Involvement in British imperialism - the epitome of Irish hypocrasy

Shutuplaura

Correction, I was getting 'Bobs' Roberts confused with a near contemporary of his Garnet Wolseley who was popularly known as 'our only general'. Wolseley was born in....Co Dublin. I also left out Wellington. Regarding Kitchener, I found it in an book by Charles Carrington called 'Soldier From the Wars Returning'. I've just checked to discover that it isn't the case but he was still Irish Born.

Regarding the makeup of the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars, check out The Oxford History of the British Army. All the figures are there. Not sure where you'd find it on-line but give a look around and you'll find figures. The numbers started to fall after the famine when emigration became the prefered choice.

Hypocrisy, Hypocrasy, its all the same - i didn't slag O'L for his spelling when there is so many other things to slag him about. I do think its people are quick to blame other european countries, especially Britain for imperialism when Irish people were active and enthusiastic participants in it. Many towns had a home and Colonial tea store in it and people know what you mean when you talk about a cup of chaa - a hindustani word picked up and used by returning soldiers. Home rule within the empire and not seperation was popular until 1916 and even Sinn Feinn started out as a party advocating Dual Monarchy.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote:

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

What?? You mean the events that led to an integral part of the United Kingdom detaching itself and setting up in independence leading to a long period of internal strife which lasted until just over ten years ago is now of peripheral interest to those who frame the education curriculum in Britain??????

The cheek of them!!!

Surely our gargantuan struggle should be worthy of more credit than that!

Fratton Fred wrote:

What is a major event in one country's history, is not in another's.

Cha Ching!!!! Bullseye!!!! Nail on the head.

Scene: A schoolyard in modern Russia
Dmitri: Hey, Vasilli. Did you know that Britain was on our side during the Great Patriotic War?
Vasilli: Really? What did they do to help us?
Dmitri: Oh not much. Sent a few boats to Murmansk every fortnight or so.
Vasilli: I never knew that.

Snickers Man

Shutuplaura wrote:

Regarding the makeup of the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars, check out The Oxford History of the British Army. All the figures are there. Not sure where you'd find it on-line but give a look around and you'll find figures. The numbers started to fall after the famine when emigration became the prefered choice.

Interesting. Thanks.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote:

Cha Ching!!!! Bullseye!!!! Nail on the head.

Scene: A schoolyard in modern Russia
Dmitri: Hey, Vasilli. Did you know that Britain was on our side during the Great Patriotic War?
Vasilli: Really? What did they do to help us?
Dmitri: Oh not much. Sent a few boats to Murmansk every fortnight or so.
Vasilli: I never knew that.

and your point is?

Zambia

Snickers Man wrote:

Scene: A schoolyard in modern Russia
Dmitri: Hey, Vasilli. Did you know that Britain was on our side during the Great Patriotic War?
Vasilli: Really? What did they do to help us?
Dmitri: Oh not much. Sent a few boats to Murmansk every fortnight or so.
Vasilli: I never knew that.

No not this crap again about Russia winning the war all by her lonesome , britains war contribution is on another thread.

jmayo

Zambia232 wrote:

No not this crap again about Russia winning the war all by her lonesome , britains war contribution is on another thread.

Incorrect, technically it was the USSR and not just Russia.
And just to throw a spanner in the works, were the Irish not some of the worst slave masters in the Americas?
So maybe we were good at dishing it out to those less fortunate, those a few steps lower on the ladder so to speak.

Zambia

jmayo wrote:

Incorrect, technically it was the USSR and not just Russia.
And just to throw a spanner in the works, were the Irish not some of the worst slave masters in the Americas?
So maybe we were good at dishing it out to those less fortunate, those a few steps lower on the ladder so to speak.

The piont still stands , despite the technicality

Yes we certainly were , look up the history of Barbados ...

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote:

and your point is?

Exactly the same as yours, old boy.

I'm agreeing with you for once.

Snickers Man

Zambia232 wrote:

The piont still stands , despite the technicality

...

"no not this crap again" is hardly a clinching argument.

And you mistated my point anyway. I never said the Soviets did it all on their own. On the contrary I acknowledged that Britain's exertions were so exhausting that she lost her empire within 25 years.

Zambia

Snickers Man wrote:

"no not this crap again" is hardly a clinching argument.

And you mistated my point anyway. I never said the Soviets did it all on their own. On the contrary I acknowledged that Britain's exertions were so exhausting that she lost her empire within 25 years.

Your right its more an effort not to go down that road in this thread. As Ireland had nothing officially to do with the british war effort.

Snickers Man

Fair enough.

on main topic. I don't think it's hypocritical of Irish people to be less than proud of what our forebears did on behalf of the empire. on the contrary, it would be hypocritical to pretend that our whole history is squeaky clean on this topic and that we were always on the side of the oppressed.

I do think we need to stare history in the face and try to interpret why our forebears might have acted in such a manner. It wasn't always as simple as 'taking the king's shilling' although that was certainly a powerful motivator.

But enlisting the children of one part of an empire to lord it over another can be as debilitating to the former in the long run as to the latter. The late David Ervine was very good on how the prolonged troubles was detrimental to the morale and indeed material well being of the Loyalist working class, supposedly the more favoured side of the community.

His arguments, that they were less likely to go to college than thier catholic counterparts, that they were "bought off" with a supposed sense of superiority and that they were in some cases more oppressed than the catholic working class could be used, and indeed were used by the unscrupulous, to stoke up even more loyalist bitterness and inflame the situation even more.

Ervine's conclusion, however, was that a just peace was very much in the interest of the loyalist working class and so he worked assiduously towards it.

In the same way, Irishmen being shipped off (whether or not they had volunteered for the task) to Gallipoli or India to defend and extend the empire did neither them nor their country (Ireland, that is not Britain) any good at all.

What thanks did we get for supplying the bulk of Wellington's Army? (according to the Oxford history of the British Army)

Continued disenfranchisement for another 14 years, forced payments of tithes to an alien church for even longer and then starvation ten years after that.

Doesn't sound much like gratitude to me.

Shutuplaura

Snickers Man wrote:

Fair enough.

on main topic. I don't think it's hypocritical of Irish people to be less than proud of what our forebears did on behalf of the empire. on the contrary, it would be hypocritical to pretend that our whole history is squeaky clean on this topic and that we were always on the side of the oppressed.

I do think we need to stare history in the face and try to interpret why our forebears might have acted in such a manner. It wasn't always as simple as 'taking the king's shilling' although that was certainly a powerful motivator.

But enlisting the children of one part of an empire to lord it over another can be as debilitating to the former in the long run as to the latter. The late David Ervine was very good on how the prolonged troubles was detrimental to the morale and indeed material well being of the Loyalist working class, supposedly the more favoured side of the community.

His arguments, that they were less likely to go to college than thier catholic counterparts, that they were "bought off" with a supposed sense of superiority and that they were in some cases more oppressed than the catholic working class could be used, and indeed were used by the unscrupulous, to stoke up even more loyalist bitterness and inflame the situation even more.

Ervine's conclusion, however, was that a just peace was very much in the interest of the loyalist working class and so he worked assiduously towards it.

In the same way, Irishmen being shipped off (whether or not they had volunteered for the task) to Gallipoli or India to defend and extend the empire did neither them nor their country (Ireland, that is not Britain) any good at all.

What thanks did we get for supplying the bulk of Wellington's Army? (according to the Oxford history of the British Army)

Continued disenfranchisement for another 14 years, forced payments of tithes to an alien church for even longer and then starvation ten years after that.

Doesn't sound much like gratitude to me.

Yeah I'd tend to agree with you but its another matter completely. The veterns of wars up until recently have alwaysd gotten stiffed - The Peterloo massacre in 1819, the land fit for lions that never was or in the states the dispersal of the veterns 'bonus expeditionalry force' that camped near washington. That was why Churchill didn't win the election in 1945. Whether it was of real benefit or not the fact remains Ireland was a home nation of the empire and took extensive part in it.

Snickers Man

Shutuplaura wrote:

Yeah I'd tend to agree with you but its another matter completely. The veterns of wars up until recently have alwaysd gotten stiffed - The Peterloo massacre in 1819, the land fit for lions that never was or in the states the dispersal of the veterns 'bonus expeditionalry force' that camped near washington. That was why Churchill didn't win the election in 1945.

Absolutely. The resistance to that sort of oppression in Britain didn't take the form of national or sectarian politics because it couldn't. The resistance there came in the form of class politics and socialism. Some of the first trade unions in the world were in Britain. And boy could they be militant.

That is why you get a more pronounced left/right split in British politics than you do in Ireland. Class distinction was much more pronounced an issue there than here.

Some of the hatred towards Margaret Thatcher from mining and other industrial communities in the north of England was on a par with the worst venom that the IRA and its supporters had to offer.

Whether it was of real benefit or not the fact remains Ireland was a home nation of the empire and took extensive part in it.

Yes but our history for the past 100 years has been as a separate entity with little or no influence on the Empire. That proactive step away from Empire and towards independence has to count for something as well. It shows that the general consensus in Ireland was a rejection of empire.

And still is.

Zambia

Snickers Man wrote:

But enlisting the children of one part of an empire to lord it over another can be as debilitating to the former in the long run as to the latter. The late David Ervine was very good on how the prolonged troubles was detrimental to the morale and indeed material well being of the Loyalist working class, supposedly the more favoured side of the community.

His arguments, that they were less likely to go to college than thier catholic counterparts, that they were "bought off" with a supposed sense of superiority and that they were in some cases more oppressed than the catholic working class could be used, and indeed were used by the unscrupulous, to stoke up even more loyalist bitterness and inflame the situation even more.

Ervine's conclusion, however, was that a just peace was very much in the interest of the loyalist working class and so he worked assiduously towards it.

In the same way, Irishmen being shipped off (whether or not they had volunteered for the task) to Gallipoli or India to defend and extend the empire did neither them nor their country (Ireland, that is not Britain) any good at all.

What thanks did we get for supplying the bulk of Wellington's Army? (according to the Oxford history of the British Army)

Continued disenfranchisement for another 14 years, forced payments of tithes to an alien church for even longer and then starvation ten years after that.

Doesn't sound much like gratitude to me.

This is actually true service to the enmpire has never been that well re-payed after you leave the forces.

David Ervine was right on this piont and remains one of the most respected politicians to have served. We are in July soon and his name is already on the flags. His piont was correct while catholics where striving for education Loyalists seemed obessed with the "struggle" even more so than catholics to there own detrement.

There is also the betrayal the the people of ulster feel that while there UVF volunteers fought for the Union as the 36th Ulster Division at the Somme and where slaughtered the Unoin saw fit to grant some of the provinces of Ulster to the free state.

Even today the papers scream about what wounded squaddies are left to are service has ended. unfortunatly thats a fact of life

O'Leprosy

Surprise, surprise, but O'Lep actually agrees for different reasons than the OP with some of this assertion. It is grossly hypocritical to pretend that Irish people did not have a hand in robbery and oppression of people who had the misfortune of being under british rule. Now, no doubt the vast majority of Irish participants in the british forces were economic conscripts, as Snickers Man writes ( and he makes the best points on the forum, although he will probably take that as a putdown when it comes from me ) " I would regard that historical fact as evidence of our subjugation not as evidence of our empathy with colonialism. " Those economic conscripts were indeed in a sense, victims themselves, be they Irish, English, Scottish or Welsh. That is why I do not agree with the state participating in commerations of those who fought under the butcher's apron - no matter what the circumstances that drove them to join. And of those who did join voluntarily, and mainly to the officer class, etc, they were not Irish Nationalists, but Irish unionists, Catholic and Protestant alike.

ejmaztec -" 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. "

And it was not only the british army that we are guilty of participating in robbery and mass murder, but also in the American one also, with the notable exception of the San Patricios Battalion http://vivasancarlos.com/patrick.html

But I believe that the main hidden agenda of the Irish govt./ certain historians, (i.e. Indo unionists etc) in viewing Irish participating in wars of conquest and exploitation, isn't for the usual cliches "to embrace all traditions on the island of Ireland", "our maturity as a nation" etc,etc, but to portray Irish participation in foreign wars as normal and acceptable to attempt to pave our way for participation in an EU army, trying to end our proud and honourable neutrality :mad: .

Mick86

O'Leprosy wrote:

..." etc,etc, but to portray Irish participation in foreign wars as normal and acceptable to attempt to pave our way for participation in an EU army, trying to end our proud and honourable neutrality :mad: .

Oh no not Neutrality again.:D

It never existed in any real sense and it was/is neither proud nor honourable.

O'Leprosy

Mick86 wrote:

it was/is neither proud nor honourable.

So, when are you going to Iraq/Afghanistan with the brits - BTW, " the best army in the world" ( - brit Minister for Defence John Reid several times during a Commons debate on the state of brit forces last September, they just LOVE themselves don't they :rolleyes: ). Way to go Mick, bet your first into the fray , Rambo.

Fratton Fred

O'Leprosy wrote:

So, when are you going to Iraq/Afghanistan with the brits - BTW, " the best army in the world" ( - brit Minister for Defence John Reid several times during a Commons debate on the state of brit forces last September, they just LOVE themselves don't they :rolleyes: ). Way to go Mick, bet your first into the fray , Rambo.

They are the best forces in the world;)

could always do with a few Irish Ninja's though if you are looking to help with the war against terror

Fratton Fred

O'Leprosy wrote:

But I believe that the main hidden agenda of the Irish govt./ certain historians, (i.e. Indo unionists etc) in viewing Irish participating in wars of conquest and exploitation, isn't for the usual cliches "to embrace all traditions on the island of Ireland", "our maturity as a nation" etc,etc, but to portray Irish participation in foreign wars as normal and acceptable to attempt to pave our way for participation in an EU army, trying to end our proud and honourable neutrality :mad: .

I'd call it hiding behind other countries rather than neutrality.

Ireland's history of neutrality has more to do with the Government not wanting to spend money on the military then it does with any proud taditions.

Fratton Fred

I found this article on the history of the Bagpipe (Or the Irish Warpipe). As it is not about politics so it is pretty neutral and quite interesting. (I was in Howth on Sunday and saw the East Ireland Bagpipe competitioon so I thought I would check out how the Bagpipe got here, it seems you guys were strangling cats before the Scots!)

http://www.ipba.ie/articles/irishwarpipe.html

Mick86

O'Leprosy wrote:

So, when are you going to Iraq/Afghanistan with the brits - BTW, " the best army in the world" ( - brit Minister for Defence John Reid several times during a Commons debate on the state of brit forces last September, they just LOVE themselves don't they :rolleyes: ). Way to go Mick, bet your first into the fray , Rambo.

What's that got to do with Irish neutrality?

Ireland by the way is part of the Nordic battlegroup.

O'Leprosy

Fratton Fred wrote:

They are the best forces in the world;)

could always do with a few Irish Ninja's though if you are looking to help with the war against terror

How do you know that their the best forces in the world :rolleyes: ? Was there a World Cup for armed forces recently and the brits won ? I remember a decade or 2 ago, the mantra from them was "the most professional army in the world". But since they have gone from been "the most professional army in the world" to " the best army in the world". But sure if the brits declare they are the best, then they've got to be the best haven't they. :rolleyes:

Mick86 wrote:

What's that got to do with Irish neutrality?

Ireland by the way is part of the Nordic battlegroup.

Well, since you think neutrality is so wrong, and you admire the brits forces so much, why aren't you off with them doing your bit, fighting terrorism etc

Tchocky

I'd gladly eat the sacred cow of neutrality, pass the chips.

Yeah, why aren't you enlisting, you cowards! SHAME!

(.......jeeez)

Mick86

O'Leprosy wrote:

Well, since you think neutrality is so wrong, and you admire the brits forces so much, why aren't you off with them doing your bit, fighting terrorism etc

I'm a little confused here. I never mentioned the British Army in my post.

O'Leprosy wrote:

...why aren't you off with them doing your bit, fighting terrorism etc

Obviously, because I'm not in the British Army.

Fratton Fred

O'Leprosy wrote:

But sure if the brits declare they are the best, then they've got to be the best haven't they. :rolleyes:

Yep, thanks for agreeing with me.:p

Shutuplaura

O'Leprosy wrote:

Surprise, surprise, but O'Lep actually agrees for different reasons than the OP with some of this assertion. It is grossly hypocritical to pretend that Irish people did not have a hand in robbery and oppression of people who had the misfortune of being under british rule. Now, no doubt the vast majority of Irish participants in the british forces were economic conscripts, as Snickers Man writes ( and he makes the best points on the forum, although he will probably take that as a putdown when it comes from me ) " I would regard that historical fact as evidence of our subjugation not as evidence of our empathy with colonialism. " Those economic conscripts were indeed in a sense, victims themselves, be they Irish, English, Scottish or Welsh. That is why I do not agree with the state participating in commerations of those who fought under the butcher's apron - no matter what the circumstances that drove them to join. And of those who did join voluntarily, and mainly to the officer class, etc, they were not Irish Nationalists, but Irish unionists, Catholic and Protestant alike.

ejmaztec -" 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. "

And it was not only the british army that we are guilty of participating in robbery and mass murder, but also in the American one also, with the notable exception of the San Patricios Battalion http://vivasancarlos.com/patrick.html

But I believe that the main hidden agenda of the Irish govt./ certain historians, (i.e. Indo unionists etc) in viewing Irish participating in wars of conquest and exploitation, isn't for the usual cliches "to embrace all traditions on the island of Ireland", "our maturity as a nation" etc,etc, but to portray Irish participation in foreign wars as normal and acceptable to attempt to pave our way for participation in an EU army, trying to end our proud and honourable neutrality :mad: .

Cool O'lep. Thats great. I guess my point in posting this is to try show that this forum shouldn't be a soapbox. You seem to think it is making stupid judgement calls about peoples motivations that fit in with your dogmatic view of the world. Its worse than when that dude vesp was around annoying everyone. Whatever happened to attempting to be impartial? Everyone does it a bit including myself but you seem to make a hobby of it and are ruining whats left of the historical discussion on this forum. So please grow up. I agree with you about one thing for sure though Snikers is probably the best poster on the forum. Anyway excuse my high horsy-ness.

O'Leprosy

Shutuplaura wrote:

Cool O'lep. Thats great. I guess my point in posting this is to try show that this forum shouldn't be a soapbox. You seem to think it is making stupid judgement calls about peoples motivations that fit in with your dogmatic view of the world. Its worse than when that dude vesp was around annoying everyone. Whatever happened to attempting to be impartial? Everyone does it a bit including myself but you seem to make a hobby of it and are ruining whats left of the historical discussion on this forum. So please grow up. I agree with you about one thing for sure though Snikers is probably the best poster on the forum. Anyway excuse my high horsy-ness.

" Whatever happened to attempting to be impartial? " Well, their's very few around here who attempt to be impartial. I suppose you are only 'impartial' when you happen to agree with yourself. In the words of Erin Go Brath - " many West Brits some of whom are still alive and well and logged into boards.ie today " - like yourself. Glad you agree Snickers Man makes the best points on the forum.

"economic conscripts were indeed in a sense, victims themselves, be they Irish, English, Scottish or Welsh." not impartial enough for you ? Indeed, I even opened saying I agreed with some of your assertions, but unless I agree 100% with you I'm not impartial ? If you don't like my posts - don't read them.