The British Empire Thread

Stev_o

kreuzberger wrote: »

Im unaware of the Irish commiting genocide against the British . Im startled to hear an accusation that this occured . Seriously..Id like to see some evidence of your claim this happened .
.

No i meant genocide of Irish people by Irish people

kreuzberger

kreuzberger wrote: »

ive no idea where post 160 is nor any intention of looking for it

Still wearing Shergar's blinkers I see!

kreuzberger wrote: »

I see one post though were youve referred to the fact Britain eventually annexed Ireland after colonising it as a claim that it was part of Britain and not a colony of the empire .

Yes for a long time Irish MP's were sitting in the House of Commons, part of Great Britain.
Colonies didn't have MP's.
Unfortunately Ireland was seen as "Britains backyard" by many.

As for the Famine, been discussed here before, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=1156721 my comments are in post #160.

kreuzberger

Stev_o wrote: »

No i meant genocide of Irish people by Irish people

well , many jews assisted in the genocide of Europes jewish population , as ghetto police , ghetto administrators , black marketers and profiteers , capos in the camps etc and even as spies who sought out jewish families in hiding . All profited from the misery of their own people . But it would be wrong to term that jews committing genocide against jews . The nazi system and policies were responsible .
The same thing goes for the nazi systems depradations in Byelorussia and the Balkans which was undoubtedly genocidal , but assisted by many locals who stood to gain from collaboration .
Similarly in Ireland you had many Irish who collaborated and profited from the genocidal policies directed against their own people . As Gombeen men , policemen , soldiers , spies and informers and even a few landlords . But it was the British system itself , the occupation and British policy responsible for the genocide . The Catholic church remained silent towards the destruction of the people , as did the emerging small catholic middle class personified by Daniel OConnell . This silence could most certainly be viewed as collaboration in the face of genocide in return for a postion of influence within society . longside this one could make a justified argument that the catholic churches able assistance in eliminating the Irish language from everyday use alongside the destruction of the national population was direct complicity in genocide in an attempt to sterilise from the Irish character its last defining vestige , its language . To deliberately set out to eliminate a nations language , something central to its very existance as a nation in the first place is a racist and genocidal policy and both Britain and the catholic church in Ireland were complicit in what can only be described as a most heinous genocidal crime in this regard .

The Anti-Irish language laws were more to do with an attempt to eliminate catholicism by banning Catholics from using Irish, if they had changed religion they could have continued speaking Irish.

edit: a google produced this;
http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish/unit_1.html

PENAL LAWS
"Professor Lecky, a Protestant of British blood and ardent British sympathy, says in his History of Ireland in the 18th Century that the object of the Penal Laws was threefold:

1. To deprive the Catholics of all civil life
2. To reduce them to a condition of most extreme and brutal ignorance

3. To dissociate them from the soil He might, with absolute justice, substituted Irish for Catholics-and added, (4) to expirate (cause to expire) the Race.

The Irish Catholic was forbidden the exercise of his religion.
He was forbidden to receive education,
He was forbidden to enter a profession.
He was forbidden to hold public office.
He was forbidden to engage in trade or commerce.
He was forbidden to live in a corporate town or within five miles thereof.
He was forbidden to own a horse of greater value than five pounds.
He was forbidden to purchase land.
He was forbidden to lease land.
He was forbidden to accept a mortgage on land in security for a loan.
He was forbidden to vote.
He was forbidden to keep any arms for his protection.
He was forbidden to hold a life annuity.
He was forbidden to buy land from a Protestant.
He was forbidden to receive a gift of land from a Protestant.
He was forbidden to inherit land from a Protestant.
He was forbidden to inherit anything from a Protestant.
He was forbidden to rent any land that was worth more than thirty shillings a year.
He was forbidden to reap from his land any profit exceeding a third of the rent.
He could not be guardian to a child.
He could not, when dying, leave his infant children under Catholic guardianship.
He could not attend Catholic worship.
He was compelled by law to attend Protestant worship.
He could not himself educate his child.
He could not send his child to a Catholic teacher.
He could not employ a Catholic teacher to come to his child.
He could not send his child abroad to receive education.
Quote:
Irish Penal Laws 1695 (Sec. 9)
..and of their neglecting to conform themselves to the laws of this realm, and of their not using the English habit and language, no person of the popish religion shall publicly teach school or instruct youth, or in private houses teach youth, upon pain of twenty pounds, and prison for three months for every such offence.

[Personal opinion]

Given the choice between Faith & Language, faith won out along with a dissassociation from the language that as seen as being "the old way", the church killed the language far more effectivly than the Brits, if anything it was seen as a sign of resistance to speak Irish.

[/personal opinion]

kreuzberger

Deleted User wrote: »

Still wearing Shergar's blinkers I see!

no , i just couldnt be arsed trawling this site looking for your posts

Yes for a long time Irish MP's were sitting in the House of Commons, part of Great Britain.
Colonies didn't have MP's.
Unfortunately Ireland was seen as "Britains backyard" by many.

for hiow long , a few decades after many centuries of constitutionally acknowleged colonialism ?
Ireland was British colony for centuries until they took the decision to fully annexe it a few years before the period your talking about . By pointing to its full annexation you seem to be claiming it wasnt a colony . The fact that this was done without the consent of the Irish people and amidst successive rebellions against colonialism and could only be done after eliminating the vast majority of the nations population from its national life for centuries and reducing them to the most miserable and wretched social and economic status is an absolute mockery of any democratic notions .
Your attempt to portray Irish MPs sitting in the house of commons as some sort of democratic assent to Ireland being in the UK is absurd .
Ireland was held withinin the UK against the will of its people , forcably annexed which culminated in the destruction and exile of the countrys population . The vast majority of the land was owned by foreigners , the vast majority of the native population dispossessed ,all political power was weilded by foreigners and enforced at the point of a foreigners bayonet . Regardless of the constitutional basis the British themselves afforded to their colonial activities at different periods it was still an exercise in colonialism .

kreuzberger

Deleted User wrote: »

The Anti-Irish language laws were more to do with an attempt to eliminate catholicism by banning Catholics from using Irish, if they had changed religion they could have continued speaking Irish.

[Personal opinion]

Given the choice between Faith & Language, faith won out along with a dissassociation from the language that as seen as being "the old way", the church killed the language far more effectivly than the Brits, if anything it was seen as a sign of resistance to speak Irish.
[/personal opinion]

you seem to be making some of these opinions up off the top of your head . Even if they were true eliminating either a nations language or its relaigion are both genocidal policies . English legal hostility towards the Irish language also predates the reformation .

No, these are beliefs I've had for a long time...

kreuzberger

Deleted User wrote: »

No, these are beliefs I've had for a long time...

the fact you made them up off the top of your head a long time ago doesnt make them any more true

and of their neglecting to conform themselves to the laws of this realm, and of their not using the English habit and language,

Even from the link youve posted its clear it was Irish refusal to accept the occupation which was central to the genocidal policies directed against them as a nation . The option given to them was not simply about changing religion , but to become fully anglicised . To adopt a foreign language , religion ,culture and laws as their own . The destruction of their own nation . Therefore the point of the laws was to destroy the nation itself and reinforce the occupation of the nation , genocide .
Penal laws were also directed against some protestant sects also , cheifly the presbyterians . Scottish covenantors had also fought against the Cromwellian conquest . The issue was conquest , not a belief in transubstantiation .

Had it not been for the religious persecution, Ireland would more than likely have been treated like Wales.

All a bit OT as the OP was referring to the British Empire, which Ireland was part of but not a colony of, Dublin being the second city of the Empire.

kreuzberger

really ? so all that continuous war and rebellion had nothing to do with it ? Irish refusal to submit to British occupation had nothing to do with Britains persecution of the Irish ? It was just about religion ?

Fratton Fred

kreuzberger wrote: »

really ? so all that continuous war and rebellion had nothing to do with it ? Irish refusal to submit to British occupation had nothing to do with Britains persecution of the Irish ? It was just about religion ?

A big chunk yes. Why are the Irish so obsessed with being unique?

The Irish were a culmination of factors that meant the British came down heavily on them, a catalogue of bad choices if you like.

Siding with the royalists, bad decision, in hindsight. Then getting assistance from Rome in the fight against Cromwell, talk about pouring oil on the flames.

Siding with the French in 1798, not good considering England has been at war with France for 1000 years.

Siding with Germany in 1916, bad choice, but one which ultimately worked more through Brish imcompetance than good judgement.

Add to that the Victorian dislike for all things Catholic and anyone not educated at Eton or Harrow and you kind of get the perfect storm.

Why would the Scots or the Welsh not be treated the same way as the Irish, maybe because they decided their destiny lay alongside the English rather than opposing them who knows, but none of the factors I mentioned above really applied to them.

kreuzberger

kreuzberger wrote: »

really ? so all that continuous war and rebellion had nothing to do with it ? Irish refusal to submit to British occupation had nothing to do with Britains persecution of the Irish ? It was just about religion ?

The penal laws were more anti catholic than anti Irish, Cromwell hated the Irish but he hated catholics even more. If the Irish had changed religion the laws would more than likely have been repealed (in his lifetime, not hundreds of years later) fairly quickly.

You shouldn't forget that the boundaries between all european nations were quite fluid up until quite recently. The English invaded Ireland but so did the french and the vikings, the Irish invaded western scotland. The borders between England and Wales (and England & Scotland) moved several times as countries claimed territory from each other.

Cromwell was of course hated in England as well, he had to fight and win a civil war after all, deposed the royal family & almost wiped out the catholic church. Most of the damage he done in England was undone after his death, except for Ireland where no one cared what happened there. Those running the country (Ireland) were quite to leave things as they were (penal laws etc) the legacy of which, indirectly caused the famine in the 1840's.

Another one of his legacies was an irrational hatred of all things English in some sectors of the population, right through to this day!

kreuzberger

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A big chunk yes. Why are the Irish so obsessed with being unique?

The Irish were a culmination of factors that meant the British came down heavily on them, a catalogue of bad choices if you like.

Siding with the royalists, bad decision, in hindsight. Then getting assistance from Rome in the fight against Cromwell, talk about pouring oil on the flames.

Siding with the French in 1798, not good considering England has been at war with France for 1000 years.

Siding with Germany in 1916, bad choice, but one which ultimately worked more through Brish imcompetance than good judgement.

Add to that the Victorian dislike for all things Catholic and anyone not educated at Eton or Harrow and you kind of get the perfect storm.

Why would the Scots or the Welsh not be treated the same way as the Irish, maybe because they decided their destiny lay alongside the English rather than opposing them who knows, but none of the factors I mentioned above really applied to them.

thers nothing unique about being Roman Catholic , it was all the rage in Europe at the time and most Irish people preferred to follow that faith and quite rightly took umbrage to a bunch of foreigners coming over here telling them to do otherwise . Bad enough the foreigners took their lands and massacred them but to then have to accept the dude responsible was actually Gods representative on earth also was probably a bit much .

Siding with people who were fighting against your enemy , aiding you in your struggle for independence etc was perfectly sane and logical .

Youve only ended up agreeing with my point that the Irish were destroyed because for centuries they refused to submit to British conquest . Unlike the scottish and welsh who submitted , no offence to them .

kreuzberger

kreuzberger wrote: »

Siding with people who were fighting against your enemy , aiding you in your struggle for independence etc was perfectly sane and logical .

Yes, that tactic is still being played out today in Afghanistan & Iraq(to name but two) America chose then as friends against their enemies (Soviet union & Iran).

Unfortunately being friendly with your enemy's enemy can often backfire (as proven).

Pathfinder

kreuzberger wrote: »

Im unaware of the Irish commiting genocide against the British . Im startled to hear an accusation that this occured . Seriously..Id like to see some evidence of your claim this happened .

Ill refer you to the definition of genocide



Over a prolonged period Irelands political , social and legal instituions were abloished and firmly criminalised by the occupation forces as policy , to the point where the law of the land took the open opinion that as far as the law was no concerned no such person as an Irish roman catholic existed . That is no different to the policies persued by the nazis which saw European Jews stripped of their rights under the law , the seizure of their property , the outlawing of their religion and places of worship , their disbarment from all professions and commerce and employment . Those policies by the nazis were genocidal . British policies were no different , but lasted almost 2 centuries .

As far back as 1641 it was estimated by the British governemnts own commisioned survey that around 40% of the Irish population had been eliminated during the Cromwellian conquest .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Petty . This involved not only the physical destruction of the islands inhabitants by troops but by the deliberate destruction of their foodstocks in order to cause mass suffering and csualties among the civilian population . The remaining civilian population were stripped of their possessions . That in itself was an act of genocide .
The surviving remainder of the national population were then subject to almost 2 centuries of penal laws which outlawed their religion ,outlawed their language , forbid them from engaging in commerce , education , owning property , or taking part in the national life of their own nation . Commerce and manufacturing was forbidden . Their churches destroyed . Their very language , their religion their economy were criminalised and penalised ,and in effect their nation was criminalised . This was done in order to destroy their very existence as a nation. Those policies were aimed at the destruction of the Irish people . They were genocidal policies . They were most definitely intended to bring about the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups , as the definition of genocide describes.


By the 1840s the effects of centuries of this regime upon the national population were very clear and marked . Prominent English writer of that period William Makepeace Thackeray insisted that "...It is a frightful document against ourselves...one of the most melancholy stories in the whole world of insolence, rapine, brutal, endless slaughter and persecution on the part of the English master...There is no crime ever invented by eastern or western barbarians, no torture or Roman persecution or Spanish Inquisition, no tyranny of Nero or Alva but can be matched in the history of England in Ireland." (Metress, 2)

There was clearly no shortage of food in Ireland during the 1840s either
As the The Pictorial Times, October 10, 1846, pointed out :"Around them is plenty; rickyards, in full contempt, stand under their snug thatch, calculating the chances of advancing prices; or, the thrashed grain safely stored awaits only the opportunity of conveyance to be taken far away to feed strangers...But a strong arm interposes to hold the maddened infuriates away. Property laws supersede those of Nature. Grain is of more value than blood. And if they attempt to take of the fatness of the land that belongs to their lords, death by musketry, is a cheap government measure to provide for the wants of a starving and incensed people."

British policies in Ireland , genocidal policies aggressively persued for centuries had left an illiterate , defenceless and leaderless population in a position of extreme poverty and wholly dependent upon one single food item , the potato . National culture was replaced with a potato culture of dispossessed , defencelss ,leaderless remedyless subservience . No recourse to law or politics was open to the Irish people . No call for mercy was listened to . When that food item failed military , political and legal policies were persued to remove all other foodstuffs from the island . Policies were also persued to remove the islands population from the island through mass eviction from their homes and the physcial destruction of their homes , along with further laws to forbid other Irish people from offering them shelter . Policies were persued to ensure harbours , fisheries , land reclamation and attempts to provide food , a necessity of life , would not take place . The persuance of these policies led to the near physical destruction of all what remained of the Irish nation , its people .


It was genocide .

Well considering Cromwells campign was in1649-50 and your claim is he wiped out 40% of the Irish population before this in 1641, he must have had a time machine.

There is no evidence Cromwell committed any genocide he was only in Ireland 9 months and died soon after.

Nor was he responsible for the penal laws in Ireland.


Nor did ordinary Catholics have land seized, they never owned any, most were feudal serfs of the old Norman English, it was they whos land was seized for supporting the crown, as well as some land of the Gaelic artistocracy.

Fratton Fred

Pathfinder wrote: »

Well considering Cromwells campign was in1649-50 and your claim is he wiped out 40% of the Irish population before this in 1641, he must have had a time machine.

There is no evidence Cromwell committed any genocide he was only in Ireland 9 months and died soon after.

Nor was he responsible for the penal laws in Ireland.


Nor did ordinary Catholics have land seized, they never owned any, most were feudal serfs of the old Norman English, it was they whos land was seized for supporting the crown, as well as some land of the Gaelic artistocracy.

Weren't the same people who had land seized, promised land in England if they supported the Royalists?

They lost the war and lost their land, simple as that.

Fratton Fred

kreuzberger wrote: »

thers nothing unique about being Roman Catholic , it was all the rage in Europe at the time and most Irish people preferred to follow that faith and quite rightly took umbrage to a bunch of foreigners coming over here telling them to do otherwise . Bad enough the foreigners took their lands and massacred them but to then have to accept the dude responsible was actually Gods representative on earth also was probably a bit much .

Siding with people who were fighting against your enemy , aiding you in your struggle for independence etc was perfectly sane and logical .

Youve only ended up agreeing with my point that the Irish were destroyed because for centuries they refused to submit to British conquest . Unlike the scottish and welsh who submitted , no offence to them .

It was also all the rage in Europe for Roman Catholics to massacre Protestants.

Why did Ireland accept Catholicism, brought by the Normans (Or English if you want to follow th whole 800 years things) but reject Protestantism?

Yes siding with your enemy's enemy is logical, but so is coming down hard on those who did.

Pathfinder

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It was also all the rage in Europe for Roman Catholics to massacre Protestants.

Why did Ireland accept Catholicism, brought by the Normans (Or English if you want to follow th whole 800 years things) but reject Protestantism?

Yes siding with your enemy's enemy is logical, but so is coming down hard on those who did.

Good point the Normans destroyed Ireland traditional Celtic church and replaced it with Roman outside control.

But because the RC church has controlled the teaching of history in the republic is will always be heavily pro Norman and anti Cromwellian.


As I stated Cromwell abided by the rules of warfare at that time, most he killed were English and Irish Royalist forces, there is no evidence he committed any genocide at all.

Yet, most Irish people are taught he did.

McArmalite

kreuzberger wrote: »

aiding the germans was only an act of treason if you considered yourself British . For irishmen they were allies . Ireland and Germany had no history of nor reason for hostility . Britian was Irelands only enemy .Casement owed his allegiance to the Irish governemnt which later openly proclaimed itself as the Provisional governemnt of a sovereign independent republic during the rebellion , not the governemnt of an illegitimate foreign occupier .

Im not having a go at you but you often seem to forget you are speaking to Irish people , foreigners who view their nation as their nation , and you tend to present your opinions from a purely anglo centric point of view .

Meanwhile our unionist friends lead by Dublin's Edward Carson, along with James Craig and future british Prime minister Bonar Law invovled, commited treason with the Larne gun running escapade - but ofcourse they weren't even arrested nor a single bullet or firearm recovered or any attempt to do so. Sort of an ulster workers strike 1914 style where 1 and 1/2% of the population ( the unionists ) of the british state could openly arm and defy the rule of law, and britian with all it's might couldn't do anything, even attempt to recover a single bullet. But that's the british even handed sense of fairplay for you, the most rotten and corrupt sense of fairplay in history.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why did Ireland accept Catholicism, brought by the Normans (Or English if you want to follow the whole 800 years things) but reject Protestantism?

St Patrick in 432AD is said to be the person who converted Ireland from a Pagan to a Christian country. However their may well have been Chrisitians even before that, although it is accepted that Ireland was predominantly pagan before St Patricks arrival, and predominantly Christian after his death, so he gets the credit, and as always we use it as an excuse for an almighty pissup on March 17. Typical Irish. :rolleyes:

To a deeply religious Catholic country to accept that the head of the British monarchy is head of the church is blasphemic. Plus we hate been told what to do by other nations and are more prepared to fight for our beliefs than many other nations i believe.

Interestingly Ireland is the only country in the EU today in which a referendum is needed to pass the various treaties that periodically appear to change the constitution. Because the Irish people demanded it be that way.

McArmalite

Pathfinder wrote: »

As I stated Cromwell abided by the rules of warfare at that time,

Well slavery, campaigns of extermination against native peoples around the world, massacres of Protestants on continental Europe, could all be claimed to have been " abided by the rules of warfare at that time, ". Doesn't mean to say that they should be excused and glossed over.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

St Patrick in 432AD is said to be the person who converted Ireland from a Pagan to a Christian country. However their may well have been Chrisitians even before that, although it is accepted that Ireland was predominantly pagan before St Patricks arrival, and predominantly Christian after his death, so he gets the credit, and as always we use it as an excuse for an almighty pissup on March 17. Typical Irish. :rolleyes:

To a deeply religious Catholic country to accept that the head of the British monarchy is head of the church is blasphemic. Plus we hate been told what to do by other nations and are more prepared to fight for our beliefs than many other nations i believe.

Interestingly Ireland is the only country in the EU today in which a referendum is needed to pass the various treaties that periodically appear to change the constitution. Because the Irish people demanded it be that way.

I know a Brit brought Christianity to Ireland;), but Catholicism came with the Normans (Maybe that is what is meant by 800 years of oppression:D) and was accepted.

I do admire the way every change to the constitution requires a referendum, but I often wonder if that is as much to do with politicians having no balls and not wanting to make a decision as it is with the people having a say in the state.

As for the Irish not liking being told what to do by anybody, I know, I work here remember:D

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Well slavery, campaigns of extermination against native peoples around the world, massacres of Protestants on continental Europe, could all be claimed to have been " abided by the rules of warfare at that time, ". Doesn't mean to say that they should be excused and glossed over.

No it doesn't, but you have to take things into context. It is easy to judge people by today's standards and whilst we shouldn't excuse what happened we should try and understand why.

One day people will look back at the destruction we have brought on the world, by way of the automobile and coal/gas/peat fired power stations and judge us, is that fair or would we put our hands up and say that in our defence it is all we knew at the time?

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know a Brit brought Christianity to Ireland;),

Some say he was from Gaul in France. ( How did we get here ?, what has poor ol' St Patrick to do with the british Empire )

Pathfinder

McArmalite wrote: »

Well slavery, campaigns of extermination against native peoples around the world, massacres of Protestants on continental Europe, could all be claimed to have been " abided by the rules of warfare at that time, ". Doesn't mean to say that they should be excused and glossed over.

No, the rules of warfare at that time were a garrison was given a chance to surrender, if they refused they were fair game, if a commander took mercy some lives were spared and they were sent to the west Indies as indentured servants on a tariff.

Pathfinder

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

St Patrick in 432AD is said to be the person who converted Ireland from a Pagan to a Christian country. However their may well have been Chrisitians even before that, although it is accepted that Ireland was predominantly pagan before St Patricks arrival, and predominantly Christian after his death, so he gets the credit, and as always we use it as an excuse for an almighty pissup on March 17. Typical Irish. :rolleyes:

To a deeply religious Catholic country to accept that the head of the British monarchy is head of the church is blasphemic. Plus we hate been told what to do by other nations and are more prepared to fight for our beliefs than many other nations i believe.

Interestingly Ireland is the only country in the EU today in which a referendum is needed to pass the various treaties that periodically appear to change the constitution. Because the Irish people demanded it be that way.

So the Queen is the head of the free Presbyterian church is she :rolleyes:

Dinter

Pathfinder wrote: »

No, the rules of warfare at that time were a garrison was given a chance to surrender, if they refused they were fair game, if a commander took mercy some lives were spared and they were sent to the west Indies as indentured servants on a tariff.

That totally depended on who made up the garrison.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No it doesn't, but you have to take things into context. It is easy to judge people by today's standards and whilst we shouldn't excuse what happened we should try and understand why.

One day people will look back at the destruction we have brought on the world, by way of the automobile and coal/gas/peat fired power stations and judge us, is that fair or would we put our hands up and say that in our defence it is all we knew at the time?

Pathfinder wrote: »

No, the rules of warfare at that time were a garrison was given a chance to surrender, if they refused they were fair game, if a commander took mercy some lives were spared and they were sent to the west Indies as indentured servants on a tariff.

" we should try and understand why. " . We don't have to try too hard - perversion, deviance, inhumanity, corruption, greed - ah yes, the glorious history of britain.

Erin Go Brath

Pathfinder wrote: »

So the Queen is the head of the free Presbyterian church is she :rolleyes:

No that was a religion Paisley set up to bolster his ego, so he could become a self appointed God. AFAIK it doesnt have that many members.

If I set up the free Catholic church, and became its head and demanded that everyone called me Pope Erin Go Brath i'm sure people would defect from the Catholic Church in their millions. :cool: Goddamit you'll show me respect Pathfinder. I demand to be called 'his holiness' or 'his grace' from now on.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

" we should try and understand why. " . We don't have to try too hard - perversion, deviance, inhumanity, corruption, greed - ah yes, the glorious history of britain.

and how does that differ from any other Empire?

What would the French have done in 1798 if they had hadn't been beaten off by the British? do you honestly thing that, despite the fact they had raped and pillaged all over Europe they wouldn't have done it in Ireland?

Or the Spanish, they wouldn't heve relied on potato blight to kill off a few irish, they would have just enslaved the whole lot and bumped off a few in the process.

Or Maybe Belgium, they would have been great benefactors to Ireland, well, as long as the Irish did what they were told and avoided the torture and mutilations.

If it hadn't been Britain, it would have been someone else here. failing that, Ireland would have had it's own empire (Which it did in sorts anyway).