Concepts of Cromwell

Jackie laughlin

Yes, I rent the apartment upstairs as well and that's where I keep the two of them. I've told Lucan to stay off the bleedin' horse or I'll shorten his chain!

brianthebard

Snickers Man wrote:

Bit like the massacre of Protestants in 1641 that was part of Cromwell's motivation for his campaign in Ireland. Exaggerated reports of massacres which did indeed take place inflamed passions in Protestant England and caused Cromwell to describe his own massacre at Drogheda as "a righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches"





What are you saying? The fact that he committed lots of other atrocities elsewhere is a mitigating factor for his atrocities here????

.

What???
That's a bit like saying a white supremacist is not a racist because he has his own race himself. That's bonkers!!

.

You're not saying that's justification, are you?

There was a paranoia in Germany about Jews controlling the country's finances via an international plot. Does that justify the holocaust?

See this is the big problem I have with the way people talk about Cromwell or Irish history in general a lot of the time. Because it happened in this country, you are repulsed by it. Your asking if I think my statements are attempts at justification? NO of course not. I don't automatically look at history as being right or wrong, I look at it as having happened first, and then look at moral implications. There is no benefit from getting emotional before you consider the historical event, and even then it just clouds your interpretation.

Snickers Man

brianthebard wrote:

See this is the big problem I have with the way people talk about Cromwell or Irish history in general a lot of the time. Because it happened in this country, you are repulsed by it. Your asking if I think my statements are attempts at justification? NO of course not. I don't automatically look at history as being right or wrong, I look at it as having happened first, and then look at moral implications. There is no benefit from getting emotional before you consider the historical event, and even then it just clouds your interpretation.

Your post said that it was a "problem" that people exaggerated the numbers killed to 30,000. In fact the number usually given is about 3,000. I was merely pointing out that exaggerated accounts of massacres during 1641 were also part of Cromwell's motivation.

I still maintain that your argument "he couldn't be sectarian because he was a member of a sect" is utter bonkers.

I asked you to clarify, through my subtle use of the phrase "What are you saying?" what on earth you meant by "the Irish were treated the same way as English royalists and catholics, so in many ways the arguments against Cromwell begin to look suspect in that context."

You have declined to do so. What arguments against Cromwell look suspect in what context?

McArmalite

Jackie laughlin wrote:

As the victim of the attack, you MIGHT think, "English bastard!" However, that might not be the significant adjective for YOU at the time. You might think, "Protestant bastard", "Catholic bastard", "upper class bastard", working class bastard", "culchie bastard" etc. etc.

The trick worked in Ireland was to fabricate a myth that all wrongs done in Ireland to ALL people in Ireland were done by the "Brits" to the Irish. The myth was then fed to the masses, the more stupid of them believed it right into adulthood, and the psychopaths among them joined the IRA.

I appreciate that information on Sarsfield. I'm off out to Lucan tonight to attack a pub in the name of freedom!

" The trick worked in Ireland was to fabricate a myth that all wrongs done in Ireland to ALL people in Ireland were done by the "Brits" to the Irish." The 'trick' was to cultivate local 'quislings' to carry out the policies of mass extermination, ethnic cleansing and secterian discrimination to maintain and further british misrule in Ireland. Ireland is not unique in this unforgiveable facet of our society, it has happened in almost every nation/culture, the Quisling regime in Norway, Vichey France, certain tribes of Native Americans etc. The "Brits" i.e. british state/regime, is ultimately respondcible for these puppets of injustice, if you really were an Irish Nationalist you wouldn't deride the unquestionable justifiyied resentment the vast majority of Irish people had, have and will always have to british misrule and injustice.

" The myth was then fed to the masses, the more stupid of them believed it right into adulthood, and the psychopaths among them joined the IRA. "
I presume, ( and correct me if I'm wrong ) by the "IRA" you propably mean the 'baddie' IRA i.e. the IRA since the treaty

and not the 'goodie' IRA i.e. 1916 to the midnight hour of the signing of the Treaty of Partition.

The IRA which emerged out of August 1969 would have HAD to evolve to initially fight the RUC/Unionists/Loyalists etc and then the Brits regardless of 1916, the Fenians, 1798 etc.*
These were not " psychopaths " by any means, but young men and women abondoned by the " we wouldn't stand idly by" state, (people in the six counties actually stayed up all night waiting to see the headlights of the Irish army crossing the border to come to the rescue, including my relations) who initally took to the barricades with rocks and petrol bombs to defend their homes and families from the real "psychopaths" - the british unionist mobs, and police. In the words of a Long Kesh rebel song -

" It is easy for those who are safe to talk of wrong and right,
But for those who are forced to chose - then some will chose to FIGHT".

One of the things I notice about you Jackie is your hostile language to Republicans - " perverts" "psychopaths" etc. I have been on these borads for several months and I have yet to see a critical word from you on the brits. What descripiton do you have for those who murdered Civil Rights marches, tortured people in police/army cells, shot children dead with live, rubber and plastic bullets as the walked to school, and trained,armed,directed loyalist "friendly terrorists forces" ( the offical description of the British army ) to daily murder Catholics in the occupied counties and bomb and shoot in Dublin, Monaghan, Dundalk, Cavan, Raphoe etc. ?

*BTW, 1969 was not the first time nationalists in areas of the northeast of Ireland where HEAVILY outnumbered by the british unionist population, Belfast, north Antrim, north Armagh etc and aided and abetted by the british forces ofcourse, they had to take up arms to defend themselves.

ScottishDanny

Back to topic.
Cromwell did rotten things in Scotland and to his own in England as well.
I cite the treatment of civilians after the Battle of Philiphaugh near Selkirk in 1645

Many of Montrose's Irish foot soldiers, namely Manus O'Cahan's regiment had been killed in the battle, but about 100 of them surrendered on promise of quarter. Some Presbyterian Ministers who accompanied Leslie persuaded him that this clemency was foolish, and the prisoners and 300 camp followers (many of them women and children) were slaughtered in cold blood.

and the crushing of the English Levellers (not the crustie band of the '90s)and the diggers who were inspired by the English Republic.
He espoused all this stuff about being a republican and then made himself ruler and handed power to his son (pseudo-monarchy).

What I'm saying is - Cromwell wasn't simply Anti-Irish. He was pretty much Anti-everyone and everything except his own power.

A Christian who banned celebrating Christmas?

Any religious fundamentalist has to be viewed with suspicion,
In 2007 Bush and Bin-Laden both believe they're doing Gods Will

Jackie laughlin

McArm,
I'm not going to reply to you in detail. This is not the place. I'll try to be brief.

I do not make any distinction whatsoever between "old" and "new" IRA.

I have indeed many times here argued that British and loyalist murderers should be pursued and brought before the courts in precisely the same way as their SF/IRA counterparts.

I think that the abusive terms I use to describe murderers are deserved and in keeping with my views. I admire greatly the civil rights/constitutionalist tradition in Ireland which has been so betrayed by Blair and Ahern to satisfy the changed ambitions of the "reformed" nutters who now dominate government in Norther Ireland.

brianthebard

Snickers Man wrote:

Your post said that it was a "problem" that people exaggerated the numbers killed to 30,000. In fact the number usually given is about 3,000. I was merely pointing out that exaggerated accounts of massacres during 1641 were also part of Cromwell's motivation.

I still maintain that your argument "he couldn't be sectarian because he was a member of a sect" is utter bonkers.

I asked you to clarify, through my subtle use of the phrase "What are you saying?" what on earth you meant by "the Irish were treated the same way as English royalists and catholics, so in many ways the arguments against Cromwell begin to look suspect in that context."

You have declined to do so. What arguments against Cromwell look suspect in what context?

What I meant was that he did not dole out special punishment to Irish people because they were Irish. Thought that was fairly obvious tbh.

Snickers Man

brianthebard wrote:

What I meant was that he did not dole out special punishment to Irish people because they were Irish. Thought that was fairly obvious tbh.

Like, so what??

"Oh it's not that he dislikes you. It's just his little ways.

It's only Ollie being Ollie. (warts and all)"

brianthebard

Snickers Man wrote:

Like, so what??

"Oh it's not that he dislikes you. It's just his little ways.

It's only Ollie being Ollie. (warts and all)"

:rolleyes: Good to see the point of the thread has passed by you.

Snickers Man

brianthebard wrote:

:rolleyes: Good to see the point of the thread has passed by you.

Oh I get it. I just thing it's a particularly trite point, that's all.