British friends of Ireland

walrusgumble

right, for alot of people in this section of boards, britain has not always being seen too nicely in the eyes of ireland, and in many parts rightly so, (no this aint gonna be one of those 800 years threads, nor is it going to be one of those "i wish we were back in the common wealth")

When you look at history, society and culture, there have being many british figure heads from politics, sport, music etc that have not being too kind to ireland either by what they have said and by their actions.

this thread is simply to discuss the main figures of the united kindgom of great britian who have done their best in the past to bring better relationship between this island and the "enemy" of the uk.

My examples are

1. William "G.O.M." Gladstone - possibly the first english man to make any effort to understand this country when trying to solve the "irish solution". in his time, and even as far as the late 1970's when ireland or part of the island were being discussed, many MP's and Lords never even bothered to set foot on this island. Gladstone helped to bring some form of justice to this land, he helped by furthering O'Connell's Catholic Emanicapation by bringing in Home Rule and Land League (ok for many a Republican this was not enough but it was a start of British compromise and realisation that Ireland would not want to be ruled from Westminister).

2. Tony Blair and Mo Mowlam - say what you like of Blair now with the WARS in the Middle East but his and his colleagues work even prior to the Good Friday Agreement greatly eased some the wounds of all sides of the divide in the north) (even when he was in the shadow cabinet, likes of him and Ken Livingstone use to come to Belfast and speak to all sides - Livingstone once even got a death threat for speaking to the provo's)

3. Jack Charlton - obvious footballers choice.

so if your bothered, who would you pick

McArmalite

walrusgumble wrote: »

right, for alot of people in this section of boards, britain has not always being seen too nicely in the eyes of ireland, and in many parts rightly so, (no this aint gonna be one of those 800 years threads, nor is it going to be one of those "i wish we were back in the common wealth")

When you look at history, society and culture, there have being many british figure heads from politics, sport, music etc that have not being too kind to ireland either by what they have said and by their actions.

this thread is simply to discuss the main figures of the united kindgom of great britian who have done their best in the past to bring better relationship between this island and the "enemy" of the uk.

My examples are

1. William "G.O.M." Gladstone - possibly the first english man to make any effort to understand this country when trying to solve the "irish solution". in his time, and even as far as the late 1970's when ireland or part of the island were being discussed, many MP's and Lords never even bothered to set foot on this island. Gladstone helped to bring some form of justice to this land, he helped by furthering O'Connell's Catholic Emanicapation by bringing in Home Rule and Land League (ok for many a Republican this was not enough but it was a start of British compromise and realisation that Ireland would not want to be ruled from Westminister).

2. Tony Blair and Mo Mowlam - say what you like of Blair now with the WARS in the Middle East but his and his colleagues work even prior to the Good Friday Agreement greatly eased some the wounds of all sides of the divide in the north) (even when he was in the shadow cabinet, likes of him and Ken Livingstone use to come to Belfast and speak to all sides - Livingstone once even got a death threat for speaking to the provo's)

3. Jack Charlton - obvious footballers choice.

so if your bothered, who would you pick

Firstly, I don't know what statements like " those 800 years threads " is supposed to imply ? Is it that the 800 years of british gross abuses of this country should be dismissed and sniggered at ??

Gladstone had his own interests at heart and only appeared to be friendly towards Ireland as the Liberal Party did not have enough seats to form a government on their own and so sought an aliance with the Irish MP's to secure power. He introduced land reform etc in the hope of " Killing Home Rule with kindness " in his own words. He did'nt achieve " by bringing in Home Rule " it was rejected by the british parliament in 1886 and 1893. As for intorducing reforms with Catholics, it was done partly again because of his reliance on Irish MP's to keep in governmant and also due to the liberialisation spirit that had earleir swept Europe and britian's need to improve relations with the Catholic Church. A bit like Kennedy stopping the segragation in the southern states in the 60's as Adolf Hitler and co. had given racism a bad name 20 years earlier.

Ken Livingstone, Tony Benn ( both of whom I've gone to hear them publically speak, even had a pint with Ken Kivingstone in Buswell's on Molesworth St, he's a passionate Chelsea fan BTW :rolleyes: ) and also many others like Jeremy Corbyn etc have been supportive of Ireland. But I wouldn't put Blair or Mowlem in the same bracket as Ken Livingstone. Blair and Mowlem didn't do a single thing to advance Ireland, the whole Good Friday agreement etc came about because Gerry, Marty and co. preceived that the brits were'nt going to give on occupation of the six counties and that they would therefore instead co opt themselves into the day to day running of the north. If you cann't beat them join them sort of thing. Mowlem in actual fact completely resented being Secretary of State for the occupied counties and did her damndest behind the scenes not to be appointed to it as it was seen as the dustbin of political positions. Far from either having a kind heart for the OIrish, they had britian's interests first and foremost at heart and nothing else.

Besides politican's I would say that other british people who had been friends to Ireland are journalist Robert Fisk, Charles Dickens ( often wrote passionately to newspapers etc about the wrongful plight and mistreatment of our people ), the director Ken Loach off the top of my head, but I'm sure their are many others.

Zebra3

The only reason Blair and his cronies put time and effort into the GFA was because of the damage the IRA were doing to the financial centres of London. They didn't do it because of a love of Ireland, they done it because of pressure from major financial institutions who told them sort it out or we're out of here.

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote: »

The only reason Blair and his cronies put time and effort into the GFA was because of the damage the IRA were doing to the financial centres of London. They didn't do it because of a love of Ireland, they done it because of pressure from major financial institutions who told them sort it out or we're out of here.

That's just IRA propaganda.

Blair talked about a solution for Ireland long before he ever became the leader of the Labour party. It has been a labour objective for years.

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's just IRA propaganda.

No, it's straight forward fact. If the British government didn't sort something out major financial institutions were off to Frankfurt or elsewhere. However what the IRA saw as Britain's achilles heel is what Loyalists could in the future see as Dublin's achilles heel.....

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Blair talked about a solution for Ireland long before he ever became the leader of the Labour party. It has been a labour objective for years.

Wow! Politican in talking about doing something shocker!!! :rolleyes: Whatever next????

Fratton Fred

The Bishopsgate bombing was in 1993, five years before the GFA. If the IRA had held their ceasefire then the GFA would most likely have come about sooner.

I know the IRA like to think they played a big part in getting it signed, but the framework was there and it was happening. The Anglo Irish agreement, whilst flawed, kicked the whole thing off. The Baltic Exchange and Bishopsgate bombs, if anything, delayed the process as the general opinion in the UK was **** em, they obviously don't want peace so it would not have been prudent for a British PM to start negotiations again. It also meant SF/IRA were kept out of Stormont talks.

Fratton Fred

To answer the OP's points, what period of history are you thinking of and what would you consider "British".

What i am getting at, is that there were plenty of British descendants, such as Parnell and Casement, who fought for the rights of Irish people. Conveniently though, it would seem that if they fought for the rights of the Irish working class, they are considered Irish, if they were landowners who opposed reform, they were British.

walrusgumble

McArmalite wrote: »

Firstly, I don't know what statements like " those 800 years threads " is supposed to imply ? Is it that the 800 years of british gross abuses of this country should be dismissed and sniggered at ??

Gladstone had his own interests at heart and only appeared to be friendly towards Ireland as the Liberal Party did not have enough seats to form a government on their own and so sought an aliance with the Irish MP's to secure power. He introduced land reform etc in the hope of " Killing Home Rule with kindness " in his own words. He did'nt achieve " by bringing in Home Rule " it was rejected by the british parliament in 1886 and 1893. As for intorducing reforms with Catholics, it was done partly again because of his reliance on Irish MP's to keep in governmant and also due to the liberialisation spirit that had earleir swept Europe and britian's need to improve relations with the Catholic Church. A bit like Kennedy stopping the segragation in the southern states in the 60's as Adolf Hitler and co. had given racism a bad name 20 years earlier.

Ken Livingstone, Tony Benn ( both of whom I've gone to hear them publically speak, even had a pint with Ken Kivingstone in Buswell's on Molesworth St, he's a passionate Chelsea fan BTW :rolleyes: ) and also many others like Jeremy Corbyn etc have been supportive of Ireland. But I wouldn't put Blair or Mowlem in the same bracket as Ken Livingstone. Blair and Mowlem didn't do a single thing to advance Ireland, the whole Good Friday agreement etc came about because Gerry, Marty and co. preceived that the brits were'nt going to give on occupation of the six counties and that they would therefore instead co opt themselves into the day to day running of the north. If you cann't beat them join them sort of thing. Mowlem in actual fact completely resented being Secretary of State for the occupied counties and did her damndest behind the scenes not to be appointed to it as it was seen as the dustbin of political positions. Far from either having a kind heart for the OIrish, they had britian's interests first and foremost at heart and nothing else.

Besides politican's I would say that other british people who had been friends to Ireland are journalist Robert Fisk, Charles Dickens ( often wrote passionately to newspapers etc about the wrongful plight and mistreatment of our people ), the director Ken Loach off the top of my head, but I'm sure their are many others.

of course it is not to be sniggered at - ! , my past comments on these threads would make that very clear! its just at times there alot of absolute sh*te talk and inaccuracies have being stated on countless threads in this area. particularily the idea of "800 years of abuse"

look at the rebellions of the past 700 years. THe flight of the earls, - at no point did O'Neill and O'Donnell state that they were disloyal to the Crown .from 1690 right up to 1916, majority of the army and police forces in ireland have comprised of Irish Catholics and Protestants and have fought for Britain aganist Irish rebels - it was its own people that did Britain's dirty work. i am no revionist, and i applaud the bravery of men of 1916, but prior to the event, the majority of people in this country wanted to remain in Britain, there was NO talk of split from empire (bar IRB etc) and we are all aware of the reaction of the people when the pearse and co surrendered. You look at the land league, a majority of farmers did not give a feck about parliament etc so long as they got their lands.


with regard to Gladstone, so sh*t! damn all politicians do anything without considering their own interests. sure even later leader realised that the independence of country wouls depend on British support - Larkin & Connolly stated that it needed support of the british trade unions. Parnell took fantastice advantage of it, but you tell me know, 1880's,(remember the events of this time) would the conversatives have listened to their partners in governement ?(ie parnell)

"Killing Home Rule with Kindness" were NOT the words of Gladstone! he was gone and retired when those words were prodominelty uttered by the CONSERVATIVES

walrusgumble

Zebra3 wrote: »

The only reason Blair and his cronies put time and effort into the GFA was because of the damage the IRA were doing to the financial centres of London. They didn't do it because of a love of Ireland, they done it because of pressure from major financial institutions who told them sort it out or we're out of here.

fair enough, but what did previous prime minister's really do about the situation?

maybe you should actually read the journals of the likes of Gerry Adams and see what type of person the likes of Mo Mowlam was really like.

walrusgumble

Fratton Fred wrote: »

To answer the OP's points, what period of history are you thinking of and what would you consider "British".

What i am getting at, is that there were plenty of British descendants, such as Parnell and Casement, who fought for the rights of Irish people. Conveniently though, it would seem that if they fought for the rights of the Irish working class, they are considered Irish, if they were landowners who opposed reform, they were British.

well some (not all) landlords dont really have a good name for themselves in the eyes of irish history. Basically, i refer to irish meaning people who did things for the good of the island of ireland or nation.

Fratton Fred

walrusgumble wrote: »

well some (not all) landlords dont really have a good name for themselves in the eyes of irish history. Basically, i refer to irish meaning people who did things for the good of the island of ireland or nation.

People like Parnell though, who came from an Anglo Irish family yet undoubtedly had the interests of the irish at heart. Was he British or Irish.

The same goes for George Wyndham or his great grand father Lord Edward Fitzgerald (Now there's a couple of candidates).

I mean, there is also rumours I believe that Theobald Wolfe Tone was the son of Theobald Wolfe, a cousin of Arthur Wolfe, Lord Kilwarden so maybe Wolfe Tone had Englsih blood.

The point I am making, is that with a lot of Irish figures, there is a very grey area when you try and distinguish between British and Irish

McArmalite

walrusgumble wrote: »

of course it is not to be sniggered at - ! , my past comments on these threads would make that very clear! its just at times there alot of absolute sh*te talk and inaccuracies have being stated on countless threads in this area. particularily the idea of "800 years of abuse"

look at the rebellions of the past 700 years. THe flight of the earls, - at no point did O'Neill and O'Donnell state that they were disloyal to the Crown .from 1690 right up to 1916, majority of the army and police forces in ireland have comprised of Irish Catholics and Protestants and have fought for Britain aganist Irish rebels - it was its own people that did Britain's dirty work. i am no revionist, and i applaud the bravery of men of 1916, but prior to the event, the majority of people in this country wanted to remain in Britain, there was NO talk of split from empire (bar IRB etc) and we are all aware of the reaction of the people when the pearse and co surrendered. You look at the land league, a majority of farmers did not give a feck about parliament etc so long as they got their lands.


with regard to Gladstone, so sh*t! damn all politicians do anything without considering their own interests. sure even later leader realised that the independence of country wouls depend on British support - Larkin & Connolly stated that it needed support of the british trade unions. Parnell took fantastice advantage of it, but you tell me know, 1880's,(remember the events of this time) would the conversatives have listened to their partners in governement ?(ie parnell)

"Killing Home Rule with Kindness" were NOT the words of Gladstone! he was gone and retired when those words were prodominelty uttered by the CONSERVATIVES

absolute sh*te talk and inaccuracies have being stated on countless threads in this area. particularily the idea of "800 years of abuse"

So the occupation of the country according to you really wasn't dreadful abuse and cruelty for millions down the centuries but the benign, benevolent vocation of a foreign force coming to set up fair trade and enlighten us ?? And then you say " i am no revionist " ??

THe flight of the earls, - at no point did O'Neill and O'Donnell state that they were disloyal to the Crown

Well I would have thought that when you raise an army and rebel against the forces of occupation was about as much a statement of disloyalty as you can get.

from 1690 right up to 1916, majority of the army and police forces in ireland have comprised of Irish Catholics and Protestants and have fought for Britain aganist Irish rebels - it was its own people that did Britain's dirty work

Yes, though the vast majority been obvious economic conscripts and not out an admiration for the occupying power, similiar to Europe under German occupation, Vichy France etc many Irish people served under britain. Given the length of british occupation and the economic destruction of the country, it's not at all surprising. However the service of britain was never an option respected by the vast majority of the people, with those participating referred to as Castle Catholics, sleeven's, West brits etc From 1690 to 1916 the vast majority of the Irish people would in any year if the conditions had been ripe, have been glad to see the end of british occupation beyond a doubt. With the destruction of the old Gaelic order, violent resistance to british ways evolved into secret organistaions such as the Defenders, Molly MaGuires, Steelboys, Ribbon Men etc around the country until Wolfe Tone developed the ideology of Irish Republicanism basing it's principles on revolutionary France and America. If you didn't know we had attempts at revolution in 1798, 1803, 1848, the Fenians etc The millions of Irish citizens who went to America, Canada etc insisted on their nationality been recorded as Irish and not british. Anyone to suggest that Irish nationalism was born in 1916 and didn't exist among the vast majority of the people beforehand is talking a load of tripe.

he bravery of men of 1916, but prior to the event, the majority of people in this country wanted to remain in Britain,

So why was the Home Rule movements, which were supposed to lead us on the first stepping stones towards ultimate Irish independence, of O'Connell and Parnell the largest elected parties in Ireland ??

The reason I raised the real motivation for Gladstone was to point out that he was in fact not a kindly, benevolent friend of Ireland as your post suggests but an oppurtunist ready to use our country as a pawn for him and his party's political ambitions.

But I stand corrected that "Killing Home Rule with Kindness" were NOT the words of Gladstone and was indeed the words of the Tories .

walrusgumble

Fratton Fred wrote: »

People like Parnell though, who came from an Anglo Irish family yet undoubtedly had the interests of the irish at heart. Was he British or Irish.

The same goes for George Wyndham or his great grand father Lord Edward Fitzgerald (Now there's a couple of candidates).

I mean, there is also rumours I believe that Theobald Wolfe Tone was the son of Theobald Wolfe, a cousin of Arthur Wolfe, Lord Kilwarden so maybe Wolfe Tone had Englsih blood.

The point I am making, is that with a lot of Irish figures, there is a very grey area when you try and distinguish between British and Irish

you will note the qualification "(not all)" there is also that chap who use to sign his named AE

but yes, gotta love irish history - crazy little island:D.

sure for a while erskine childrers senior was british through and through and fought in teh british army (all though also a pro home ruler). Sure contrary to some people's belief, it was ulster irish protestants, many of whom were landlords, who really kicked things off for the united irishmen. even the irish who fought for the crown in 1798 thought / believed they were doing it for their country - ireland. even during the land league many evicting landlords were irish catholic (times were hard for all) and probably were patrotic irish men as the next person.

the purpose of my thread really was about the people of mainland britian or should i say england,wales and scotland (in relation to ireland - you are opening a bag of nuts going there)

that is what i mean when i said some of the things said when discussing the 800 years etc is nonsense inaccuracy.

McArmalite

walrusgumble wrote: »

you will note the qualification "(not all)" there is also that chap who use to sign his named AE

but yes, gotta love irish history - crazy little island:D.

sure for a while erskine childrers senior was british through and through and fought in teh british army (all though also a pro home ruler). Sure contrary to some people's belief, it was ulster irish protestants, many of whom were landlords, who really kicked things off for the united irishmen. even the irish who fought for the crown in 1798 thought / believed they were doing it for their country - ireland. even during the land league many evicting landlords were irish catholic (times were hard for all) and probably were patrotic irish men as the next person.

the purpose of my thread really was about the people of mainland britian or should i say england,wales and scotland (in relation to ireland - you are opening a bag of nuts going there)

that is what i mean when i said some of the things said when discussing the 800 years etc is nonsense inaccuracy.

but yes, gotta love irish history - crazy little island

Many of the American revolutionary's were of English extraction, Washington, Adams, Jefferson etc. Cann't see what's crazy about the descendant of someone having different politics from his ancestors.

it was ulster irish protestants, many of whom were landlords, who really kicked things off for the united irishmen.

Under the sort of caste system of discrimination with the Catholics on the bottom ofcourse, the Presbyterian's also were disadvantaged by the british regime and hence revolted against the similiar injustice. Though undoubtably their were many young Anglican Protestant sons and daugthers of landlords, who influenced by the revoulotionary spirit swiping Europe rejected the oppression of fellow Irish people because of their religion.

even during the land league many evicting landlords were irish catholic (times were hard for all) and probably were patrotic irish men as the next person.

Yes indeed many evicting landlords were Irish catholics. But the weren't patriotic Irish Nationalists, but Catholic Unionists.

even the irish who fought for the crown in 1798 thought / believed they were doing it for their country - ireland

No, they were doing it for payment from the crown and in the hope of having a share in the spoils and plunder.

walrusgumble

McArmalite wrote: »

So the occupation of the country according to you really wasn't dreadful abuse and cruelty for millions down the centuries but the benign, benevolent vocation of a foreign force coming to set up fair trade and enlighten us ?? And then you say " i am no revionist " ??

Well I would have thought that when you raise an army and rebel against the forces of occupation was about as much a statement of disloyalty as you can get.

. Yes, though the vast majority been obvious economic conscripts, similiar to Europe under German occupation, Vichy France etc many Irish people served under britain. Given the length of british occupation and the economic destruction of the country, it's not at all surprising. However the service of britain was never an option respected by the vast majority of the people, with those participating referred to as Castle Catholics, sleeven's, West brits etc From 1690 to 1916 the vast majority of the Irish people would in any year if the conditions had been ripe, have been glad to see the end of british occupation beyond a doubt. If you didn't know we had attempts at revoulotion in 1798, 1803, 1848, the Fenians etc The millions of Irish citizens who went to America, Canada etc insisted on their nationality been recorded as Irish and not british. Anyone to suggest that Irish nationalism was born in 1916 and didn't exist among the vast majority of the people beforehand is talking a load of tripe.

So why was the Home Rule movements, which were supposed to lead us on the first stepping stones towards ultimate Irish independence, of O'Connell and Parnell the largest elected parties in Ireland ??

The reason I raised the real motivation for Gladstone was to point out that he was in fact not a kindly, benevolent friend of Ireland as your post suggests but an oppurtunist ready to use our country as a pawn for him and his party's political ambitions.

But I stand corrected that "Killing Home Rule with Kindness" were NOT the words of Gladstone and was indeed the words of the Tories .

eh , i am not disagreeing with you, and in fairness my comments were never targeted at you. look through all the old threads there is a load of nonsense stated in them that are inaccurate. when i look at history i look that what happened and try to understand why it happened at look at the attitude at THAT time. i dont do the but what if's and try and link it to present day senerios to justify the badness /goodness like what some revionists do.

how do you justify that the majority of crown forces who rampaged this country of the years were actually IRISH?,

1. i certaintly am not saying the "occupation of the country" according to me "really wasn't dreadful abuse and cruelty for millions down the centuries but the benign, benevolent vocation of a foreign force coming to set up fair trade and enlighten us"

look what was happening to the peasants in britain, Westminster also ignored and failed to deal with them.

why weren't there more people supporting Emmet in 1806ish, and the fenian rebellions in 1840' s and 1860's if the people really found their was absolute abuse and cruelty? the famine was around best time than any to kick up and get support after the economic restrictions imposed on britian. why did thousands of IRISH people fight and quash the rebellions in the name of the crown? why did so many people happily greet King Edward at dun laoighre despite sinn fein's protests?

unfortunately none of the rebellions ever got the majority support of the people in ireland, not even 1798 (thankfully that did not deter the men of 1916) i agree with your comments about the birth of nationalism (simply becasue its fact and history shows its self to be fact) i fully am aware that 1916 was not something pearse thought up one night, i am fully aware of the IRB and the fenain movement in america, but it was all talk, why didn't they come back to ireland to actually fight?

you know and i know that o'connell, butt and parnell (despite his famous speech which can be found on his statute in dublin) never as much as stated that complete seperation was the road to take, connection with the empire was important, and thousands followed them. if the abuse was so great as its made out, why didn't the people not revolt in greater numbers?

2. why were O'Connell etc voted? to rule for ireland, and bring real justice to Irish people, to get away from british "tyranny". O'Connell abd butt use to make it very clear to the House of Commons that under his ireland, they never intended to leave the empire, different opinion compared to the Young Irelanders.

3. as for gladstone, i aint making out he loved ireland etc, i genuinely could not give two f&cks what his real agenda was, the fact remains, his put alot of time and energy in brining Parnell's mission through Westminister. Parnell knew he was being a pawn, but the great man never allowed himself and his party to be overlooked and he made full advantage of the liberals with the land acts (ok they were in fact useless but it was a start) you could harldy have seen disreali, chamberlain or randolph churchill doing this, could you?

walrusgumble

McArmalite wrote: »

The vast, vast majority of them were greedy, inhuman, hateful parasites, and not just " some (not all) landlords "

true. you could see the comparisions of greed and hateful parasites in modern day landlords?.:D

james connolly got it right when he said

"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs".

walrusgumble

McArmalite wrote: »

Ah yes stupid, drunken, illogical, mad violent Irish who never had a justification for opposing british occupation at any time.

Under the sort of caste system of discrimination with the Catholics on the bottom ofcourse, the Presbyterian's also were disadvantaged by the british regime and hence revolted against the similiar injustice. Though undoubtably their were many young Anglican Protestant sons and daugthers of landlords, who influenced by the revoulotionary spirit swiping Europe rejected the oppression of fellow Irish people because of their religion.

No, they were doing it for payment from the crown and in the hope of having a share in the spoils and plunder.

mcarmalite are you taking the pis*? have you some chip on your shoulder, can you not detect sarcasim? if a non national referred to crazy little island by saying drunk etc - it may come across as a bit racism, and i aint doing that. you look at irish history and look at the different backgrounds national hero's came from, many you would not expect from the typcial unspoken definition of an irish man, i am referring to the contradictions of irish history. if you actually read that comment and saw in what context it was referring to you would also note it. that comment "our crazy little island" is not referring even to the justification or lack of oppossing occupation. in fact i recall it was a response to fratton fred's comments. fratton i understand is orginally from england, and i applaud anyone who thanks the interest to try and understand the history of this country and the people behind it.

as for your comments on Ulster's Protestant United Irishmen, i would agree in parts with regard to their attitude of Catholics as activity died down up their when the orange order was revived, but you could not say that about people like tone and maccartan, they supported catholics and a full and equal nation comprising of both religions.

McArmalite

walrusgumble wrote: »

mcarmalite are you taking the pis*? have you some chip on your shoulder, can you not detect sarcasim? if a non national referred to crazy little island by saying drunk etc - it may come across as a bit racism, and i aint doing that. you look at irish history and look at the different backgrounds national hero's came from, many you would not expect from the typcial unspoken definition of an irish man, i am referring to the contradictions of irish history. if you actually read that comment and saw in what context it was referring to you would also note it. that comment "our crazy little island" is not referring even to the justification or lack of oppossing occupation. in fact i recall it was a response to fratton fred's comments. fratton i understand is orginally from england, and i applaud anyone who thanks the interest to try and understand the history of this country and the people behind it.

as for your comments on Ulster's Protestant United Irishmen, i would agree in parts with regard to their attitude of Catholics as activity died down up their when the orange order was revived, but you could not say that about people like tone and maccartan, they supported catholics and a full and equal nation comprising of both religions.

Ok fair enough walrusgumble McArm can be a bit of a 'lad'

As for " Ulster's Protestant United Irishmen " I would have thought that my statement regarding the sincere motivation of the sons and daughters of Protestant landlords would have implied so - " Though undoubtably their were many young Anglican Protestant sons and daugthers of landlords, who influenced by the revoulotionary spirit swiping Europe rejected the oppression of fellow Irish people because of their religion. "

Fratton Fred

Weren't the early Land league meetings held in Orange Halls and iirc, the first person they targetted was an Irish Catholic Bishop landlord.

Crazy little country:D

Belfast

What did the Romans ever do for us?

1.William Wilberforce supported Roman Catholic political emancipation.

2.Gareth Peirce for using the law to get a fair trial for Irish suspect of bomings in Britian.

3.William Bligh Bligh designed the North Bull Wall at the mouth of the River Liffey in Dublin, to prevent the blockage of Dublin Port by the formation of a sandbar.

4.Jonathan Pim Quaker famine relief

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Weren't the early Land league meetings held in Orange Halls and iirc, the first person they targetted was an Irish Catholic Bishop landlord.

Crazy little country:D

The Land League was formed in Mayo and yes, Orange Halls were used for some meetings in the early days, but as usual, the unionist establishment put the brake on that with the usual hell fire and brimstone, the Pope is the anti Christ and they are trying to brainwash you in their evil scheme etc, etc

Not surprising the first landlord they targeted was a Catholic Bishop. The Land League was an nonsectarian body, a parasitical landlord is a parasitical landlord regardless of his religion or place in society.

McArmalite

walrusgumble - didn't bother to reply to this post yesterday as I was busy with other threads. Anyway here goes. Not leg pulling but for someone who claims that he is not a 'revisionist' they then go on to express as typically 'revisionist' views as you can get :rolleyes:

walrusgumble wrote: »

how do you justify that the majority of crown forces who rampaged this country of the years were actually IRISH?,

Interesting, can you provide us with some links/references as examples of that ?? We are getting off topic here, but from what I remember although recruited and trained in Ireland, Irish regiments were quickly dispatched to the far flung ends of the empire to oppress and enslave others. When rebellion broke out or was attempted soldiers from England etc were rushed in with the Irish ones remaining overseas.If you read Tom Barry, Ernie O'Malley, Dan Breen etc you'll see that the vast majority of the time they engaged with regiments composed mainly of soldiers unsurprisingly from England, Wales, Scotland. The only men from Ireland that they encountered were practically the RIC. This should'nt surprise anyone that a police force should act in such a manner as police forces across Europe sheepishly did likewise under German occupation, the Channell Islands included.

why weren't there more people supporting Emmet in 1806ish, and the fenian rebellions in 1840' s and 1860's if the people really found their was absolute abuse and cruelty?

Well Emmet, the Young Irelanders and the Fenians rebellions never really got off due to britain's network of informers. But I would have thought it the most clear thing in the world that the nationalist population were obviously terrorised and intimadated with the very real chance of ending in the hang man's noose, floggings, torture and imprisonment or transportation to Australia in leg irons and chains etc. Bit like saying why did'nt the people of Eastern Europe and the USSR not support the Hungarian in 1956 and Czech uprising in 1968 if they were unhappy with communism. Also a very major factor with Ireland - even possibly more so than the effectiveness of the british forces - would have been the denouncements and brain washing of the churches.

why did so many people happily greet King Edward at dun laoighre despite sinn fein's protests?

Well I'd imagine in those days their wasn't too much pomp and ceremony about, think of it as sort of a Lady Di / Elvis offical state visit sort of thing. Also their were quite a few unionists in Dublin back then, even in the 1918 election unionists were returned in the wealthier areas of the city such as Rathmines, before it was turned into flat land by the culchies and students.

O'Connell abd butt use to make it very clear to the House of Commons that under his ireland, they never intended to leave the empire

Again interesting, can you provide us with some links/references as examples of that ?? Particularily Parnell but I wouldn't doubt it about O'Connell as he was a total oppurtunist who ran with the hares and the hounds as it suited him. A bit like John Hume whom I heard on tv telling the nationalists that the Good Friday Agreement would lead to a united Ireland and then a few days later on radio telling the unionists it wouldn't !!!!!!

walrusgumble

McArmalite wrote: »

walrusgumble - didn't bother to reply to this post yesterday as I was busy with other threads. Anyway here goes. Not leg pulling but for someone who claims that he is not a 'revisionist' they then go on to express as typically 'revisionist' views as you can get :rolleyes:

Interesting, can you provide us with some links/references as examples of that ?? We are getting off topic here, but from what I remember although recruited and trained in Ireland, Irish regiments were quickly dispatched to the far flung ends of the empire to oppress and enslave others. When rebellion broke out or was attempted soldiers from England etc were rushed in with the Irish ones remaining overseas.If you read Tom Barry, Ernie O'Malley, Dan Breen etc you'll see that the vast majority of the time they engaged with regiments composed mainly of soldiers unsurprisingly from England, Wales, Scotland. The only men from Ireland that they encountered were practically the RIC. This should'nt surprise anyone that a police force should act in such a manner as police forces across Europe sheepishly did likewise under German occupation, the Channell Islands included.

Well Emmet, the Young Irelanders and the Fenians rebellions never really got off due to britain's network of informers. But I would have thought it the most clear thing in the world that the nationalist population were obviously terrorised and intimadated with the very real chance of ending in the hang man's noose, floggings, torture and imprisonment or transportation to Australia in leg irons and chains etc. Bit like saying why did'nt the people of Eastern Europe and the USSR not support the Hungarian in 1956 and Czech uprising in 1968 if they were unhappy with communism. Also a very major factor with Ireland - even possibly more so than the effectiveness of the british forces - would have been the denouncements and brain washing of the churches.

Well I'd imagine in those days their wasn't too much pomp and ceremony about, think of it as sort of a Lady Di / Elvis offical state visit sort of thing. Also their were quite a few unionists in Dublin back then, even in the 1918 election unionists were returned in the wealthier areas of the city such as Rathmines, before it was turned into flat land by the culchies and students.

Again interesting, can you provide us with some links/references as examples of that ?? Particularily Parnell but I wouldn't doubt it about O'Connell as he was a total oppurtunist who ran with the hares and the hounds as it suited him. A bit like John Hume whom I heard on tv telling the nationalists that the Good Friday Agreement would lead to a united Ireland and then a few days later on radio telling the unionists it wouldn't !!!!!!

if you are going to bother replying please read this in full , becasue you are getting the wrong end of the stick and making comments i am not even making arguments to or disagreeing to, particularily any time after 1916!

1. Issue of Irish in Crown Forces. The history books would be a start - read Robert Kee's Green Flag of Nationalism. The issue of most of Crown's forces in ireland being Irish is not off topic, as it was also Irish People themselves who actually did the evil work of the Crown against the Irish. So are you saying the Royal Dublin Fusilars and Royal Irish Regiments which were based as Collins Barracks during 1916 were actually mostly born in the island of Britian? I think i actually stated something along the lines as far up to "1916" many of the crown forces were irish. normally by stating that word "up to" would be a cut off point. so everything facts recorded in history after is there for all to read that england were a shower of thugs , and no one is goign to argue with you as one would probably be in agreement.

i never referred or would ever refer to war of independence and was careful not to - but of course you went flying in:rolleyes:. to have referred to war of independence was be wrong and inaccurate becasue 1916 really and trully changed irish men's attitude of joining the crown forces, tom barry will testify to that, even members of the connaught rangers who were executed in some place around india after protesting about the way the rebels were treated after surrendering. i was clearly referring to the accounts of rebellions such as 1690, 1798, Emmet's rebellion, Stephen's rebellion and even in parts 1916.

how the hell could britian properly trust irish regiments to deal with this country after 1916, even if they had the forces to do so? could they have really trusted them?

2. Re previous rebellions. Yes there were informers, there always was, even during the war of independence, only collins and co outsmarted them. as for the churches you do make a decent point, particularily the catholic church - always on the side of the winner:rolleyes: i concede on this point, as to go and say eg well the irish people forgot the church in 1916 and 1919(all though church started to support the cause then) despite still being brainwashed woudl be ludricous

3. Re King's visit - i don't know about that but as far as links, check out the local libruary and check the old newspapers at the time, even the more nationalist toned papers. Dublin put on a big show there, i agree and am aware that there were many unionists in dublin - both catholic and protestant, but the king got some reception all the same! i suggest you check out the primary source of the newspaper accounts (noting certain papers were unashamely unionists).

Shacklebolt

McArmalite wrote: »

Firstly, I don't know what statements like " those 800 years threads " is supposed to imply ? Is it that the 800 years of british gross abuses of this country should be dismissed and sniggered at ??

Gladstone had his own interests at heart and only appeared to be friendly towards Ireland as the Liberal Party did not have enough seats to form a government on their own and so sought an aliance with the Irish MP's to secure power. He introduced land reform etc in the hope of " Killing Home Rule with kindness " in his own words. He did'nt achieve " by bringing in Home Rule " it was rejected by the british parliament in 1886 and 1893. As for intorducing reforms with Catholics, it was done partly again because of his reliance on Irish MP's to keep in governmant and also due to the liberialisation spirit that had earleir swept Europe and britian's need to improve relations with the Catholic Church. A bit like Kennedy stopping the segragation in the southern states in the 60's as Adolf Hitler and co. had given racism a bad name 20 years earlier.

Ken Livingstone, Tony Benn ( both of whom I've gone to hear them publically speak, even had a pint with Ken Kivingstone in Buswell's on Molesworth St, he's a passionate Chelsea fan BTW :rolleyes: ) and also many others like Jeremy Corbyn etc have been supportive of Ireland. But I wouldn't put Blair or Mowlem in the same bracket as Ken Livingstone. Blair and Mowlem didn't do a single thing to advance Ireland, the whole Good Friday agreement etc came about because Gerry, Marty and co. preceived that the brits were'nt going to give on occupation of the six counties and that they would therefore instead co opt themselves into the day to day running of the north. If you cann't beat them join them sort of thing. Mowlem in actual fact completely resented being Secretary of State for the occupied counties and did her damndest behind the scenes not to be appointed to it as it was seen as the dustbin of political positions. Far from either having a kind heart for the OIrish, they had britian's interests first and foremost at heart and nothing else.

Besides politican's I would say that other british people who had been friends to Ireland are journalist Robert Fisk, Charles Dickens ( often wrote passionately to newspapers etc about the wrongful plight and mistreatment of our people ), the director Ken Loach off the top of my head, but I'm sure their are many others.

I think you will find it was actually the Conservatives who wished to "kill home rule with kindness-Gladstone did all he could to have it passed byu parliment and was bitterly disappointed when the 1893 bill was rejected.

Pgibson

Incidentally,

Ireland was invaded by French 900 years ago,not English.

The Normans invaded England from Normandy and walloped the English in 1066.Their leader was "William the Conqueror".

Their English servants were forced to speak French.So we still call cow meat "Boeuf" (Beef) and sheep meat "Mouton" (Mutton),and deer meat "Venison" etc. etc...

(The Robin Hood legend stems from English resistance to the Norman conquerors.)

In 1169 they invaded Ireland.

They became "More Irish than the Irish themselves though."

The English arrived later and met resistance from ...Irish Normans.

.

brianthebard

walrusgumble wrote: »

. Sure contrary to some people's belief, it was ulster irish protestants, many of whom were landlords, who really kicked things off for the united irishmen. even the irish who fought for the crown in 1798 thought / believed they were doing it for their country - ireland. even during the land league many evicting landlords were irish catholic (times were hard for all) and probably were patrotic irish men as the next person.

the purpose of my thread really was about the people of mainland britian or should i say england,wales and scotland (in relation to ireland - you are opening a bag of nuts going there)

that is what i mean when i said some of the things said when discussing the 800 years etc is nonsense inaccuracy.

Well it was only after the Parnell period that people began to think of Ireland as a Catholic Island exclusively, with a connection being established between Home rule and the catholic church in order to gain support. this led to a turning away of Ulster protestants from an Irish identity and a crystallisation of their core british values as they saw them.


Edit: McArm, claiming those three "rebellions" never got off the ground due to english informers is weak tbh.

walrusgumble

brianthebard wrote: »

Well it was only after the Parnell period that people began to think of Ireland as a Catholic Island exclusively, with a connection being established between Home rule and the catholic church in order to gain support. this led to a turning away of Ulster protestants from an Irish identity and a crystallisation of their core british values as they saw them.


Edit: McArm, claiming those three "rebellions" never got off the ground due to english informers is weak tbh.

agreed - there was a gentleman known as DP Moran. he wrote for his paper and a member of the gaelic revivial league who stated that only irish catholics were true irish men . that kind of attitude isolated many ordianry protestants from groups such as the Gaelic league.

McArmalite

Shacklebolt wrote: »

I think you will find it was actually the Conservatives who wished to "kill home rule with kindness-Gladstone did all he could to have it passed byu parliment and was bitterly disappointed when the 1893 bill was rejected.

See the bottom of my post #12.

brianthebard wrote: »

Well it was only after the Parnell period that people began to think of Ireland as a Catholic Island exclusively, with a connection being established between Home rule and the catholic church in order to gain support. this led to a turning away of Ulster protestants from an Irish identity and a crystallisation of their core british values as they saw them.


Edit: McArm, claiming those three "rebellions" never got off the ground due to english informers is weak tbh.

Fair enough brain, the informers alone were'nt the only cause at these attempted rebellions. Hopefully you can find a book as to the various factors causing their failures, I cann't nor wouldn't go into each and every possible detail, scenario and event in a quick reply to someone.

brianthebard

McArmalite wrote: »

See the bottom of my post #12.



Fair enough brain, the informers alone were'nt the only cause at these attempted rebellions. Hopefully you can find a book as to the various factors causing their failures, I cann't nor wouldn't go into each and every possible detail, scenario and event in a quick reply to someone.

Well I think the fact that robert emmet's "uprising" was little more than a mob brawl had something to do with that one. I could go into the others, but I can't go through each scenario right now.

Pgibson

McArmalite wrote: »

!!!!!!

Interesting how Armelite wielding IRA Terrorists gave Northern Ireland over to Ian Paisley and caused the Irish Republic to recognise N.I. as "British" in its constitution.

They murdered thousands in the process.

Big Grin indeed.

.

McArmalite

walrusgumble wrote: »

true. you could see the comparisions of greed and hateful parasites in modern day landlords?.:D

james connolly got it right when he said

"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs".

Indeed walrusgumble, judging by the contents of your posts( britian the benign, benevolent friend of Ireland before Connolly, Pearse and co brainwashed us all against them due to 1916 :rolleyes:) I'm sure your heavily influeneced by James Connolly.

As for the constant theme of your postings, - britian the benign, benevolent friend of Ireland - I hope you don't mind me saying but I wouldn't blame anyone if they suspected you are actually a unionist