Involvement in British imperialism - the epitome of Irish hypocrasy

Shutuplaura

Hello everyone!

The British army during the 19th century was a major employer of irish men. From the Napoleonic wars until the mid century irish catholics made up the majority of the British army - a high of 70% in 1815. Enlistment was high even during years of relative economic prosperity and even prior to the act of union. Irish catholics were also pretty supportive of the British army during its only major lost war - the American revolution. Only in the second decade of the twentieth century did the numer of irish catholics in the army come into line with our relative % population of the UK. Some of the most famous soldiers in the British army were irish - including Henry Wilson, The Gough family from Tipperary (only family to win VC's in three succesive generations)Lord French from Roscommon, Kitchener (who was also I believe a catholic) that dude Dyer who caused the Amritser massacre who was originally from Tipperary too as a matter of fact and 'Bobs' Robert- 'our only general'. There is also memorials to these men all over the country, ranging from fusileer arch in Dublin, The war memorial in Cahir for the Crimean a and First world wars Galway in St Nicholas' and even one to the Boer war in Clonmel (in the Barracks)

Meanwhile the Imperial civil service was a favourite employment option for less military minded middle class irish catholics. The Queens colleges which of course are still with us as the National University of ireland offered courses in indian languages especially Sanskrit to aid these empire builders and administrators. If you don't believe me check out the catalogue of UCG for one - Lots of 19th century books on India in their archives.

So given the pretty significant irish involvement in The British Empire at all levels, ranging from soldiers and administrators to local trades people servicing barracks, is the attempt by people to blame the British for everything wrong in the world, and paint the irish as poor downtroden innocent victims a classic example of irish hypocrasy?

podgerodge

Shutuplaura wrote:

So given the pretty significant irish involvement in The British Empire at all levels, ranging from soldiers and administrators to local trades people servicing barracks, is the attempt by people to blame the British for everything wrong in the world, and paint the irish as poor downtroden innocent victims a classic example of irish hypocrasy?

Not all people blame the British for everything wrong in the world. Do not forget the track record of other european countries in this regard. In these islands we had a world leading infrastructure for some time eg harbours, railways, canals , fine old buildings ( nicer than most of what has been built since independence etc )

Tchocky

Gah, its "hypocrisy"

It's hardly as if the country as a whole decided to join the British Army, or indeed fight against it 100 years later.

Snickers Man

Phew, where to start.

I agree with your general point that there has been a long and inglorious history of Irish service in the British Army.

I'm curious about some of the facts you state to support it though. I would love to see corroborative evidence for your statement that 70% of the British Army in 1815 (battle of Waterloo year) were Irish catholics. Reference?

Also, Kitchener was not a catholic, his mother was a clergyman's daughter and although he was born in Kerry his family were only recent migrants there. In fact they migrated away to Switzerland shortly after that.

As for Col Dyer of Amritsar infamy. I have heard it said before that he was Anglo Irish but I can't find any reputable corroboration of that. He wasn't born in Ireland although I believe he may have been schooled here. Again, references please.

Regarding Amritsar, the man many Indian historians now believe to be the real villain, the Lieutenant Governor who they now believe instigated and pre-planned the massacre, as well as giving his total approval for Dyer's actions afterwards, was certainly catholic Irish. His name was Michael Francis O'Dwyer from Tipperary and he was educated at a school which later merged with Clongowes.

Why do you say Roberts was "our only general"? There were loads of other generals of Irish birth or origin, albeit usually protestant Anglo-Irish as opposed to catholic. Examples include Cunnningham, Alexander, Montgomery and Alanbrooke. And that's just WWII.

However, it must be realised that there is nothing particularly unusual about recruiting soldiers from one part of an empire to fight against other subjugated parties in that empire. This is a classic tactic used again and again throughout history when an aggressive power wants to subjugate or keep another people in line.

Divide and conquer.

How did a small country like Britain rule a huge country like India: get the Indians to do it. Most of the Army in india were Indians themselves. Usually recruited from specific parts of the population like the Gurkhas or the Sikhs. And of course a significant portion of the Army in India were recruited from Ireland. Indeed when the Bombay Fusiliers and the Madras Fusiliers were merged in 1881, what do you think the newly formed regiment was called? The Royal Dublin Fusiliers.

I think anybody who tries to blame Britain for "all the evils of the world" is perhaps overstating the case just a little. I would regard that as a hypocritical assertion in its own right.

I would certainly not regard it as hypocritical for an Irish person to criticise British imperialism just because their armies in the past were swollen with Irishmen. On the contrary, I would regard that historical fact as evidence of our subjugation not as evidence of our empathy with colonialism.

SpitfireIV

Shutuplaura wrote:

So given the pretty significant irish involvement in The British Empire at all levels, ranging from soldiers and administrators to local trades people servicing barracks, is the attempt by people to blame the British for everything wrong in the world, and paint the irish as poor downtroden innocent victims a classic example of irish hypocrasy?

Well I guess at this period Ireland was obviously under British rule. Now many people may have liked and enjoyed this rule as it was all they knew. To those lucky enough to afford it it offered a good eduacation, good prospects and a chance to go places (couldnt really do that in an Irish context or republic.....yes thats right, because there wasnt one at the time, 'Ireland' as a country couldnt offer you anything). As for those joining the army, again, those privilaged enough they had an opportunity to rise up the ranks in an army, which was, at the time the only army they knew, the army of there country.

As already discussed in a previous thread there are many and varied reason why the average Joe joined the British army, because they wanted to join an army, for the money, for the experience, to see the world, serve the empire....

All very easy for us to see back now with hindsight and judge them for it!!

Erin Go Brath

Shutuplaura wrote:

So given the pretty significant irish involvement in The British Empire at all levels, ranging from soldiers and administrators to local trades people servicing barracks, is the attempt by people to blame the British for everything wrong in the world, and paint the irish as poor downtroden innocent victims a classic example of irish hypocrasy?

NO, definitely not! Snickers Man hit the nail on the head in his post above. We have been subjugated by the British Empire for many years. Sure, nobody made people join, but again what opportunities were there for them? They are still on the lookout for Irish cannon fodder too by the looks of things:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80408

Zambia

Erin Go Brath wrote:

NO, definitely not! Snickers Man hit the nail on the head in his post above. We have been subjugated by the British Empire for many years. Sure, nobody made people join, but again what opportunities were there for them? They are still on the lookout for Irish cannon fodder too by the looks of things:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80408

Oh ffs that link is the most riduculous bit of trash yet. In essence it is implying the goverment is selecting west belfast for special attention in its recruitment drive for the british army.

The fact is all areas of the UK recieve the same amount of attention in recruitment for the military. These magazines are read by the whole Uk and a lot of Ireland as well. The young men and women of west belfast are able to join either the Irish or British army and there is no gun to their head to join either.

Erin Go Brath

Zambia232 wrote:

Oh ffs that link is the most riduculous bit of trash yet. In essence it is implying the goverment is selecting west belfast for special attention in its recruitment drive for the british army.

The fact is all areas of the UK recieve the same amount of attention in recruitment for the military. These magazines are read by the whole Uk and a lot of Ireland as well. The young men and women of west belfast are able to join either the Irish or British army and there is no gun to their head to join either.

Maybe the Irish Army should send out brochures and flyers around the Shankill Road then.

Zambia

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Maybe the Irish Army should send out brochures and flyers around the Shankill Road then.

Maybe they should the Gardai had a stand at last years employment fair.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote:

However, it must be realised that there is nothing particularly unusual about recruiting soldiers from one part of an empire to fight against other subjugated parties in that empire. This is a classic tactic used again and again throughout history when an aggressive power wants to subjugate or keep another people in line.

you forget one major point, Ireland was not part of the Empire, Ireland was very much part of Brtain.

I don't think it is hypocrisy on the pat of the irish, more like "Selective Memory".

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote:

you forget one major point, Ireland was not part of the Empire, Ireland was very much part of Brtain.

Sure it was. An integral part of Britain in which 80 per cent of the population was disenfranchised before 1829, and whose economy was so poorly mismanaged by its government in Westminster that despite being a perfectly fertile agriculture-friendly environment, a million people starved to death in the 1840s.

Do remember that next time somebody tut tuts about Mr Mugabe and how his hopeless economic policies are causing food shortages in a country once dubbed the "bread basket" of Africa. Say "Hey, he may be a complete twunt but he would have made a great 19th century Prime Minister of Great Britain (and Ireland)."

ejmaztec

Erin Go Brath wrote:

NO, definitely not! Snickers Man hit the nail on the head in his post above. We have been subjugated by the British Empire for many years. Sure, nobody made people join, but again what opportunities were there for them? They are still on the lookout for Irish cannon fodder too by the looks of things:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80408

Cannon-fodder comes in many forms. It was the British establishment that conned, conscripted and coerced the able-bodied expendable masses of England, Scotland Wales and Ireland into doing their dirty work for them. These people got absolutely nothing out of it when the fighting was over. They were simply sent back to the poverty from which they came, if they were still alive.
One of my Grandfathers survived WW1 (one of his brothers didn't), only to spend the rest of his days fighting the effects of mustard gas. His parents had moved to Scotland from Ireland for a better life for themselves and their children - ho bloody ho!
My other Grandfather was too old for conscription, so busied himself in Kerry, trying not to starve to death.
The British establishment is still conning the people into doing their dirty-work. Surprisingly enough, Irish citizens are still joining the British armed forces, this time through choice. I know at least one Kerryman who fought in the Falklands, only he knows why!
So, if you say the British establishment, not the "Empire", subjugated the English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh, then I'll agree with you. Ireland has not got the monopoly on suffering.

Fratton Fred

ejmaztec wrote:

Cannon-fodder comes in many forms. It was the British establishment that conned, conscripted and coerced the able-bodied expendable masses of England, Scotland Wales and Ireland into doing their dirty work for them. These people got absolutely nothing out of it when the fighting was over. They were simply sent back to the poverty from which they came, if they were still alive.
One of my Grandfathers survived WW1 (one of his brothers didn't), only to spend the rest of his days fighting the effects of mustard gas. His parents had moved to Scotland from Ireland for a better life for themselves and their children - ho bloody ho!
My other Grandfather was too old for conscription, so busied himself in Kerry, trying not to starve to death.
The British establishment is still conning the people into doing their dirty-work. Surprisingly enough, Irish citizens are still joining the British armed forces, this time through choice. I know at least one Kerryman who fought in the Falklands, only he knows why!
So, if you say the British establishment, not the "Empire", subjugated the English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh, then I'll agree with you. Ireland has not got the monopoly on suffering.

good shout, but remember, all of these people do it of their own free will.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote:

Sure it was. An integral part of Britain in which 80 per cent of the population was disenfranchised before 1829, and whose economy was so poorly mismanaged by its government in Westminster that despite being a perfectly fertile agriculture-friendly environment, a million people starved to death in the 1840s.

Do remember that next time somebody tut tuts about Mr Mugabe and how his hopeless economic policies are causing food shortages in a country once dubbed the "bread basket" of Africa. Say "Hey, he may be a complete twunt but he would have made a great 19th century Prime Minister of Great Britain (and Ireland)."

thank you for proving my selective memory point.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote:

thank you for proving my selective memory point.

OFFS. You can't expect a unified answer supported by a holistic analysis of the entire history of interaction between our two countries every time you make a point.

You make your points, I'll answer 'em.

It's only a discussion board.

Erin Go Brath

ejmaztec wrote:

The British establishment is still conning the people into doing their dirty-work. Surprisingly enough, Irish citizens are still joining the British armed forces, this time through choice. I know at least one Kerryman who fought in the Falklands, only he knows why!
So, if you say the British establishment, not the "Empire", subjugated the English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh, then I'll agree with you. Ireland has not got the monopoly on suffering.

The British establishment is still conning the people today, you are quite right, along with their buddies in USA. Watched a docu recently about how the US Army recruited their foot soldiers to go to Iraq. They basically went to the poorest areas, and targetted mainly black people filling them up with BS about how they would be great heroes, and see the world and how wonderful the Army is etc etc. Oh how they've learned a lot from their partners in crime, Britain!

As for that Kerryman who fought in the falklands all I can say is, they're a quare breed down there. After all they voted in Jackie Healy Rae again, what more can be said.

Mick86

Shutuplaura wrote:

...The Gough family from Tipperary (only family to win VC's in three succesive generations)

It was actually two generations. Hugh and Charles Gough were brothers. John Gough was Charles' son. Hugh Gough VC is frequently confused with his uncle Hugh.

Shutuplaura wrote:

... and even one to the Boer war in Clonmel (in the Barracks)

There are two monuments in Clonmel relating to the Royal Irish Regt. The Boer War monument you mentioned and the Afghan and Egypt Cross.

Shutuplaura wrote:

... So given the pretty significant irish involvement in The British Empire at all levels, ranging from soldiers and administrators to local trades people servicing barracks, is the attempt by people to blame the British for everything wrong in the world, and paint the irish as poor downtroden innocent victims a classic example of irish hypocrasy?

Perhaps hypocrisy is too strong a word. Our history teachers somehow overlooked this aspect of Irish history so many people are ignorant of these facts. Most people don't care because it is irrelevant. Some are embarrassed because they want to maintain the myth that all of Ireland was in constant rebellion against English rule throughout history. It's an uncomfortable fact that the army and police force that put down the rebellions were staffed by large numbers of Irishmen. It is also an embarrassment that the Irish were colonisers rather than colonised, aggressors rather than pacifists. The fact that the colonisation, imperialism and aggression were conducted in the guise of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is a convenient cloak to hide under. It's just a part of history really and has no relevance to our lives other than being an interesting subject for those with interest in history.

Snickers Man

Mick86 wrote:

It's an uncomfortable fact that the army and police force that put down the rebellions were staffed by large numbers of Irishmen. It is also an embarrassment that the Irish were colonisers rather than colonised, aggressors rather than pacifists. ...It's just a part of history really and has no relevance to our lives other than being an interesting subject for those with interest in history.

Well that is to relegate history to the importance of a pub-talk bollox, rather than a means of learning from the past to deal with the present and hopefully build a better future.

There are lessons to be learned about the fact that many Irishmen of all persuasions joined the Imperial armies and/or the police forces at home.

There are lessons to be learned from the fact that many of these same men became enthusiastic fighters in the struggle for independence.

There are lessons to be learned from the fact that similar phenomena are experienced in other cases where Imperial powers exert colonial influence over other countries--the French made copious use of African soldiers for example, many of whom turned their guns on their former masters in independence struggles after the war.

Although some Irish soldiers still serve in the British Army, it is a relative trickle compared with pre-independence days. Why do you think that is?

We should never be afraid to look the facts of history in the face and learn from them.

(and that goes for the Brits too )

Snickers Man

Oh and BTW, remarks were made about the fact that the instigator of the thread about British military history couldn't spell "epitome".

A shame that the OP of this thread couldn't spell "hypocrisy"

DublinWriter

Fratton Fred wrote:

you forget one major point, Ireland was not part of the Empire, Ireland was very much part of Brtain.

I don't think it is hypocrisy on the pat of the irish, more like "Selective Memory".

Correct and Correct. The 1801 Act of Union renamed Ireland "West Britian" (probably where the phrase West Brit comes from).

The amount of people who jump on the revisionist history bandwagon is sickening. People tend to forget that the 1916 Rising was initially very unpopular with Dubliners spitting on the leaders as they were marched to Kilmainham after surrendering.

SpitfireIV

DublinWriter wrote:

People tend to forget that the 1916 Rising was initially very unpopular with Dubliners spitting on the leaders as they were marched to Kilmainham after surrendering.

I also heard once that if it had not been for the British soldiers guarding the column of prisoners as they made there way to the Rotunda and then later Kilmainham that the onlookers who lined the route would have killed the 'rebels', tensions were that high!

Mick86

Snickers Man wrote:

Well that is to relegate history to the importance of a pub-talk bollox, rather than a means of learning from the past to deal with the present and hopefully build a better future......

All history is inevitably twisted for propaganda purposes. Lessons are never learned from it else we would never fight another war for instance.

Snickers Man

DublinWriter wrote:

The amount of people who jump on the revisionist history bandwagon is sickening. People tend to forget that the 1916 Rising was initially very unpopular with Dubliners spitting on the leaders as they were marched to Kilmainham after surrendering.

The term "revisionist historian" is a tautology. By its very nature, the study of history means you are "looking again" --the very etymology of the word revision--at the facts and examining all the implications of a particular passage.

Just because people may interpret those facts differently does not make the term "revisionist" a pejorative one.

And your example is, quite frankly, bull****.

Is there a SINGLE person here who is NOT aware that the 1916 insurgents were jeered by many local Dubliners as they were taken away? I was even taught about that at national school, at a time when the proclamation of independence and the pictures of the seven executed signatories were on the wall of every classroom.

Zambia

Snickers Man wrote:

I was even taught about that at national school, at a time when the proclamation of independence and the pictures of the seven executed signatories were on the wall of every classroom.

Yes I can see your point.

However history is written by the victors. Unitill independance we where part of Britain. Granted the goverment of the time could have done better but they where the goverment of the time.

Sure hasnt Britain itself been under foriegn rule for ages in history , so much so they never actually won freedom they just merged back into Britian again.

Erin Go Brath

Zambia232 wrote:

Yes I can see your point.

However history is written by the victors. Unitill independance we where part of Britain. Granted the goverment of the time could have done better but they where the goverment of the time.

If history is written by the victors, and I agree with you, it certainly would go a long way to explaining how the British Government have gotten off the hook time and again for the cruel way they subjugated many peoples of the world to acquire their vast empire. I'm assuming the 1916 rebels, who are certainly heroes in any Irish History school book, are presumably painted villians in the English curriculum, that is if they haven't been airbrushed out of history altogether out of convenience.

It is sad that the rebels were jeered and spat upon by fellow countrymen, and then posthumously became heroes of people, including I assume to some of the same people that jeered them in the first place. Were some people just too afraid of independence because we had effectively always been under British rule, that we would be incapable of running our own country if we did achieve independence? People who had done well under Crown rule, wanted to protect their interests also i suspect.

The Nationalist Movement had always been strong in Ireland, despite the presence of many West Brits some of whom are still alive and well and logged into boards.ie today After the 1916 massacre the Nationalist movements popularity skyrocketed and Ireland was simply going to be ungovernable for Crown forces from then on.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

If history is written by the victors, and I agree with you, it certainly would go a long way to explaining how the British Government have gotten off the hook time and again for the cruel way they subjugated many peoples of the world to acquire their vast empire. I'm assuming the 1916 rebels, who are certainly heroes in any Irish History school book, are presumably painted villians in the English curriculum, that is if they haven't been airbrushed out of history altogether out of convenience.

Irish history is not covered in the English curriculum, in any shape or form. WWI takes up the entire curriculum for that period.

English History mainly covers thing like the various monarchs, the Civil war, voyages of discovery, the new world etc. here is a lot on the Normans, who were probably as influential in English history as the "English" are in Irish, there is also bits about Romans, Saxons, Vikings.

1916 is not covered in the English curriculum, in the same way I suspect 1066 is not covered in the French one. What is a major event in one country's history, is not in another's.

oops, nearly forgot the Russian Revolution, that is covered in fairly good detail, at least it was when I was at School, because at the time the cold war was on and the USSR and it's creation was considered very important.

Zambia

Erin Go Brath wrote:

The Nationalist Movement had always been strong in Ireland, despite the presence of many West Brits some of whom are still alive and well and logged into boards.ie today After the 1916 massacre the Nationalist movements popularity skyrocketed and Ireland was simply going to be ungovernable for Crown forces from then on.

West Brits ? ? Seriously catch yourself on there finding names for people is really not on. If boards was full of pro-nationalistic Irishmen how bored would you be...

Yes the 1916 rising was handled badly by the Goverment of the time. However til the late 80's if a group of Irsih men stormed the goverment building they could be found guilty of treason by the Irish state and hanged.

In the eyes of the Crown what those men did was treason, they really knew what would happen and banked on it. In essence you could almost have called them suicide bombers... There death changed the tide and resulted in an eventual free Ireland.

Erin Go Brath

Zambia232 wrote:

West Brits ? ? Seriously catch yourself on there finding names for people is really not on.

My sincerest apologies! I got called a West Brit myself recently by one of my work colleagues from the North. Just because I was wearing a rugby jersey, and it was a Munster jersey at that. Of course I just laughed at the absurdity of it!

Zambia232 wrote:

If boards was full of pro-nationalistic Irishmen how bored would you be...

True, i might actually do a bit of work. Don't know how my system would cope with that scenario :eek:

Zambia232 wrote:

In the eyes of the Crown what those men did was treason, they really knew what would happen and banked on it. In essence you could almost have called them suicide bombers... There death changed the tide and resulted in an eventual free Ireland.

The men and women who fought against one of the biggest armies in the world for their countries freedom are patriots. Many of them, just peasents making the ultimate sacrifice, just for the love of their country. They should be remembered fondly!

Zambia

Erin Go Brath wrote:

The men and women who fought against one of the biggest armies in the world for their countries freedom are patriots. Many of them, just peasents making the ultimate sacrifice, just for the love of their country. They should be remembered fondly!

As fondly as the men who fought in one of the biggest armies in the world?

Erin Go Brath

Zambia232 wrote:

As fondly as the men who fought in one of the biggest armies in the world?

I would say the rebels deserve more credit, taking on the might of the British Army. Than people who joined British Army for a few quid [edited]

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

I would say the rebels deserve more credit, taking on the might of the British Army. Than people who joined British Army for a few quid [edited]

except that a lot of your forefathers did not do it just for a few quid, they actually believed that getting mighty Germany out of little Belgium was the right thng to do.