Positive legacy of British rule?

Judgement Day · 05-12-2011 6:44pm

Our postal service is a positive legacy in itself as is the interesting variety of postboxes from before and after independence.

dubhthach · 05-12-2011 8:00pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Our postal service is a positive legacy in itself as is the interesting variety of postboxes from before and after independence.

Reminds me of the story doing the rounds in Galway about the British tourist. He had taken photos of a victorian postbox on junction of High Street/Shop Street. (penfold 1866 looks closest in design). Anyways when he got the photos developed in Boots in the UK he was given them for free. They explained, "we developed the film a number of times and each time the postbox kept out coming out green instead of red"

Of course it could be just an urban legend

purplepanda · 05-12-2011 9:42pm

The aspect of Irish history that I find fascinating is the detailed constitutional links before the Act of Union with Britain & later on Ireland's place in the UK.

Would the Houses of Commons & Lords in the Irish Parliament have gained more powers & eventual dominion type status if it wasn't abolished, could it have removed the religious laws that created a fractured society, would the the famine been dealt with better?

As for the later union in the UK, many would seem to regard Ireland's position as being more similar to Empire colonial rule, yet the country had more power & influence than any colony. Certainly it's MP's in Westminister had a strong presence. I've often wondered why Scotland & Wales are not regarded as colonies in the same way. Wales has been under direct rule from London since the mid 1500's & never had the legislative & legal powers that Ireland had before & after the Action of Union.

LordSutch · 05-12-2011 11:25pm

purplepanda wrote: »

I've often wondered why Scotland & Wales are not regarded as colonies in the same way. Wales has been under direct rule from London since the mid 1500's & never had the legislative & legal powers that Ireland had before & after the Action of Union.

No doubt what I am about to say will attract much hostility, but I am fed up with this colonial stuff, so this is my take on the issue.

The 1st time I heard Ireland & Colony in the same sentence must have been only twelve or thirteen years ago, right up until that point in my life I had only ever known the word colony in the context of a far flung land totally unconnected to the people who who subsequently Colonized them! Take North America for example, which is three thousand odd miles from Europe, a completly alien land on the other said of the Atlantic ocean, then take Australia, another aptly named 'colony' on the bottom end of the Globe, same goes for NZ, South Africa & all other colonies all over the Globe. What all these colonies have always had in common was their distance & totally alien ways to their colonial masters many thousands of miles away in Europe, this is how colonies were measured right up until very recently (1998-ish) when I started to hear the odd mention of Ireland & colony in the same sentence (makes mental note) 'eyebrows were raised by other too at the time' (the reason I will come to at the very end of this piece).

As a student in Dublin I never once heard of Ireland being a colony (Why)? because Ireland is part of a group of islands, a small group of islands very closely knit together since the beginning of time, Ireland & Britain, Hibernia & Britannia bound together on the same arphipellago, shared blood lines, shared genes, shared climate, shared everything including regional variations. Raiders have travelled many times over millennia within this little group of islands, Look a map of the British Isles and see just how integrated we are. (Britain is only twelve miles away at the nearest point), so the very notion of using the term 'Colony' or 'colonized' is a total anathema to me, unless of course you wish to use the term as a weapon, which takes me back to the Why? . . . Well my own personal theory is that by playing the 'ex-colony role' we can blame many of our ills on those nasty people who colonized us from that far flung land many many thousnads of miles away

it also gives us a certain imaginary distance between ourselves & the neighbouring islands that isnt there to the extent that we would like there to be.

I don't think of Ireland as being a colony at all, that's my personal view for all the reasons listed above. And this is why Scotland & Wales are not regarded as colonies either. If you open that door (deminishing the meaning of the word colony) then everybody can be a colony of somebody else! Britain can start bleeding on about how they were treated by their Norman colonial masters, Sicily could start to go all ex-colonial on Italy, every country that has a connection with a next door neighbour could start claimimg that they were colonized by the neighbours, which would lead to thousands of 'New Colonial claims' all over the place . . . . . .

Rant over, horlicks at the ready, off to beddie byes Z z z z

)

PS: Was listening to Graham Norton on BBC R4 recently and he was asked "so what's the difference between Irish people & British people" to which he replied, well you know if you are tuning in your radio to some station, take this station BBCR4, that's British, crystal clear with no static at all (laughter), and then if de-tune it ever so slightly so that a neighbouring station starts to creep in on the signal, talking about the same subjects, in the same language, at the same time, but with a different accent "That's a bit like being Irish", very close indeed to being British, but certainly not identical.

Enkidu · 06-12-2011 11:56am

I'm not so sure. There are invasions which come to be seen as colonial or non-colonial. For example in both Ireland and England the Norman invasions are not seen as colonial, mainly because the Normans met the natives half-way, or in fact nine-tenths of the way in Ireland and three-quarters of the way in England.

However the later British rule of Ireland was quite different, a sometimes forceful attempt to impose very different laws, cultures and traditions on a mostly unwilling population without any cultural exchange in the other direction. Even the medieval manuscripts make a sharp distinction between the behaviour of the "old foreigners", i.e. the Normans and the "new foreigners", i.e. post Plantagenet England/Britain.

Also although I agree the islands were always in close contact, this worked in a surprising way. Prior to the sixth century Ireland was very closely connected to Britain. However the introduction of Christianity seems to have severed this to some degree, with Ireland mostly being connected with the continent and Britain with Denmark, e.t.c. By the high Middle Ages Britain was far more connected to France than it was to Ireland. This is reflected in the contemporary attitudes of English intellectuals like Edmund Campion and the Irish intellectuals, the Bards, toward each other. Mutual respect and admiration, but fundamentally they viewed each other as alien.

I think counter-nationalist narratives (although I understand the impulse) run the risk of exaggerating these connections and downplaying how alien Gaelic Ireland actually was to the English populace.

slowburner · 06-12-2011 11:58am

LordSutch wrote: »

No doubt what I am about to say will attract much hostility, but I am fed up with this colonial stuff, so this is my take on the issue.

Maybe what you say will draw some hostility - if it does, it is unwarranted.
Cultural crucible, yes. British colony, no.

goose2005 · 06-12-2011 12:23pm

LordSutch wrote: »

No doubt what I am about to say will attract much hostility, but I am fed up with this colonial stuff, so this is my take on the issue.

The 1st time I heard Ireland & Colony in the same sentence must have been only twelve or thirteen years ago, right up until that point in my life I had only ever known the word colony in the context of a far flung land totally unconnected to the people who who subsequently Colonized them! Take North America for example, which is three thousand odd miles from Europe, a completly alien land on the other said of the Atlantic ocean, then take Australia, another aptly named 'colony' on the bottom end of the Globe, same goes for NZ, South Africa & all other colonies all over the Globe. What all these colonies have always had in common was their distance & totally alien ways to their colonial masters many thousands of miles away in Europe, this is how colonies were measured right up until very recently (1998-ish) when I started to hear the odd mention of Ireland & colony in the same sentence (makes mental note) 'eyebrows were raised by other too at the time' (the reason I will come to at the very end of this piece).

As a student in Dublin I never once heard of Ireland being a colony (Why)? because Ireland is part of a group of islands, a small group of islands very closely knit together since the beginning of time, Ireland & Britain, Hibernia & Britannia bound together on the same arphipellago, shared blood lines, shared genes, shared climate, shared everything including regional variations. Raiders have travelled many times over millennia within this little group of islands, Look a map of the British Isles and see just how integrated we are. (Britain is only twelve miles away at the nearest point), so the very notion of using the term 'Colony' or 'colonized' is a total anathema to me, unless of course you wish to use the term as a weapon, which takes me back to the Why? . . . Well my own personal theory is that by playing the 'ex-colony role' we can blame many of our ills on those nasty people who colonized us from that far flung land many many thousnads of miles away it also gives us a certain imaginary distance between ourselves & the neighbouring islands that isnt there to the extent that we would like there to be.

I don't think of Ireland as being a colony at all, that's my personal view for all the reasons listed above. And this is why Scotland & Wales are not regarded as colonies either. If you open that door (deminishing the meaning of the word colony) then everybody can be a colony of somebody else! Britain can start bleeding on about how they were treated by their Norman colonial masters, Sicily could start to go all ex-colonial on Italy, every country that has a connection with a next door neighbour could start claimimg that they were colonized by the neighbours, which would lead to thousands of 'New Colonial claims' all over the place . . . . . .

Rant over, horlicks at the ready, off to beddie byes Z z z z )

PS: Was listening to Graham Norton on BBC R4 recently and he was asked "so what's the difference between Irish people & British people" to which he replied, well you know if you are tuning in your radio to some station, take this station BBCR4, that's British, crystal clear with no static at all (laughter), and then if de-tune it ever so slightly so that a neighbouring station starts to creep in on the signal, talking about the same subjects, in the same language, at the same time, but with a different accent "That's a bit like being Irish", very close indeed to being British, but certainly not identical.

More importantly, Ireland had its own parliament, and the Dublin Castle administration was largely run by Irish people. From 1801 Ireland sent MPs to the Commons; this did not happen to actual colonies

Enkidu wrote: »

It's possible we would have faced massive social equality problems without the British invasion. Ireland had a very removed upper class, in some ways more so than Britain. So it's possible that the British invasion, by toppling that upper class, effectively made our transition to a democracy with equal rights for all easier.

However most of the positives that people mention in these discussions aren't really positives and often require imagining us being incapable of doing the things other small European countries managed to do without the intervention of the British Empire.

All other small European countries were part of a larger power at some point anyway, be it the Holy Roman Empire, Russian Empire, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, etc. San Marino and Switzerland are the only real exceptions.

Also, when talking about "the British" you're talking of very different people - medieval Cambro-Normans, Renaissance Tudors, Cromwell's Puritans, etc., people of very different times and opinions, all of whom have descendant living in modern Ireland.

I think counter-nationalist narratives (although I understand the impulse) run the risk of exaggerating these connections and downplaying how alien Gaelic Ireland actually was to the English populace.

Yes, but who were "the English populace"? Cornish peasants? London ladies? Itinerant merchants? Lollards? The royal family? Jews? All countries are diverse, and to many English rural dwellers Gaelic Ireland would be very similar.

slowburner · 06-12-2011 12:32pm

goose2005 wrote: »

.......and to many English rural dwellers Gaelic Ireland would be very similar.

Of course it would - wasn't Ireland under British rule for a while?

jonniebgood1 · 06-12-2011 3:53pm

LordSutch wrote: »

I don't think of Ireland as being a colony at all, that's my personal view for all the reasons listed above. And this is why Scotland & Wales are not regarded as colonies either. If you open that door (deminishing the meaning of the word colony) then everybody can be a colony of somebody else! Britain can start bleeding on about how they were treated by their Norman colonial masters, Sicily could start to go all ex-colonial on Italy, every country that has a connection with a next door neighbour could start claimimg that they were colonized by the neighbours, which would lead to thousands of 'New Colonial claims' all over the place . . . . . .

Your reasons though do not consider the definition of what a colony is. A case can be made quite easily that Ireland was a colony. For example the following:

col·o·ny/ˈkälənē/
Noun:

A country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from...
A group of people living in such a country or area, consisting of the original settlers and their descendants and successors. http://www.google.ie/#pq=colony&hl=en&cp=17&gs_id=1u&xhr=t&q=colony+definition&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=colony+definition&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=7fa77273176bc956&biw=1608&bih=850

It is an interesting question though; was Ireland a colony?
There certainly was'nt much consideration of Irelands needs in alot of government decisions. Colonies were usually exploited, i.e. there was a net gain to the ruling country and this was the case with Ireland up until early in the 20th century.

the_syco · 06-12-2011 4:32pm

IIRC, fields, field boundaries, etc, was something tha that the english educated us about. That is one lasting legacy that not many seem to realise.

purplepanda · 06-12-2011 5:40pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Your reasons though do not consider the definition of what a colony is. A case can be made quite easily that Ireland was a colony. For example the following:

It is an interesting question though; was Ireland a colony?
There certainly was'nt much consideration of Irelands needs in alot of government decisions. Colonies were usually exploited, i.e. there was a net gain to the ruling country and this was the case with Ireland up until early in the 20th century.

I doubt if there was much say for anyone without any influence amongst the ruling elite in either Britain or Ireland

Ordinary English people gained nothing from Ireland being a colony, nor indeed The British Empire. whilst the ruling classes profited the the majority of the English / British population were reduced to subsistence living during the industrial revolution.

From the post famine era I don't see much evidence that the British ruling classes were exploiting Ireland in the same way as in the previous 200 years.

The late victorian British governments spent substantial sums on Ireland, especially on enabling Irish tenant farmers to own land. Often encouraging people to farm small & unviable plots. A pattern which continued under future Irish governments.

Is there any evidence that Ireland was treated any different to other parts of the UK in terms of government spending on infrastructure, education, transport, ect: during the late victorian period? Was the tax received from Ireland more than the government actually spent on the country?

jonniebgood1 · 06-12-2011 5:58pm

purplepanda wrote: »

Is there any evidence that Ireland was treated any different to other parts of the UK in terms of government spending on infrastructure, education, transport, ect: during the late victorian period? Was the tax received from Ireland more than the government actually spent on the country?

I remember looking at this previously and Ireland was a net contributor rather than beneficiary of the British empire until soon after the pension was increased, i.e. approx 1909.

ejmaztec · 06-12-2011 6:22pm

I get the impression that those wishing for Ireland to be perceived as a victim of the British, use the term colony, as if implying that no native Irish person ever joined hand-in-hand with the British to get a piece of the "Empire" action.

I don't think that Ireland was any more a colony than Scotland was.

Tiocfaidh Armani · 06-12-2011 6:29pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I remember looking at this previously and Ireland was a net contributor rather than beneficiary of the British empire until soon after the pension was increased, i.e. approx 1909.

That's quite interesting.

I get the impression that those wishing for Ireland to be perceived as a victim of the British, use the term colony, as if implying that no native Irish person ever joined hand-in-hand with the British to get a piece of the "Empire" action.

I don't think that Ireland was any more a colony than Scotland was.

Well it wasn't so much a Union when you're not allowed vote your way out. What else were we other than a colony? What other term do you use?

ejmaztec · 06-12-2011 6:45pm

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

That's quite interesting.

Well it wasn't so much a Union when you're not allowed vote your way out. What else were we other than a colony? What other term do you use?

Scotland tried to get out of the union and failed. Voting wasn't on the agenda, so it was violent struggle.

Nitochris · 06-12-2011 6:48pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

I get the impression that those wishing for Ireland to be perceived as a victim of the British, use the term colony, as if implying that no native Irish person ever joined hand-in-hand with the British to get a piece of the "Empire" action.

I don't think that Ireland was any more a colony than Scotland was.

The general argument of many of those who call Ireland a colony would say that Ireland was a participant victim in the colonial project. There is evidence in anglo-irish writing at the time (see Swift and Burke, the writings of the patriot movement*) and the attitude of the mainland parliament towards the Anglo-Irish** that Ireland was considered a colony at the time.

Edit: *we could also add the United Irishmen here.
** in addition to the Gaelic Irish

ejmaztec · 06-12-2011 6:58pm

Nitochris wrote: »

The general argument of many of those who call Ireland a colony would say that Ireland was a participant victim in the colonial project. There is evidence in anglo-irish writing at the time (see Swift and Burke, the writings of the patriot movement*) and the attitude of the mainland parliament towards the Anglo-Irish** that Ireland was considered a colony at the time.

Edit: *we could also add the United Irishmen here.
** in addition to the Gaelic Irish

I can see colonising taking place with the Planters, but I'll have to give more thought to the rest of it the situation.

Tiocfaidh Armani · 06-12-2011 7:06pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

Scotland tried to get out of the union and failed. Voting wasn't on the agenda, so it was violent struggle.

Since the Act of Union, I'm not aware of any rebellion in Scotland to get out of the Union. If we weren't a colony, what were we? We were not allowed leave British rule, so when you're held against your will, what else are you?

Enkidu · 06-12-2011 7:45pm

goose2005 wrote: »

Also, when talking about "the British" you're talking of very different people - medieval Cambro-Normans, Renaissance Tudors, Cromwell's Puritans, etc., people of very different times and opinions, all of whom have descendant living in modern Ireland.

Yes, I know, however I don't think it really affects things. Of course the nation state was composed of different groups, however it still seems unrealistic to me to say that Ireland wouldn't have built roads, trains, e.t.c. as people often say, without the intervention of that nation state.

goose2005 wrote: »

Yes, but who were "the English populace"? Cornish peasants? London ladies? Itinerant merchants? Lollards? The royal family? Jews? All countries are diverse, and to many English rural dwellers Gaelic Ireland would be very similar.

I'm not so sure, the social structure was entirely different. Unless you're going for the common experiences of most medieval peasants, then I would agree with you. However I don't see Gaelic Ireland having some deeper cultural connection to England than it did to say Spain.

Enkidu · 06-12-2011 7:52pm

I think on the colonial side, Ireland went through periods of being a colony and not being a colony. I would say the late Tudor period Ireland was essentially being treated as a colony, but this quickly progressed into being handled like a conquered nation.

I guess the problem with this is defining exactly what a colony is or isn't.

Fratton Fred · 06-12-2011 8:24pm

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

That's quite interesting.

Well it wasn't so much a Union when you're not allowed vote your way out. What else were we other than a colony? What other term do you use?

If voting a way out were an option, would it have happened anyway?

For every Irish person rebelling, was there another one fighting the rebellion?

How long has the concept of a colony actually existed? Did the Normans consider England a colony? Or Brittany?

slowburner · 06-12-2011 8:29pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Your reasons though do not consider the definition of what a colony is. A case can be made quite easily that Ireland was a colony. For example the following:

It is an interesting question though; was Ireland a colony?
There certainly was'nt much consideration of Irelands needs in alot of government decisions. Colonies were usually exploited, i.e. there was a net gain to the ruling country and this was the case with Ireland up until early in the 20th century.

In the interests of balance, you have to ask if Britain considered Ireland to be a colony.
I think not.
Britain considered Ireland to be part of the kingdom of Britain. Why else would the harp be an integral part of the royal British coat of arms?

ejmaztec · 06-12-2011 8:51pm

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

Since the Act of Union, I'm not aware of any rebellion in Scotland to get out of the Union. If we weren't a colony, what were we? We were not allowed leave British rule, so when you're held against your will, what else are you?

Had the highlanders supporting Bonnie Prince Charlie in the Jacobite rebellion gotten their way, and had the rebellion been successful, Scotland would have broken away from the Union, and had its own king. The only problem was that Charles wanted the English throne as well.

Enkidu · 06-12-2011 9:12pm

slowburner wrote: »

In the interests of balance, you have to ask if Britain considered Ireland to be a colony.
I think not.
Britain considered Ireland to be part of the kingdom of Britain. Why else would the harp be an integral part of the royal British coat of arms?

That's a good point. Also many of the Gaelic aristocracy considered the English King to be the rightful ruler of Ireland. I think it's very hard to know since you have to balance the view on both sides. Would perhaps whatever Britain was to Rome be a better example than a colony.

jonniebgood1 · 06-12-2011 9:14pm

slowburner wrote: »

In the interests of balance, you have to ask if Britain considered Ireland to be a colony.
I think not.
Britain considered Ireland to be part of the kingdom of Britain. Why else would the harp be an integral part of the royal British coat of arms?

Different perspectives. Here is a BBC view on the colony question:

The first proper colonisation took place not in the West or East Indies, nor in America, but in Ireland. Ireland was the first English colony. In 1155, Pope Adrian IV published a Papal Bull Laudabiliter giving Henry II authority over Ireland. The document's value was that it authorized invasion.

In the late 1160s, the king of Leinster, Dermot MacMurrough [Diarmaid Mac Murchadha Uí] asked for Henry's protection. Henry allowed Dermot to recruit Norman knights led by the Earl of Pembroke, Richard de Clare. The first batch of Normans landed in 1169. De Clare arrived the following year and captured Waterford and later Dublin and married Dermot's daughter.

In 1171, Henry II, who had been distracted by among other matters, the murder of Thomas Becket and the disloyalty of his own sons, suspected the Normans were getting too much power in Ireland. Dermot died leaving the earldom to de Clare. This made Henry II even more alarmed. So he went to Ireland to demand the allegiance of the Irish and the Norman knights.

Henry was again distracted in 1174 when he had to fight off a rebellion by his own children. In 1175, he was forced to recognize Rory O'Connor as high king of Ireland. Two years later the conquest of Ulster was started and John de Courcy founded Belfast and work began on Belfast castle. The same year, 1177 John Lackland, Henry II's youngest son was given the title lord of Ireland. The burdensome history of the British and their first colony was under way. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/empire/episodes/episode_02.shtml

What were they attempting to do with the plantations of Ireland. I would say it was part of colonisation in the same way as in New England.
The coat of arms does represent Ireland and it is interesting that the kingdom of Ireland was represented in this way from 1603. Could this inclusion not have been part of the process of colonising/ controlling Ireland rather than showing unity

dubhthach · 06-12-2011 9:21pm

slowburner wrote: »

Britain considered Ireland to be part of the kingdom of Britain. Why else would the harp be an integral part of the royal British coat of arms?

Eh no, it doesn't reflect this at all. Instead it reflects the personal titles of the Monarch. For example the coat of Arms up until 1801 included both the arms of "Kingdom of France" as well as Hannover.

This refered to fact that George III titled himself as:

King of Great Britain (Scotland/England halved)
King of Ireland
King of France
Prince-Elector of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick

After 1801 he dropped the title "King of France" as well as the arms (which had been claimed since time of Edward III -- 100 year war) and instead was titled:

King of Great Britain and Ireland
King of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick

In this case Hanover was in personal union just as Ireland had been in the 18th century. Of course Victoria was barred from inheriting the Kingdom of Hanover due to Salic law (inheritance had to be male line), so it went to her Uncle.

Interesting enough it would seem George III was offered the title of "Emperor of the British Isles" after Act of Union in 1801, which he declined. At no time did Ireland belong to Kingdom of Britain, which ceased to exist in 1801 (along with Kingdom of Ireland)

LordSutch · 06-12-2011 10:21pm

Well the main thrust of my Ireland was not a 'Colony' post was based on our proximity to Britain + the geographical fact that we are part of the same group of islands. I still say that the use of the word Colony in relation to Irelands association with Britain & the rest of these islsnds is spurious. In my estimation Distance & total Alien culture plays a major part in the foundation & classification of what a colony is, Ireland & Britain have always been far too close physically & far too well connected as part of the same group of islands.

If distance (twelve miles) between our two islands plays no part in the meaning of the word colony, "then we may indeed be an ex-colony"??? but then that leaves the door open to every neighbouring country to plead ex colonial status. Every island that lays beside another island can start claiming ex colonial status, Scotland could also start to claim that they are an ex English colony for example!!!

I'll leave it there.

dubhthach · 06-12-2011 10:42pm

LordSutch wrote: »

Well the main thrust of my Ireland was not a 'Colony' post was based on our proximity to Britain + the geographical fact that we are part of the same group of islands. I still say that the use of the word Colony in relation to Irelands association with Britain & the rest of these islsnds is spurious. In my estimation Distance & total Alien culture plays a major part in the foundation & classification of what a colony is, Ireland & Britain have always been far too close physically & far too well connected as part of the same group of islands.

If distance (twelve miles) between our two islands plays no part in the meaning of the word colony, "then we may indeed be an ex-colony"??? but then that leaves the door open to every neighbouring country to plead ex colonial status. Every island that lays beside another island can start claiming ex colonial status, Scotland could also start to claim that they are an ex English colony for example!!!

I'll leave it there.

Well it's fairly arguble that up until 1800 Ireland was fairly alien in culture to Britain. For example in the 1760's ¾ of the population were Irish speakers, it's only around 1800 that this number falls to ½ the population. Of course the bulk of the "alienism" would have been in the period before 1600. After all one could rightly say that the plantations (Laois/Offally, Munster and Ulster) were a process of "planting a colony" among an alien race. The english writers of the 16th/17th century talk in many ways to how "alien" the Irish were. This can be seen in stories that Irish were somehow non-human especially remarks about connections to wolves.

Even so, the colonists had a habit of conflating the two native species. Just before Kinsale, for example, in the wake of England’s disaster at Yellow Ford, the Duke of Ormond had complained (as paraphrased by Hickey) that it was madness to expect poorly trained conscripts to defeat people “as tireless and savage as the wolves still lurking in the forests of Ireland”.

It was sometimes suggested, indeed, that the Irish and the wolf were related. The poet Edmund Spenser mentions a belief that, like the Scythians of ancient Iran, the Irish turned into wolves once a year. And half a century later, a captain in Gen Ireton’s regiment went further, reporting the actual possession of tails by a number of the Irish garrison slaughtered at Clonmel in 1647.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0930/1224304999000.html

Spenser also wrote that the Irish were descended from "barbarian Scythian stock"

IRENIUS Then sithence you will have it soe I will heare take occation, since I lately spake of their manner of Cryes in joyninge of Battaile, to speake somewhat also of the manner of their Armes, and Array in battayle, with other Customes perhappes woorth the notinge. And first of their Armes and Weapons, amongst which their broad swordes are proper Scythian, for such the Scythes used commonly, as you may reed in Olaus Magnus. And the same also the old Scottes used, as yee may reed in Buchanan, and in [Solinus], where the pictures of them are in the same forme expressed. Also theire short bowes, and lytle quivers with shorte Bearded arrowes, are very Scythian, as ye may reede in the sameOlaus. And the same soart, bothe of bowes, quivers, and arrowes, are at this day to be seene commonly among the Irishe, whose Scottishe bowes are not past 3 quarters of a yard longe, with a stringe of wrethed hempe slackly bente, and whose arrowes are not above half an elline longe, tipped with steele heades, made lyke common broad arrowes heades, but many more sharpe and slender, that they enter into an armed man or horse most cruelly, notwithstanding that they are shott forth weakly. Moreover, their longe broad sheeldes, made but with wicker roddes, which are comonly used amongst the said Northeren Irishe, but specially of the Scottes, and brought from the Scythians, as ye may reede in Olaus Magnus, Solinus, and others; likewyes their goinge to battaile without armor on their bodies or heads, but trusting onelie to the thickness of their glybbes, the which they say will somytimes beare of a good stroke, is meare salvage and Scythian, as you may see in the said Images of the old Scythes or Scottes, set forth by Hodianus and others. Besides, ther confused kinde of march in heapes, without any order or aray, ther clashing of swordes together, their fierce runninge upon ther enemyes, and their manner of fight, resembleth altogether that which is redd in all histories to have bene used of the Scythians. By which it may almost infallably be gathered, together with other sircumstances, that the Irishe are very Scottes or Scythes oridgionall, though since intermingled with many other nacons reparinge and joyning unto them. And to these, I may also add an other very stronge conjecture, which commeth to my mynde, that I have often observed there amongst them; that is, certaine relidgious Ceremonies, which are very superstitious, yet used amongst them, the which are also wrytten by sundry Authores, to have bene observed among the Scythians, by which it may very vehemently be presumed that the nations were aunciently all one. For Plutarch, as I remember, in his Treatise of Homere, indeavoringe to search out the truth, what countryman Homere was, proveth it most strongly, as he thinketh, that he was an Italian borne, for that in distributing of a sacrifice of the Greekes, he omitted the called [loyne,] the which all the other Grecians, save the Italians, do use to burne in their sacrifice: also for that he maketh the entralles to be rosted on fyve spites, the which was the proper maner of the Ætolians, who only, of all the nations and Cuntryes of Gretia, used to sacrifice in that sort, whereas all the rest of the Greekes used to rost them upon three spites, by which he inferreth, necessarily, that Homere was an Ætolian. And by the same reason may I as reaonably conclude, that the Irish ar descended from the Scythians, for that they use even to this day, some of the same Ceremonyes which the Scythians aunciently used. As for example, yee may reade in [Lucian] in that sweet dialogue which is intituled Toxaris or of friendshipp, that the comon oath of the Scythians, was by the sword, and by the fyer, for that they accounted these two specyall devyne powers, which should worke vengance on perjurors. So doe the Irish at this day, when they goe to any battayle, say certayne prayers or charmes to ther swordes, making a crosse therewith upon the earth, and thrusting the poyntes of ther blades into the grownd; thinking therby to have the better successe in fight. Alsoe they use to swere comonly by their swordes. Likewise at the kindling of Candles, they say certayne prayers; and use some other superstitius rightes, which showe that they honor the fyer and the light; for all those Northerne nations, having bene used to be anoyed with much could and darknesse, are wont therfore to have the fyer and the sonne in great veneracon: like as otherwise the Moores and Egiptians, which are much offended and greved with much extreame heate of the sunne, doe everie morning, when the sunne rises, fall to cursing and banning of him as ther plague and chiefe scourge. [Also the Scythians used when] they would bind any solemne vow or combynacon, to drawe a bowle of blood, together vowing therby to spend their last blood in that quarrel, as you may read in Buckhanan; and some of the Northerne Irishe, lykewise: as you may also reade in the same booke, in the tale of Arsacomas, that it was the manner of the Scythians when any on[e] of them was heavily wronged, and would assemble unto him any forces of people, to joyne with him in his revenge, to sit in some publick place for certayne dayes upon an oxe hide, to which there would resorte all such persons as being disposed to take armes would enter into his armes, would take pay or ioyne with him in his quarrell. And the same you may lykewise reade to have bene the auncyent manner of the wilde Scottes, which are indeed the very naturall Irish. Moreover, the Scythians used to sweare by ther kinges hand, as Olaus showeth. And soe doe the Irish use to swere by their Lordes hand, and, to forsweare it, hould it more cryminall then to sweare by god. Also the Scythians sayd, that they were once every yere turned into wolves, and soe it is wrighten of the Irish; thoughe Master Camden in a better sence doe suppose it was a disseaze, called Licanthropia, soe named of the wolfe. And yet some of the Irish doe use to make the wolf ther gossopp. The Scythians also used to seeth the flesh in the hyde, and so do the North Irishe yet. The Scythians likewise used to boyle the bloode of the beast lyvinge, and to make meate thereof: and soe doe the Irishe still in the North. Manye such customes I could recounte unto you, as of there ould manner of marrying, of burying, of dauncing, of singing, of feastinge, of cursing, though Christians have wyped out the most parte of them, by resemblance whereof yt might playnely appere to you that the nacons ar the same, but that by the reckoning of these fewe, which I have tould unto you, I finde my speech drawen out to a greater lenth than I supposed. Thus much only for this time, I hope, shall suffice you, to thinke that the Irishe are aunciently deduced from the Scythians.

http://publish.ucc.ie/celt/docs/E500000-001

When we cast aside the propaganda what we see is that Ireland was very different from rest of medieval/renainsance Europe. Irish cultural/societal norms were about as distant from English ones as they were from Spanish (Spanish/english been closer to each other)

LordSutch · 06-12-2011 11:05pm

dubhthach wrote: »

When we cast aside the propaganda what we see is that Ireland was very different from rest of medieval/renainsance Europe. Irish cultural/societal norms were about as distant from English ones as they were from Spanish (Spanish/english been closer to each other)

Which takes us back to proximity, can a neighbouring island within the same group of islands claim colonial status with the colonial masters being the island next door? (in our case Britain), which I have already pointed as being only twelve miles away from us! Does distance/ proximity play a part in the meaning of the word colony? (I say it does), therefore Ireland was not a colony in the true sense of the word 'colony'. I think the word is being misused in realtion to our relationship with the island next door (which is not even 300 miles away, never mind 3000 miles away).

dubhthach · 06-12-2011 11:18pm

LordSutch wrote: »

Which takes us back to proximity, can a neighbouring island within the same group of islands claim colonial status with the colonial masters being on another one of those islands? in our case Britain, which I have already pointed as being only twelve miles away from us! Does distance/ proximity play a part in the meaning of the word colony? (I say it does), therefore Ireland was not a colony in the true sense of the word 'colony'. I think the word is being misused in realtion to our relationship with the island next door (which is not even 300 miles away, never mind 3000 miles away).

Well here's how wikitionary defines Colony:

A settlement of emigrants who move to a new place, but remain culturally tied to their original place
Region or governmental unit created by another country and generally ruled by another country. -- Bermuda is a crown colony of Great Britain.
A group of people with the same interests or ethnic origin concentrated in a particular geographic area --The Amana Colonies in Iowa were settled by people from Germany

All of those three have some bearing in Irish-British relations since at least the mid 16th century. Eg. Plantations, "Parliment of Kingdom of Ireland", Anglo-Irish/Ulster-Scots

There is a distance of 12 miles from Antrim to the Mull of Kintyre, however France is only 21miles from England on the same argument. One could argue that until the 17th century that France and England were culturally closer to each other then either were to Ireland.

I don't think geographic proximity or the lack of it has any bearing, after all would we thus claim there were no German colonisation into the Baltic during the Northern Crusades as these areas are geographically proximate to Northern Germany? Of course not. Prussia is prime example where the native population were eventually either annihilated or completely assimilated linguistically. Likewise German settlements in modern Latvia and Estonia during this period. Or the Swedish settlement in Finland which bears a huge similiarity to what happened here.

Positive legacy of British rule?

Comments