Positive legacy of British rule?

jonniebgood1

I think this could be an interesting topic. We were ruled by/ from Britain for a large portion of the last 1000 years. There are alot of sad episodes from that history but surely positives have also come as a legacy of the British influence. I read an article recently about the railways in India being a positive result of that countries time as a British colony.
Do people on boards think that there are any positive aspects of British rule in Irelands or do the negatives always taint any positive? Feel free to suggest possible positives.

Dj Stiggie

While I hate the demise of the Irish language, I do think that English being the working language of this country is positive. Whether people like it or not, it is the world's second language, and it has given Ireland a leg up.

The British did build roads and provide infrastructure. While our infrastructure now is poor compared to the rest of Western Europe, it could be even worse if it wasn't for them. Obviously I have no way of proving this.

Given our strategic proximity to Britain, would we have been invaded by the French or Spanish anyway? Given they were also Catholic countries we may have experienced less oppression.

Overall I think, given they were here for over 700 years, there's bound to be at least some positive aspects of their legacy, but they are over-shadowed by the negatives, and rightly so I think.

dubhthach

Dj Stiggie wrote: »

Given our strategic proximity to Britain, would we have been invaded by the French or Spanish anyway? Given they were also Catholic countries we may have experienced less oppression.

They did try several times, the Spanish in the late 16th century/early 17th century culminating in Kinsale. The French in the 18th century starting with Bantry Bay and ending with defeat of French expedition in Donegal in 1798 (and capture of Tone)

Regarding infrastructure, we have to take into account that if the french invasion in 1796 (Bantry) had gotten ashore and caused a successful rebellion then you would think most of key infrastructure built in 19th century would still have been built (railways etc.). Obviously they might have ended up in a somewhat different configuration. I also think we would probably be alot more of a "bilingual state", awh well (English only became majority language after 1800)

I would think one thing that came from destruction of Irish society in the 17th century was a centralised state with the foundations of a parliamentary system. One could argue that the biggest weakness in pre-17th century Ireland was the high amount of factionism. Of course some have argued that 12th century Ireland was moving in a European direction and the arrival of the Cambro-Normans (and later English) ended up increasing level of factionism.

Manach

Ignoring the Pre-19th Century histoty ( in that whilst I'd rate the British Empire on balance ,just, in a positive light, what Ireland went through was plain mal-administration).
As per jonniebgood1's post a positive aspect would be the concept of the common law and the adversarial legal system. This allows Judges flexibilty to build up a body of law which softens harsh legislation in the interest of justice. As well, it allows people a legal defence that is not beholdened to the state.

Delancey

Dj Stiggie wrote: »

While I hate the demise of the Irish language, I do think that English being the working language of this country is positive. Whether people like it or not, it is the world's second language, and it has given Ireland a leg up.

The British did build roads and provide infrastructure. While our infrastructure now is poor compared to the rest of Western Europe, it could be even worse if it wasn't for them. Obviously I have no way of proving this.

Given our strategic proximity to Britain, would we have been invaded by the French or Spanish anyway? Given they were also Catholic countries we may have experienced less oppression.

Overall I think, given they were here for over 700 years, there's bound to be at least some positive aspects of their legacy, but they are over-shadowed by the negatives, and rightly so I think.

+1 , without doubt giving us the English language was the best thing to come out of British rule , where would be in the world if we all only spoke Irish !

slowburner

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

.........Do people on boards think that there are any positive aspects of British rule in Irelands or do the negatives always taint any positive? Feel free to suggest possible positives.

The structure of the civil service. Though some might argue that this is not a positive.

Some of our finest architecture is a direct product of British rule.

I remember showing a Danish chap around Dublin many years ago. He was perplexed as to how various institutions could retain the Royal prefix without causing offence. It's part of the Irish enigma.

dubhthach

Delancey wrote: »

+1 , without doubt giving us the English language was the best thing to come out of British rule , where would be in the world if we all only spoke Irish !

Surely we would be in the same position as the Dutch where everyone learns more then one language in school? Most Dutch are effectively trilingual if not quadlingual when you throw in "local language" (Frisian, "Low Saxon" etc.)

losthorizon

Delancey wrote: »

+1 , without doubt giving us the English language was the best thing to come out of British rule , where would be in the world if we all only spoke Irish !

Our education systen would probably have developed differently so we would have ended up speaking many languages like the Germans or Swedes etc. Not one as now. Its probably been a disadavantage rather than an advantage. We cant even speak our own language never mind French, German etc.

Dj Stiggie

losthorizon wrote: »

Our education systen would probably have developed differently so we would have ended up speaking many languages like the Germans or Swedes etc. Not one as now. Its probably been a disadavantage rather than an advantage. We cant even speak our own language never mind French, German etc.

Assuming we'd speak many languages like the most developed countries in Europe also assumes that our education system is as good as theirs. Which it is not.

Fratton Fred

Trinity College? In its day one of the worlds foremost science universities.

One of the best Tram systems in the world? I have met travel buffs who when they find out I live in Dublin will was lyrical about the wonderful trams in Dublin.

Oddly enough, the All Ireland owes its format to British rule. Imagine an all Ireland with no counties.

Guinness? Or Guinness' protestant porter as O'Connell called it.

ICANN

The system of counties came from the redivision of land after the Brits had taken it all- that meant that loads of Irish landowners were displaced of forced off their own land.

The fact that English is the main language in Ireland had also meant that our literacy and media industries are always going to be inferior British ones (eg people watch English tv programmes ahead of Irish ones and even watch sky news before our own news. Same with music etc. )

dubhthach

Dj Stiggie wrote: »

Assuming we'd speak many languages like the most developed countries in Europe also assumes that our education system is as good as theirs. Which it is not.

Yes but our education system is the product of the 19th century that did occur. Ireland for example was weathier in income then Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway and Finland in 1800. All these countries have functional education systems that produce students with decent language skills today. It's quite reasonable scenario to wonder what Irish outcomes would have been if the French had managed to get ashore in 1796.



One could argue that the population explosion in the first half of 19th century was driven by fact that with the Union tariffs disapearred on Irish argiculture goods been sold in Britain, likewise the Napoleonic wars caused a huge demand for irish argiculture exports. One of major themes of 19th century of course is the basic deindustrialisation of Ireland outside of the North-East.

Fratton Fred

ICANN wrote: »

The system of counties came from the redivision of land after the Brits had taken it all- that meant that loads of Irish landowners were displaced of forced off their own land.

The fact that English is the main language in Ireland had also meant that our literacy and media industries are always going to be inferior British ones (eg people watch English tv programmes ahead of Irish ones and even watch sky news before our own news. Same with music etc. )

Are you trying to imply that the English language is the reason RTE is crap?

ejmaztec

ICANN wrote: »

The system of counties came from the redivision of land after the Brits had taken it all- that meant that loads of Irish landowners were displaced of forced off their own land.

The fact that English is the main language in Ireland had also meant that our literacy and media industries are always going to be inferior British ones (eg people watch English tv programmes ahead of Irish ones and even watch sky news before our own news. Same with music etc. )

The plug being pulled on the Irish version of Sky News for lack of viewers, discounts that theory. I'd also hazard a guess and say that American programmes on all channels are probably more appealing to the "yoof" on both sides of the Irish Sea than homespun programmes, and it is these are having a detrimental effect on both cultures.

Fratton Fred

ejmaztec wrote: »

The plug being pulled on the Irish version of Sky News for lack of viewers, discounts that theory. I'd also hazard a guess and say that American programmes on all channels are probably more appealing to the "yoof" on both sides of the Irish Sea than homespun programmes, and it is these are having a detrimental effect on both cultures.

We just can't turn out Kim Kardashians the way the yanks can.

jonniebgood1

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'd also hazard a guess and say that American programmes on all channels are probably more appealing to the "yoof" on both sides of the Irish Sea than homespun programmes, and it is these are having a detrimental effect on both cultures.

The American 'history' programs on the history channel would support you on this. UFO hunters, Ice truckers??? It is very annoying.

slowburner

The Ordnance Survey of Ireland, especially the series completed in 1842 by pairs of British sappers, just before the famine.
Still astounding for its accuracy today.

Based on the need for accurate land measurement for valuation purposes, the Irish Ordnance Survey completed the world's first large-scale mapping of an entire country by 1842. This was 22 years after Lt. Col. Thomas Colby was first charged with this important role. After the initial survey, which focused primarily on townlands, a more informative series was completed by 1867.
It was a remarkable feat by remarkable men and the accuracy they attained is still marvelled at today.

http://shop.osi.ie/Shop/Products/Default.aspx#historic

Enkidu

It's possible we would have faced massive social equality problems without the British invasion. Ireland had a very removed upper class, in some ways more so than Britain. So it's possible that the British invasion, by toppling that upper class, effectively made our transition to a democracy with equal rights for all easier.

However most of the positives that people mention in these discussions aren't really positives and often require imagining us being incapable of doing the things other small European countries managed to do without the intervention of the British Empire.

pedroeibar1

Enkidu wrote: »

It's possible we would have faced massive social equality problems without the British invasion.

Which invasion? Norman? Various Plantations? Cromwell? Certainly under Brehon Law women had more rights than under common law.

Britain usually integrated locals into the Administration and set up frameworks for governance and education - India, Malaysia, Australia, etc. France usually concentrated on doing things itself – the ‘cadre’ class - and heavily concentrated on infrastructure (e.g. the 18th cent. creation of the Ecole des Mines and the Ecole Polytechnique.) Consider their infrastructural works in North Africa. Comparing the current position of past colonies of both Britain and France gives good examples of both systems, African countries in particular. Contrast that with Leopold of the Belgians who saw the Congo just as a cash box and look at that place now.

As for social/cultural impact, I'm 100% with JBG1. How anyone in Ireland can find an affinity with the lives of someone living in the East End is beyond me. France is now very aware of 'cultural invasion' which is why they promote 'la Francophonie' and have strict controls on use of 'Franglais'.
P.

dubhthach

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Which invasion? Norman? Various Plantations? Cromwell? Certainly under Brehon Law women had more rights than under common law.

Britain usually integrated locals into the Administration and set up frameworks for governance and education - India, Malaysia, Australia, etc. France usually concentrated on doing things itself – the ‘cadre’ class - and heavily concentrated on infrastructure (e.g. the 18th cent. creation of the Ecole des Mines and the Ecole Polytechnique.) Consider their infrastructural works in North Africa. Comparing the current position of past colonies of both Britain and France gives good examples of both systems, African countries in particular. Contrast that with Leopold of the Belgians who saw the Congo just as a cash box and look at that place now.

As for social/cultural impact, I'm 100% with JBG1. How anyone in Ireland can find an affinity with the lives of someone living in the East End is beyond me. France is now very aware of 'cultural invasion' which is why they promote 'la Francophonie' and have strict controls on use of 'Franglais'.
P.

The rights that you mention women have though applied to "Upper class women" as did most of the contents of the Brehon laws. In general for the bulk of population they didn't really matter as they didn't own the land they tended as they were "Serfs" to their local lord (be he Irish or Cambro-Norman)

pedroeibar1

dubhthach wrote: »

The rights that you mention women have though applied to "Upper class women" as did most of the contents of the Brehon laws. In general for the bulk of population they didn't really matter as they didn't own the land they tended as they were "Serfs" to their local lord (be he Irish or Cambro-Norman)

Is that not a bit of a generalisation? All freemen, including the non-landowning classes, had substantial rights. There was a ‘price’ on everything, from a regulating a disputed fee to a physician arising from the non-effective treatment of a patient to the accidental injury of a person while threshing. The award was in proportion to the 'worth' of a person. Only the very bottom class, the slaves/fuidir had a rough deal, but they made up a very small number of the general population.

Most of the Normans adopted Brehon Law as they became hibernicised and it took until Elizabeth1 and arguably until James or even Cromwell to kill them off.
Rs,
P.

ejmaztec

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Is that not a bit of a generalisation? All freemen, including the non-landowning classes, had substantial rights. There was a ‘price’ on everything, from a regulating a disputed fee to a physician arising from the non-effective treatment of a patient to the accidental injury of a person while threshing. The award was in proportion to the 'worth' of a person. Only the very bottom class, the slaves/fuidir had a rough deal, but they made up a very small number of the general population.

Most of the Normans adopted Brehon Law as they became hibernicised and it took until Elizabeth1 and arguably until James or even Cromwell to kill them off.
Rs,
P.

I admit that my knowledge of anything pre-Norman Ireland is minimal, and wonder how the land was split between the land-owners, and how that would have developed over the centuries without any interference from the Normans onwards. I know that in England, huge tracts of land were given to Norman barons etc., and that the previous Saxon land-owners became their tenants. I think that there were only a couple of Saxon nobles who retained their land after the post-Norman invasion carve-up.

pedroeibar1

ejmaztec wrote: »

I admit that my knowledge of anything pre-Norman Ireland is minimal, and wonder how the land was split between the land-owners, and how that would have developed over the centuries without any interference from the Normans onwards.

It could be argued that the Church would have eventually done what the Normans / English did and killed off Brehon Law as it had outgrown its usefulness in a society that had changed considerably.
I’m no expert, very much a ‘generalist’ and autodidact as I have no academic background in history (in secondary school my choice was French rather than History!) but Brehon law once held a fascination for me.
From what I remember from Liberty Law and Order (Eoin MacNeil? – I can put my hand on it next weekend), under Brehon Law land could be privately owned / willed / inherited by kings, nobles, professionals (including poets & physicians) and freemen. It was a very hierarchical society, but social mobility (up or down) was possible. The population was further categorised, starting with the family unit, then the sept, meaning a group of families descended from common parents long dead, then the clan which was a grouping of septs, then the tribe, made up of larger septs and clans descended from a common ancestor. A tribe was ruled over by a chief, who, if his territory (tuath) was large enough, was a king. While kingship was not a hereditary position, kings were inevitably elected from the same family unit that traditionally ruled an area.
The non-privately owned land belonged to the tribe and (loosely) was held by the king who distributed it for a defined usually renewable period to members of the tribe who paid for that privilege. A king could hold his own land privately, but the bulk of the ‘kingdom’s land’ land belonged to the tribe and was held in trust by him for the tribe as part of his kingly function. When the occupier of ‘trust’ land died it passed (gavelkind) back to the tribe; when a king died it went to the next ruler (by tainistry).
The land allotted to tribe members as tenant farmers was paid for by a barter system - military service and/or goods, usually cattle. Every tribesman had to pay his chief a subsidy according to his means. This usually amounted to a payment of one animal for every seven on common pasturage and frequently a rate of coyne & livery on ‘leased’ land. Gavelkind was a cause of continuous inter-tribal warfare and – given the importance of cattle – frequent cattle raids. The constant cattle raiding and civil unrest was one of the excuses for the Norman invasion. Under Norman law, possession was paramount, particularly if recorded and primogeniture was the norm. However under Brehon law there was oral tradition and custom, with frequent changes in occupancy as detailed above and a system of tainistry rather than primogeniture. The two bodies of law could not sit easily together. The ‘Hibernicised’ Normans took advantage of coyne & livery in particular and the hardship this produced was one of the factors that led to laws banning Brehon law.
PW Joyce has some info here http://www.libraryireland.com/JoyceHistory/Contents.php and there is a good article from the Courts Service here http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/3CBAE4FE856E917B80256DF800494ED9?opendocument
Rs
P.

dubhthach

The best book on the era has to be "Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the Middle Ages" by Kenneth Nichol, there's a "new" edition from 2003 available you can buy it in Hodges Figgis for one.

http://www.lilliputpress.ie/book/209/nicholls_k_w_-gaelic_and_gaelicized_ireland_in_the_middle_ages.html

Talk of "tribe" would be more of a pre-christian era. With christianity saw the rise of importance of Hereditary lineage. Thus we get a Clann structure (Sept is usually used in Ireland from Slíocht).

The default succession was based around initially the Deirbhfhine (4 generation) and then later the gelfhine (3 generation). Where all members of a "Clann" who were within the relevant number of generations of a past "king"/"Lord" (Rí goes out of use in middle ages replaced by Tiarna/Iarla) are eligble by election of the "nobles" of the territoritry. This gathering of the "nobles" was know as an Oireachtas (thence the origin of term that we use today for Houses of Parliament).

Thus you had a quasi-democratic system where nominally any member of the current Deirbhfhine/Gelfhine could be elected. In reality though it would either go to the strongest (thence lots of fighting), or there would be a rotation system in the "Clann" where different branches would take the "lordship" in turn. This can be seen with the Uí Néill highkings from 5th to 10th century where the "High King" rotated between the "Northern Uí Néill" and "Southern Uí Néill" in turn.

Of course once you fell out of the deirbhfhine/gelfhine (eg. you were a 5th generation descendant of former ruler) you would probably end up falling down societal ladder over time.

Conall Mageoghegan, writing in 1627, refers contemptuously to persons of this sort, as "mere churls and labouring men, [not] one of whom knows his own great-grandfather

(Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland -- K.W. Nichols)

The church didn't have much say in medieval Gaelic Ireland. In general 80-90% of marriages of landed class were civil cermonies (non-church) as this allowed for divorce. There plenty of stories of men been on their fourth marriage and women on their third from the 14th-16th century.

Ironically the "Hard core Catholicism" in Ireland only developed under full British rule and really only in post-famine period (many saw the famine as punishment from God etc.)

pedroeibar1

dubhthach wrote: »

The best book on the era has to be "Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the Middle Ages" by Kenneth Nichol

Did not think of looking in McNicholls – the book I quoted (Liberty Law and Order) is by Sophie Bryant first published 1923 so any salacious topics are excluded. McNicholls (mine is 1972) quotes the genealogist McFirbisigh who made the point that as the ‘sons and families of the rulers multiplied, so their subjects and followers were squeezed out and withered away’. So the more numerous the clan the more rapidly the dominant ‘stock’ predominated.

dubhthach wrote: »

The church didn't have much say in medieval Gaelic Ireland. In general 80-90% of marriages of landed class were civil cermonies (non-church) as this allowed for divorce. There plenty of stories of men been on their fourth marriage and women on their third from the 14th-16th century.

Turlough O’Donnell (died 1423) Lord of Tirconnellhad 18 sons by 10 different women and 59 grandsons in the male line. Philip Maguire Lord of Fermanagh (died 1395) had 20 sons by eight mothers and at least 50 grandsons. Illegitimacy was not a bar to inheritance, so it could be argued that polygamy was allowed. One wonders what the Bishop of Raphoe would have to say.....


[/QUOTE]Conall Mageoghegan, writing in 1627, refers contemptuously to persons of this sort, as "mere churls and labouring men, [not] one of whom knows his own great-grandfather (Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland -- K.W. Nichols)[/QUOTE]
European royal courts gave automatic entrance to those who could ‘prove’ all 16 gggrandfathers. Importance of rank is exemplified by the application of the Wild Geese to have their titles ratified in Spain, etc. That type of genealogical snobbery continues – quote my mother on a pretentious property developer – ‘For all his airs and helicopters he grew up with his nose tied to the tail of a cow – his father was a cattle drover for your grandfather.’

P.

laoch na mona

they are the main reason we haven't a monarchy

jonniebgood1

laoch na mona wrote: »

they are the main reason we haven't a monarchy

Can you expand on why this is a positive in comparison to our Presidency?

We had Kings before the Norman invasions.

laoch na mona

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Can you expand on why this is a positive in comparison to our Presidency?

We had Kings before the Norman invasions.

i meant its why we have democracy for a long time the monarch was as good as absolute

Tiocfaidh Armani

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Can you expand on why this is a positive in comparison to our Presidency?

We had Kings before the Norman invasions.

What positive? One bring ours is actually elected and isn't there by birth right, which in this day and age is just wrong.

Manach

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

What positive? One bring ours is actually elected and isn't there by birth right, which in this day and age is just wrong.

No it is not. Monarchies are a recognition of the generational aspects of a country where traditions and social capital pass down from one generation to the next, outside the grubby world of politics.

Tiocfaidh Armani

Manach wrote: »

No it is not. Monarchies are a recognition of the generational aspects of a country where traditions and social capital pass down from one generation to the next, outside the grubby world of politics.

You make it sound so quant. I call it out for what it is; scrounging off the tax payers in the same of 'tradition'.