those in the new world. Look at the penal laws. Very different IMHO to the way the Dutch were treated by the Spanish.

Wern't more people killed in the aftermath of 1798 here than died in the reign of terror after the French revolution. ( Similar to the way that more people died because of the Doolittle raid on Tokoyo than died in either of the atomic bombings )

csk · 19-12-2006 9:32pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

I'd argue that, although Britain was not exactly a benevolent occupier, it could have been a lot worse under the Portugese or Spanish.

I'd be interested to hear why you think the Spanish or Portugese would have been worse.

Offhand I can actually see some benefits to a Spanish conquest.
The fact that Spain was predominantly Catholic would have meant no need for a state sponsored reformation, which would in turn mean none of the sectarian rancour that exists in certain parts of Ireland today.

brianthebard · 19-12-2006 9:56pm

Gurgle wrote:

Before the famine the population of Ireland was 8 million, after the famine 4 million.

And yet the official numbers are still approx. 1 million dead, 1 million immigrated.

What happened to the other 2 million?

No one knows the exact figure before the famine, because 1845 was a census year. So already you are starting from an estimate.

And yes the figures generally given was 1million dead and 1million immirgrated. Which means there was 6million left in the country. I don't know where you got 4million, bar the latest census. The population remained in decline from 1847 on however, which is how it got from 6 to 4 million.

brianthebard · 19-12-2006 10:00pm

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Thats complete and utter bull! Britain and Ireland are seperate nations with seperate languages, seperate customs, seperate sports, seperate beliefs - religious and political, divided by a body of water, and the majority of people on this 'smaller island' never wanted or signed up to this union. Theres absolutely no justification for making a comment like that!

The concept of the nation-state didn't exist until the 1800s, so there is enough of a justification from a historical perspective. Try not to let emotion get in the way of the topic.

csk · 19-12-2006 10:51pm

brianthebard wrote:

The concept of the nation-state didn't exist until the 1800s, so there is enough of a justification from a historical perspective. Try not to let emotion get in the way of the topic.

Maybe the nation state did not come about untill 1800 but surely the concept of a nation that of a people with same language, customs, cultural traits etc. existed.

What exactly is the topic again? (just wondering as rereading the thread it seems to have gone off on a mad tangent and I notice your the OP)

brianthebard · 19-12-2006 11:25pm

Yeah it really has hit a tangent. Basically i wanted to hear (from a group who hopefully have an interest in history and getting to the core of events in the past) whether or not the idea of 800 years of british oppression is still valid?

(regards common culture,language etc, that would have been a "decent" reason for the colonialisation of Ireland at the start.. It was more in response to ...go brath than anything else.)

csk · 20-12-2006 12:10am

brianthebard wrote:

Yeah it really has hit a tangent. Basically i wanted to hear (from a group who hopefully have an interest in history and getting to the core of events in the past) whether or not the idea of 800 years of british oppression is still valid?

(regards common culture,language etc, that would have been a "decent" reason for the colonialisation of Ireland at the start.. It was more in response to ...go brath than anything else.)

Do you yourself think its still valid?

The idea of the "800 years" is an abstract concept, made up of actual grievances and a percieved history of grievances that has to some extent become exaggerated or distorted through the years.
Its hard to know if in this day and age it's still valid

Though IMO the last century has seen as much evidence of British "oppression" as any previous centuries.

walrusgumble · 20-12-2006 12:20am

no one mentioned that when normans came to ireland in 1200's (they created common law, ireland was first place to apply it outside england but took 100-200 year later to catch on nationwide) brehon law was used in many parts of ireland (though customs and laws varied in different parts of community. also note 6th century, ireland was known as the land of saints and scholars people all over europe coming to learn(obviously that term being used in modern history) hardly be said the irish were thick, sure our ancestors built newgrange (beat that stonehenge and the pyramids)

today the term is used when having ant-british rants. in my opinion, yes britain/normans/vikings contributed to society of the day but as john bull is concerned he out stayed his welcome. maybe the irish would have caught on to what was going on every where else (this thread is a bit like life of brian's clip "what did the romans do for us")

800 years rant is no longer relevant to most of us, except to our brothers in the north, but it cant really be used since our constitution articles 2 and 3 agree foreign domination shall exist until there is a democratic vote by the people that there is a united ireland.breed them out lol

but history will show what a shower britain has been to ireland particularily from 1789-1938 (reason for 1938 because treaty retained ports and land annunities-still economic dominance over the free state then til dev brought on the economic war)

brianthebard · 20-12-2006 12:23am

Not at all, I think its a snappy phrase thats trotted out by the republican line as a way of compensating for all sorts of things (or at least it used to be). For a start, the idea of oppression means very different things at different times. Were the penal laws oppressive? Yes, I think so. The normans? Not so much? Elizabeth's reign? To an extent. It goes on and on.

Ultimately my biggest problem with the notion of 800 years is the ease with which it has become part of peoples mindset. If we are to move on from a postcolonial society we need to be able to grow past this issue, although as someone may have pointed out earlier the northern issue has ensured that this has not happened as soon as it should.

vesp · 20-12-2006 12:32am

brianthebard wrote:

For a start, the idea of oppression means very different things at different times. Were the penal laws oppressive? Yes, I think so.

Judging by what happened elsewhere even in Europe , it could have been a lot worse. Look at the Spanish inquisition for example, where countless people were tortured under the most horrible means and executed for not being Catholics. Even nowadays look at the tolerance shown to Christianity in Saudi Arabia and China, and what does that remind you of. And yet there is no outcry ?

csk · 20-12-2006 12:45am

brianthebard wrote:

Not at all, I think its a snappy phrase thats trotted out by the republican line as a way of compensating for all sorts of things (or at least it used to be).

By republican line do you mean just the northern version of republicanism.
the fact is if you go back and look at Nationalist writings from before independence you will see them referring to "700 years" etc.
the idea is mainly a construct of the social memory that became heightened during the Nationalist fervour that was stired up during the early 1900s.

It is based on real events experienced by the people of Ireland and those passed down through history.

brianthebard wrote:

Ultimately my biggest problem with the notion of 800 years is the ease with which it has become part of peoples mindset. If we are to move on from a postcolonial society we need to be able to grow past this issue, although as someone may have pointed out earlier the northern issue has ensured that this has not happened as soon as it should.

I don't think ease is the right word. the mindset that evolved to the "800 years" was shaped over many years and had many different processes that went towards its creation. I don't think one day there was no such thing then the next day it was just there. as such I don't think it can just be switched off.
While I agree that we need to move on from a postcolonial society I don't think you can force that process, especially while the north remains in some ways unresolved.

vesp · 20-12-2006 12:47am

csk wrote:

Though IMO the last century has seen as much evidence of British "oppression" as any previous centuries.

You are right. Britain was so oppressive hundreds of thousands of Irishmen volunteered to serve in their forces to protect these islands in two world wars from aggressive continental invadingg armies. Britain handed over infrastructure to our newly established country, even having the snooker tables in the army barracks they handed over in pristine condition. They oppressed us with their railways, canals, harbours, fine buildings etc. In the 20th century Britain also oppressed us by absorbing huge numbers of immigrants from Ireland and giving them jobs. As the second biggest contributer to EC funds Britain also contributed massively to our economy, through the squillions we got from Europe. They allowed us to have a much lower tax rate on our multinationals, so American multinationals who want to set up in an English speaking country in the EC can do it almost tax free.
Britain oppressed us by having a much higher detection and detention rate against loyalist paramilitaries in N. Ireland than against Republican paramilitaries. Why, those oppressive Brits did not even want to fight a real war with us. The fact is the IRA killed more Catholics than the Brits did.

If anyone thinks the British were oppressive in the 20th century, be thankful you never lived under the sort of regime the Brits helped save us from in that era ( Nazism, communism etc ).

brianthebard · 20-12-2006 1:01am

csk wrote:

By republican line do you mean just the northern version of republicanism.
the fact is if you go back and look at Nationalist writings from before independence you will see them referring to "700 years" etc.
the idea is mainly a construct of the social memory that became heightened during the Nationalist fervour that was stired up during the early 1900s.

I'm well aware of its origins. At one time it may have been of benefit to encourage people to join the cause so to speak, but that reason is gone now. Those real events are exactly what I'm referring to. So I pose the question, do you believe in 800 years of oppression?

It is based on real events experienced by the people of Ireland and those passed down through history.

All the people I hear it saying it are from the south.

I don't think ease is the right word. the mindset that evolved to the "800 years" was shaped over many years and had many different processes that went towards its creation. I don't think one day there was no such thing then the next day it was just there. as such I don't think it can just be switched off.
While I agree that we need to move on from a postcolonial society I don't think you can force that process, especially while the north remains in some ways unresolved.

When I say ease I mean the lack of thought that goes into peoples prejudices. There is no thought process involved in saying "****ing brits" there is only outdated hatred. I'm not talking about forcing the issue, merely confronting it instead of resorting to early 1900s statements that serve little or no purpose in a modern society. And the northern issue will remain unresolved until hatred can be put aside.

Capt'n Midnight · 20-12-2006 1:02am

vesp wrote:

Judging by what happened elsewhere even in Europe , it could have been a lot worse. Look at the Spanish inquisition for example, where countless people were tortured under the most horrible means and executed for not being Catholics.

Actually there are many recorded instances of people being a position to choose a civil trial or an inquistion choosing the latter because the torture was actually supervised.

The inquisition got bad PR by the prodestant plampheters, the same prodestants who later, in a supposedly more civilised era, killed far more as witches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition

García Cárcel estimates that the total number processed by the Inquisition throughout its history was approximately 150,000. Applying the percentages of executions that appeared in the trials of 1560-1700--about 2%--the approximate total would be about 3,000 put to death. Nevertheless, very probably this total should be raised keeping in mind the data provided by Dedieu and García Cárcel for the tribunals of Toledo and Valencia, respectively. It is likely that the total would be between 3,000 and 5,000 executed. However, it is impossible to determine the precision of this total, owing to the gaps in documentation, unlikely that the exact number will ever be known.

vesp · 20-12-2006 1:29am

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Actually there are many recorded instances of people being a position to choose a civil trial or an inquistion choosing the latter because the torture was actually supervised.

Rubbish. People in their tens of thousands do and did not choose that type of torture and death "because it was actually supervised".

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

The inquisition got bad PR by the prodestant plampheters, the same prodestants who later, in a supposedly more civilised era, killed far more as witches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition

So you think the Spanish Inquisition got bad PR by "the prodestant plampheters", that is a bit like dismissing the holocaust by saying it got bad PR by the communist plampheters. Check your facts ...you will see it was not not Protestants who were the victims of the Spanish Inquisition ...it was a wide spectrum of non-Catholics.

As regards you secected quote from wikipedia, bear in mind anyone can write anything on it, and often do. Look elsewhere on reputable websites for example and you will see that "It is estimated that in the years 1480-1524, 14,344 were burnt alive, 1,368 were burnt in effigy, and 195,937 condemned to other penalties or released as penitents. The Spanish Inquisition was not finally suppressed until 1834."

brianthebard · 20-12-2006 1:45am

vesp wrote:

Rubbish. People in their tens of thousands do and did not choose that type of torture and death "because it was actually supervised".

Can you substantiate that statement with a quote or link, preferably not from wikipedia?

So you think the Spanish Inquisition got bad PR by "the prodestant plampheters", that is a bit like dismissing the holocaust by saying it got bad PR by the communist plampheters. Check your facts ...you will see it was not not Protestants who were the victims of the Spanish Inquisition ...it was a wide spectrum of non-Catholics.

Not really first off their was rampant propaganda spread by all sides at the time of the reformation and counter reformation. Also the holocaust "PR" as you put it has more to do with Israel and the Jewish people than communists.

As regards you secected quote from wikipedia, bear in mind anyone can write anything on it, and often do. Look elsewhere on reputable websites for example and you will see that "It is estimated that in the years 1480-1524, 14,344 were burnt alive, 1,368 were burnt in effigy, and 195,937 condemned to other penalties or released as penitents. The Spanish Inquisition was not finally suppressed until 1834."

If that is the highest figures you can come up with for people killed in the inquistition then it is half as many as the terror. Not saying its right or wrong, merely giving a comparision.

This has nothing to do with the topic and I have only replied in order to clear up all these points so that you can now return to the topic, if you please.

vesp · 20-12-2006 1:57am

The point is the hundreds of thousands of Protestants ( and other non Roman Catholics ) tortured and killed in Catholic countries on the continent in centuries gone by put our own penal times in context. The British were less oppressive, no doubt about it.

vesp · 20-12-2006 2:01am

brianthebard wrote:

If that is the highest figures you can come up with for people killed in the inquistition then it is half as many as the terror. Not saying its right or wrong, merely giving a comparision.

Its not a question of it being the highest figure ; do some research and you will see that the wikipedia figure is so absurdly low it it laughable. No wonder wikipedia is discredited so much when everyone can edit it.

csk · 20-12-2006 2:13am

brianthebard wrote:

do you believe in 800 years of oppression?

I suppose this goes back to what was oppression?
For me its a catchall term that doesn't just represent severe or systematic actions like the penal laws but represents the overall events that happened over a period of time regardless of their severity.

I don't believe that for a period of "800 years" there was at least one Irish person somewhere someplace who was being "oppressed" at every second of every minute of every day.
For example the reign of Charles II (i think) was relatively speaking not too opressive compared wth previous monarchs he was very tolerant of the Catholic church. Yet even in his reign you could point out examples of oppression where to appease British public opinion Catholic clergy were executed for no other reason than they were Catholic

brianthebard wrote:

When I say ease I mean the lack of thought that goes into peoples prejudices. There is no thought process involved in saying "****ing brits" there is only outdated hatred. I'm not talking about forcing the issue, merely confronting it instead of resorting to early 1900s statements that serve little or no purpose in a modern society. And the northern issue will remain unresolved until hatred can be put aside.

We are confronting it but simply condemning it as a "f**k the brits" attitude that is only "outdated hatred" doesn't help.

the fact is powerful forces created this mindset and only relatively recently were these to some extent resolved.

brianthebard · 20-12-2006 2:19am

How would you describe this sort of attitude and what purpose is it serving? At this stage imo these powerful forces which you mention have shifted into the realm of mythology, along with figures like dev and collins and the righteous IRA against the dirty black and tans. I can understand why people would want to believe in nationalism and this sort of ideology, even if I don't subscribe to it. But what is being done to combat this? I don't see anything that is changing this idea, but perhaps I'm missing something? I hope I am tbh

Btw I agree completely with you about the oppression.

csk · 20-12-2006 2:44am

well if you look at the historical profession in this country, since the 1930s there has been a movement that has attempted to change the mindset by getting away from the overt Nationalist histories. If you look at the majority of Irish History books published since then you will see that somewthing is being done to combat this mindset. the fact remains it takes time and what that movement is trying to achieve has yet to seep through to the popular consciousness.

In fact as far as i'm concerned it has only created a mindset that suffers from an equal lack of thought. a mindset that is just as uninformed and bad as the "f**k the Brits" attitude.
Which has given rise to a whole new set of mythology just as bad as that you seem to deplore. ( now i'm not accusing you brianthebard of this mindset it's just what I have learned from my own experience:) )

brianthebard · 20-12-2006 3:00am

I understand what you are saying but, to quote a history lecturer of mine, what most historians publish is read by a few dozen people. If you have studied the history course for Junior cert (I can just about remember it) then you will know that there is nothing in the way of revisionism or interpretation taught. It is very much a course which involves these are the "facts" (can there ever be such a thing) regurgitate them. From what I know of the LC, most people don't do history for the leaving cert, which is the first time that the idea of interpretation would be introduced, but even then it is not hugely important to getting a good grade(which means its not important full stop) so it is incredibly possible and easy for people to go through the whole educational system without ever questioning a historical events factuality or relevence!

Sorry about the rant but I think this is where the heart of the issue lies, and always will-education. And whats even worse is when you see people in a third year university class making the exact same fu|ck the brits arguments that they made in junior cert. So even though I know that to a certain extent there are attempts to redress the balance, I remain skeptical as to how effective these attempts are. You can bring a horse to water as they say...

vesp · 20-12-2006 3:12am

brianthebard wrote:

dev and collins and the righteous IRA against the dirty black and tans. I can understand why people would want to believe in nationalism and this sort of ideology, .

I can recall the subtle nationalist indoctrination in Ireland. Even in school it was hammered in to us about the famine, the "dirty black and tans", the black >>>>>>>> etc. In public places there was often posters of the terrorists of 1916. When the hunger strikes were on, RTE would wax lyrical about each IRA man dying for his country but whenever one came off the hunger strike there was nothing more about him.
In fact some people who were taught to believe "in nationalism and this sort of ideology" to the extent that sometimes people were told to "burn everything British but their coal".

csk · 20-12-2006 3:33am

i understand what you are saying regards the education system but IMO it has changed. However bottom line it will always be about the grades and this means people just regurgitate "facts" and you cannot change that.
the actual way it is being thought is far from what the poster vesp is complaining.
Most people learn their "History" from parents and media etc. anyway and they have already developed their attitudes long before they ever have to "regurgitate the facts" for JC or LC.

i suppose I would be of the opinion that we are changing at the right pace so to speak. if you look at the commemoration for those who died in WWI which I think was the first time since the foundation of the state shows we are moving in the right directon.
I would just be wary of those who are trying to force the change as it is my experience that they either have an agenda of their own or are just blind revisionists who believe everything that is connected with Irish Nationalism=republicanism= Provos= bad.

as regards your class and the F**k the Brits attitude, I wish my own third year history class would have shown something similar instead of blindly following the lecturer who was an instrument of revisionist evil:mad:

brianthebard · 20-12-2006 3:44am

csk wrote:

i suppose I would be of the opinion that we are changing at the right pace so to speak. if you look at the commemoration for those who died in WWI which I think was the first time since the foundation of the state shows we are moving in the right directon.
I would just be wary of those who are trying to force the change as it is my experience that they either have an agenda of their own or are just blind revisionists who believe everything that is connected with Irish Nationalism=republicanism= Provos= bad.

Um, the poppy and wwI were commerated at the start of the states life, but it quickly became a charade and an item of conflict between opposing groups. Any extreme is bad, so following revisionism for the sake of it will end in just as bad a way as following nationalism for the sake of it.

as regards your class and the F**k the Brits attitude, I wish my own third year history class would have shown something similar instead of blindly following the lecturer who was an instrument of revisionist evil:mad:

No, no you don't. Honestly you don't.

joebhoy1916 · 20-12-2006 5:22am

vesp wrote:

I can recall the subtle nationalist indoctrination in Ireland.

So where you from let me guess England.

vesp wrote:

In public places there was often posters of the terrorists of 1916.

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

So Bertie when he has a picure of Pearse or Connelly in his office he has a picture of a terrorist? Get real.

Gurgle · 20-12-2006 9:40am

vesp wrote:

The point is the hundreds of thousands of Protestants ( and other non Roman Catholics ) tortured and killed in Catholic countries on the continent in centuries gone by put our own penal times in context. The British were less oppressive, no doubt about it.

The Irish potatoe famine is seen as the Brittish themselves as the greatest failing to look after the people by the government. For most of the 800 years, the Irish were treated no better or worse than the English, Scottish and Welsh peoples.

'Oppression' only came into it with the plantations and continued with Cromwell and the famine, up to WW1.

Even then, it was oppression of Catholics rather than Irish, same as what was going on in mainland Britain, just another aspect of sectarianism violence between Catholic and Protestant all over europe.

What separated the Irish people from the British was the fact that they remained Catholic. With the plantations of British protestants, it evolved from religious oppression to class oppression, as the dispossesed Irish became the underdog to the British landowners. This gave rise to nationalism and rebellion which was, as was standard practise at the time, crushed ruthlessly.

brianthebard · 20-12-2006 4:05pm

joebhoy1916 wrote:

One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

So Bertie when he has a picure of Pearse or Connelly in his office he has a picture of a terrorist? Get real.

Could you get any more cliched?

csk · 20-12-2006 6:17pm

vesp wrote:

Britain oppressed us by having a much higher detection and detention rate against loyalist paramilitaries in N. Ireland than against Republican paramilitaries.

So good were they in fact at detecting these loyalist paramilitaries, they were able to find which ones were most suitable for collaborating on atrocities like the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings.

vesp wrote:

If anyone thinks the British were oppressive in the 20th century, be thankful you never lived under the sort of regime the Brits helped save us from in that era ( Nazism, communism etc ).

I suppose unleashing the Black and Tans or what was experienced by Irish people living in the North doesn't count. sure it wasn't like the Nazi's and their grand plans of ethnic cleasning, never mind that the British had already tried that before and realised it didn't work.

But hey that probably doesn't fit in with your nice rosy picture of the good ol' boys of the British Army and their thin red line that held back the Nazi tide and saved all civilisation. Sure why let a simple thing like reality get in the way of misty eyed romanticism:rolleyes:

csk · 20-12-2006 6:20pm

brianthebard wrote:

Um, the poppy and wwI were commerated at the start of the states life, but it quickly became a charade and an item of conflict between opposing groups.

Well maybe it wasn't exactly the first time but my point still stands, the fact that we are addressing the issue again/now shows we are moving in the right direction.

Aedh Baclamh · 21-12-2006 12:09am

If anyone thinks the British were oppressive in the 20th century, be thankful you never lived under the sort of regime the Brits helped save us from in that era ( Nazism, communism etc ).

The same British Empire which set up the first concentration camps during the Boer War? Why should I be thankful by the way, who let you make up my mind?

vesp · 21-12-2006 12:15am

joebhoy1916 wrote:

So where you from let me guess England.
.

No actually. I am from Ireland and I recall my experiences here. Not that it is any of your business where I am from.

joebhoy1916 wrote:

So Bertie when he has a picure of Pearse or Connelly in his office he has a picture of a terrorist?

lol. It was again revealed in the media over the last day or two how Bertie had signed blanc cheques for Haughey. If Bertie had any auld codgers picture up on the wall of his office whats the betting it would have been Haughey ? Bet its removed now. At least Haughey was only accused / thought of attempting to smuggle guns to terrorists ( remember the arms trial ) , he never directly killed anyone.

vesp · 21-12-2006 12:27am

csk wrote:

So good were they in fact at detecting these loyalist paramilitaries, they were able to find which ones were most suitable for collaborating on atrocities like the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings.
:

Nobody claimed any police force or government solved all loyalist crime ever committed. Because of the numbers involved such a task would have been impossible. However what the RUC and British govt did achieve was a higher success rate at solving loyalist crimes / atrocities and jailing those responsible, compared to solving republican crimes / atrocities and jailing those responsible.

csk wrote:

I suppose unleashing the Black and Tans or what was experienced by Irish people living in the North doesn't count. sure it wasn't like the Nazi's and their grand plans of ethnic cleasning, never mind that the British had already tried that before and realised it didn't work.

Not all black and tans behaved the same, although republican propoganda would have you believe that. In an era when many civilians were killed and intimidated - some just because they were protestant - the black and tans were an effort to restore order. As regards your comment "what was experienced by Irish people living in the North doesn't count", do you count the victims of Bloody Friday, Le Mons, Enniskillen, Kingsmill , Darkley etc etc as being Irish ? If you want to talk about Ethnic cleansing, why not talk about those atrocities as well if you want be be consistent ?

Gurgle · 21-12-2006 10:12am

vesp wrote:

Not all black and tans behaved the same, although republican propoganda would have you believe that. In an era when many civilians were killed and intimidated - some just because they were protestant - the black and tans were an effort to restore order.

From wikipedia:

The Black and Tans were not subject to strict discipline in their early months in Ireland and as a result, the deaths of Black and Tans at the hands of the IRA in 1920 were often repaid with arbitrary reprisals against the civilian population. In the summer of 1920, the Black and Tans burned and sacked many small towns and villages in Ireland, beginning with Tuam in County Galway in July 1920 and also including Trim, Balbriggan, Thurles and Templemore amongst many others. In November 1920, the Tans "besieged" Tralee in revenge for the IRA abduction and killing of two local RIC men. They closed all the businesses in the town and did let no food in for a week. In addition they shot dead three local people. On 14 November, the Tans abducted and murdered a Roman Catholic priest, Fr Michael Griffin, in Galway.

As an effort to restore order, I think the term 'miserable failure' is a pretty good description.

Of course they weren't all the same, but the above actions would be cause for a war-crimes tribunal.

vesp · 21-12-2006 6:27pm

LOL. Is that the best you can do? Anyone can post whatever they want on "wikipedia"..... and they frequently do.

csk · 21-12-2006 7:50pm

vesp wrote:

Nobody claimed any police force or government solved all loyalist crime ever committed. Because of the numbers involved such a task would have been impossible. However what the RUC and British govt did achieve was a higher success rate at solving loyalist crimes / atrocities and jailing those responsible, compared to solving republican crimes / atrocities and jailing those responsible.

Did I dispute that? Are You actually reading any of the posts?

I actually agreed and said so good were they, they were able to find which Loyalists were suitable for collaboration and collusion.

vesp wrote:

Not all black and tans behaved the same

Thanks for qualifying my post... again. You seem rather good at that.
I suppose I should apologise for my naivity in presuming people could make that assumtion for themselves.:rolleyes:

Of course in order to adhere to your cry for consistency, I should point out that not all Nazis were bad either. Despite your ad nauseum referals to the contrary.:rolleyes:

vesp wrote:

As regards your comment "what was experienced by Irish people living in the North doesn't count", do you count the victims of Bloody Friday, Le Mons, Enniskillen, Kingsmill , Darkley etc etc as being Irish ? If you want to talk about Ethnic cleansing, why not talk about those atrocities as well if you want be be consistent ?

To be perfectly honest that reflects more on you and your way of thinking than it does on me or mine.

joebhoy1916 · 21-12-2006 8:52pm

vesp wrote:

No actually. I am from Ireland and I recall my experiences here. Not that it is any of your business where I am from.

The way you said I recall I thought you werent from here.

vesp wrote:

lol. It was again revealed in the media over the last day or two how Bertie had signed blanc cheques for Haughey. If Bertie had any auld codgers picture up on the wall of his office whats the betting it would have been Haughey ? Bet its removed now. .

Emm no he has picture's of the men of 1916 on his wall as someone just said a few posts ago these are terrorist's which there not.

vesp wrote:

At least Haughey was only accused / thought of attempting to smuggle guns to terrorists ( remember the arms trial ) , he never directly killed anyone.

You see Haughey didn't think they were terrorists

either did half the goverment. Thousand's of people were getting burnt out of there home's by Special branch/ loyalist's/ RUC the list goes on. Maybe you should do your research abit when the trouble's started the IRA didn't have a gun to there name so they got alot of help by America/ Irish/ Libya/ Spain the list goes on. Dont think these people were your normal Joe Soap people were telling them to rise up against the brit's why because it was the right thing to do they were trying to wipe the catholic population out of northern Ireland.

Ever here the saying Jack Lynch marched 20,000 men up to the border and marched them back down again.

Oh and by the way did you ever hear of a .5 rifle?

The irish army has some guess were where they got them?

Oh and Athlone barrack's the one theat hold's all ammo for some barrack's smuggled radio's up to the IRA during battle of the bogside.

vesp · 21-12-2006 11:01pm

joebhoy1916 wrote:

The way you said I recall I thought you werent from here.

That does not make sense. Mind you, as you mention something about growing weed in your attic, it perhaps is hardly surprising much of the rest of your ramblings do not make much sense either. You mention "wiping the catholic population out of northern Ireland "....lol.....did you know 25% of the Roman Catholic population of N. Ireland want to stay part of the UK ?

vesp · 21-12-2006 11:09pm

csk wrote:

I actually agreed and said so good were they, they were able to find which Loyalists were suitable for collaboration and collusion.

No wonder you are confused. If you think "collaboration and collusion" was widespread and official policy, why do you think the success rate for jailing loyalist terrorists was higher than for republican terrorists? Why do you think more loyalist crimesx/ atrocities were solved compared to the % rate for republican crimes and atrocities....and the people found guilty put out of circulation ? If it was official govt. policy to kill catholics, why do you think the IRA killed more Catholics than anyone else in the conflict ?
Do not forget the collusion between Republican terrorists and Irish security forces, which resulted in the deaths of more than a few people.

csk · 21-12-2006 11:32pm

vesp wrote:

If you think "collaboration and collusion" was widespread and official policy

Where did I say that or even at a stretch infer it?

vesp wrote:

If it was official govt. policy to kill catholics,

Did I ever say it was ?

vesp wrote:

Do not forget the collusion between Republican terrorists and Irish security forces, which resulted in the deaths of more than a few people.

Evidence ???

vesp · 21-12-2006 11:57pm

csk wrote:

Where did I say that or even at a stretch infer it?

In your previous posts e.g. the one of 18.50 "so good were they, they were able to find which Loyalists were suitable for collaboration and collusion"

Have you evidence to show that collusion in N. Ireland was worse than that in the Republic ? Or even equal to ? Do not forget the many people murdered just after crossing the border from the south eg Detective Breen, Justice Gibson and his wife etc ?

As joebhoy1916 said only a few posts ago on this very thread - and I quote : "Haughey didn't think they were terrorists either did half the goverment.

Oh and by the way did you ever hear of a .5 rifle?

The irish army has some guess were where they got them?

Oh and Athlone barrack's the one theat hold's all ammo for some barrack's smuggled radio's up to the IRA during battle of the bogside."

professore · 22-12-2006 12:22am

PHB wrote:

Furthermore, the Normans weren't the ones with the great administrative structure, it was the Anglo-Saxons, which the Normans just stole.

That's just plain wrong. The Normans were the ones with the Domesday book and put order and structure to everything.

csk · 22-12-2006 12:29am

"so good were they, they were able to find which Loyalists were suitable for collaboration and collusion"

Where in that sentence do I say that collusion, to qoute you was " widespread and official" ?

according to joebhoy1916:

"Haughey didn't think they were terrorists either did half the goverment."

What does Haughey or the Governments opinion (keep in mind the above statement is unsubstantiated) have to do with collusion in the Republic of Ireland?

"Oh and by the way did you ever hear of a .5 rifle?"]

Actually I have not. Again What has that to do with collusion in the Republic of Ireland?

"The irish army has some guess were where they got them?"

They? the Irish Army? The Provisional IRA ? Martians? the hillbilly gospel choir?
this statement is unclear.
So again I ask, what does it have to do with collusion in the Republic of Ireland?

"Oh and Athlone barrack's the one theat hold's all ammo for some barrack's smuggled radio's up to the IRA during battle of the bogside."

Once again this is unsubstantiated and a couple of transistor radios are hardly weapons of mass destruction.

vesp wrote:

Do not forget the many people murdered just after crossing the border from the south eg Detective Breen, Justice Gibson and his wife etc ?

This pretty much is what your argument boils down to.
Sh!t flinging i.e. throw enough sh!t in the hope that something will stick.
the last perserve of someone who has lost an argument or maybe never had one to begin with.

Have you actually made a post that is to do with the actual topic.
More to the point, are you?

vesp · 22-12-2006 12:50am

You are the one who brought up collusion. I asked already and I will ask again : Have you evidence to show that collusion in N. Ireland was worse than that in the Republic ? Or even equal to ?

csk · 22-12-2006 2:23pm

vesp wrote:

You are the one who brought up collusion. I asked already and I will ask again : Have you evidence to show that collusion in N. Ireland was worse than that in the Republic ? Or even equal to ?

Pray tell, why would that be relevant to the point I was making?

And since I never made any such claim why would I?

Can you?

PHB · 22-12-2006 7:34pm

That's just plain wrong. The Normans were the ones with the Domesday book and put order and structure to everything.

The Domesday book was an incredible feat, but the administrative structure which already existed made the making of that census incredibly easy. The major reason for this previous infrastructure was for a very simple reason, the King's ransom.

When king's of olde had been captured, large large sums of money had to be raised by nationwide taxes, and these taxes led to the creation of the monetary system, which was the basis for the structure.

As for the Irish system having little structure, it's not entirely true.

In the eleventh and twelfth century Ireland had no administrative records, no estate lists, no stock inventories, no coinage, no Doomsday equivalent, all of which might help compare administrative development, but the lack of written records does not suggest that there was no administrative system. There is some evidence to support that a system similar to the shire system existed in Ireland as early as the 10th century. The term trícha cét occurs in Irish sources around that time, and is used in the Annals of Ulster in 1106 as a unit of assessment, when the clergy were levying ecclesiastical taxes on Munster. It has been suggested by O’Brien that this system may have served as a rent-roll for the purposes of taxation. Ruairdrí ua Conchobair in 1166 levied a tax of 4000 cows on the ‘men of Ireland’ in order to obtain the acknowledgment from the Hiberno-Scandinavians of Dublin of his high kingship. This was merely one example of high king’s attempting to increase secular taxation, and this development, may have mirrored the power of the kings of England and the Capetian kings in time.

sligobhoy67 · 22-12-2006 9:56pm

vesp wrote:

LOL. Is that the best you can do? Anyone can post whatever they want on "wikipedia"..... and they frequently do.

yes, they can post what they like, however, if it is untrue or inaccurate it wouldnt last long before it is altered, reverted or deleted!

800 years

Comments