Positive legacy of British rule?

Snickers Man

slowburner wrote: »

When you sit down today to your turkey and ham dinner - bear in mind the positive legacy of British rule - this meal is a purely Victorian English concoction.

Not so. Turkey is an American import and largely of 20th century vintage in this continent.

The traditional Christmas dinner was a goose. See Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol for a good description.

slowburner

We are both wrong. But I am more wrong
http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodmeats.html#christmasturkey

"The turkey had already been domesticated in Mexico and central America when the early explorers brought it back to Europe about 1523 or 1524. It may have owed its northern European names (Turkey bird...) To the fact that it was brought on the last lap of it
s journey from southern Europe to the countries of the north by way of agents of the East India spice trade....By [1621] turkeys has already won their way as domestic birds in old England. The earliest written record of their existence there was supplied by Archbishop Cramner in 1541...Turkeys grew in popularity, and eventually replaced the old celebratory birds of the Middle Ages, the peacocks and swans of the rich, the bustards and herons of the poor, in the nation's diet...Turkeys became farmyard fowls. Soon they were a usual part of the husbandman's Christmas cheer. During the seventeenth and eighteeth centuries great numbers of turkeys, and also geese, were brought to the London market from as far away as Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Norfolk."
---Food and Drink in Britain From the Stone Age to the 19th Century, C. Anne Wilson [Academy Chicago:Chicago] 1991 (p. 128-131)
"While turkeys were known in Ireland since the 17th century, it is only in the present century that they are associated with the Christmas dinner. Possibly the goose was the first fowl domesticated in Europe. Certainly foie gras was a delicacy in 1st-century Rome..."
---Land of Milk and Honey: The Story of Traditional Irish Food and Drink, Brid Mahon [Mercier Press,Dublin] 1998 (p. 116)

The first turkeys were imported by one William Strickland to Bristol in 1526 and sold for tuppence apiece. Henry VIII was the first British monarch to savour the flavour and Edward VII made it fashionable.
I thought I saw somewhere that James I preferred it to goose because of his delicate digestion.

jonniebgood1

Beir Bua wrote: »

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1

I would ask you if you are aware of any positive that has come from British involvement in Ireland? It is a diliberately challenging question given our history.

Perhaps a better, and even more challenging question would be if anyone can think of any positives of British rule that the Irish could not have achieved by themselves? I'm talking about something unique which could and would not have come about whatsoever if it had not been for the occupation.

BB

The question as I said was quite deliberate. Opposition to British rule is quite clear and obvious hence it is curious to query any benefits that people think they gave us.

To answer your question, I am quite surprised that the Irish fighting spirit and character has not yet been mentioned. In my opinion there is a difference in Irish people, even in comparison to our nearest neighbours in England. Part of this surely is as a result of "the occupation" with spirit in adversity being a large part of that. It may seem nuanced but when something simple like charitable contributions is considered Irish people are known to give generously on a consistant basis and there are reasons for this.

slowburner

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The question as I said was quite deliberate. Opposition to British rule is quite clear and obvious hence it is curious to query any benefits that people think they gave us.

To answer your question, I am quite surprised that the Irish fighting spirit and character has not yet been mentioned. In my opinion there is a difference in Irish people, even in comparison to our nearest neighbours in England. Part of this surely is as a result of "the occupation" with spirit in adversity being a large part of that. It may seem nuanced but when something simple like charitable contributions is considered Irish people are known to give generously on a consistant basis and there are reasons for this.

An effort to determine which traits are innate in the Irish character and which were nurtured by occupation would be a challenge indeed. If even, the two could be separated.
We do punch far above our weight though, in some areas. Literature and poetry are two but I am sure there are many more?

ejmaztec

How about the RNLI? It's still doing the same job in Irish waters despite history.


http://www.lifeboats.ie/

goose2005

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The question as I said was quite deliberate. Opposition to British rule is quite clear and obvious hence it is curious to query any benefits that people think they gave us.

To answer your question, I am quite surprised that the Irish fighting spirit and character has not yet been mentioned. In my opinion there is a difference in Irish people, even in comparison to our nearest neighbours in England. Part of this surely is as a result of "the occupation" with spirit in adversity being a large part of that. It may seem nuanced but when something simple like charitable contributions is considered Irish people are known to give generously on a consistant basis and there are reasons for this.

TBH I think this is just because the history books you've read have been nationalist. Opposition to "British rule" certainly existed, but that was hardly the same thing in 1641 and 1798 and 1972. Ireland has no more "fighting spirit and character" than anywhere else.

Fratton Fred

Dublin.

Not the buildings, not the trains or bridges, but the actual settlement of Dublin itself.

And, of course Dublin and Dun Laoghaire harbours. With the majority of movement between the two islands, these became very important and this led to the walls and bulls being built. Without British rule, would the level of movement have been the same and would they have been built?

Belfast

English language
Counties

What have the Romans ever done for us

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

Belfast

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Dublin.

Not the buildings, not the trains or bridges, but the actual settlement of Dublin itself.

And, of course Dublin and Dun Laoghaire harbours. With the majority of movement between the two islands, these became very important and this led to the walls and bulls being built. Without British rule, would the level of movement have been the same and would they have been built?

We might have built them or something like them.
as to movement between Britain and Ireland I think there still would have been a lot trade between the two.


As I recall it was the Vikings that started Dublin.

Farcheal

Actually you are both wrong. Dublin was originally founded as a monastery. Eventually all the settlements merged.

"It is now thought that the Viking settlement was preceded by a Christian ecclesiastical settlement known as Duiblinn, from which Dyflin took its name. Beginning in the 9th and 10th century, there were two settlements where the modern city stands. The Viking settlement of about 841 was known as Dyflin, from the Irish Duiblinn (or "Black Pool", referring to a dark tidal pool where the River Poddle entered the Liffey on the site of the Castle Gardens at the rear of Dublin Castle), and a Gaelic settlement, Áth Cliath ("ford of hurdles") was further up river, at the present day Father Mathew Bridge at the bottom of Church Street. The Celtic settlement's name is still used as the Irish name of the modern city, though the first written evidence of it is found in the Annals of Ulster of 1368."

Also, a disputed claim is that there was a city called Eblana found by Ptolemy, on the site of Dublin.

Fratton Fred

Farcheal wrote: »

Actually you are both wrong. Dublin was originally founded as a monastery. Eventually all the settlements merged.

"It is now thought that the Viking settlement was preceded by a Christian ecclesiastical settlement known as Duiblinn, from which Dyflin took its name. Beginning in the 9th and 10th century, there were two settlements where the modern city stands. The Viking settlement of about 841 was known as Dyflin, from the Irish Duiblinn (or "Black Pool", referring to a dark tidal pool where the River Poddle entered the Liffey on the site of the Castle Gardens at the rear of Dublin Castle), and a Gaelic settlement, Áth Cliath ("ford of hurdles") was further up river, at the present day Father Mathew Bridge at the bottom of Church Street. The Celtic settlement's name is still used as the Irish name of the modern city, though the first written evidence of it is found in the Annals of Ulster of 1368."

Also, a disputed claim is that there was a city called Eblana found by Ptolemy, on the site of Dublin.

I know that, settlements pop up and disappear all over the place, but very few turn into the nations capital and centre of commerce.

dubhthach

Farcheal wrote: »

Actually you are both wrong. Dublin was originally founded as a monastery. Eventually all the settlements merged.

You are correct about there been a monastry, however it wasn't called Dublin (Dubh Linn). It was the monastery of Ath Cliath. Plus it wasn't on the site of the settlement of Dublin but across the "Black Pool" on the high ground in modern Aungier Street. The basic structure of it is actually perserved in the streetscape in and around Aungier Street.



I do agree though about settlements merging. One only have to look at the 19th century townships of Pembroke (Dublin 4), Rathmines/Rathgar (Dublin 6), Clontarf and Drumcondra which all got merged into Dublin city eventually. In case of Pembroke/Rathmines/Rathgar it wasn't until 1926.

Farcheal

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know that, settlements pop up and disappear all over the place, but very few turn into the nations capital and centre of commerce.

You can't say the British made Dublin, they merely consolidated their power in the closest and biggest town, turning it into their capital and through succession the capital of the Republic, as most infrasturcture was directed from it.

You could say that the British made Dublin what it is, but they certainly didn't create it.

Fratton Fred

Farcheal wrote: »

You can't say the British made Dublin, they merely consolidated their power in the closest and biggest town, turning it into their capital and through succession the capital of the Republic, as most infrasturcture was directed from it.

You could say that the British made Dublin what it is, but they certainly didn't create it.

Yeah, ok, what it is.

My point is, without British rule, would Dublin have turned into the city it is today, or would it just be another Dundalk, Waterford or Athlone?

dubhthach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yeah, ok, what it is.

My point is, without British rule, would Dublin have turned into the city it is today, or would it just be another Dundalk, Waterford or Athlone?

Dublin was already quite a significant trading city by the late 12th century. Thence the fact that it was important for claiments to the "High-Kingship" to gain control of it. Often of course they would put their son in as the local King.

The question would be of course if there was no Cambro-Norman invasion would Dublin have become the dominant urban area in the island. Hard to say really, obviously it was most important of Hiberno-Viking cities in terms of wealth at the end of 12th century. So it's quite possible, but it's really just a "what if". After all the O'Connor's were basically basing themselves out of Tuam, if they had managed to consolidate their control you would imagine the "national capital" would be in the west (Tuam been the caput of Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair)

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yeah, ok, what it is.

My point is, without British rule, would Dublin have turned into the city it is today, or would it just be another Dundalk, Waterford or Athlone?

Under British rule in the late 19th and early 20th century Dublin was being passed out by Belfast in terms of both population and industry.

Dublin’s emergence as the most important city of modern Ireland was the result a process which played out over more than a millennium of history. In 1911 Belfast had more industry than Dublin, it even had a larger population, but Dublin was the focal point of political power, the home to an elite class which ruled the country from Dublin Castle http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/exhibition/dublin/short_history.html

So it was the Political power at that stage as other aspects that contribute towards overall importance had been overtaken by Belfast. With this considered I would think modern day Dublin (as a widely recognised and popular city) is the result of independence moreso than British rule.

Farcheal

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Under British rule in the late 19th and early 20th century Dublin was being passed out by Belfast in terms of both population and industry.

I thought Dublin quickly surpassed it again.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

So it was the Political power at that stage as other aspects that contribute towards overall importance had been overtaken by Belfast. With this considered I would think modern day Dublin (as a widely recognised and popular city) is the result of independence moreso than British rule.

It isn't really thou, both cities were centres of British control in Ireland. Belfast is really a symbol of British unity, whilst Dublin was a symbol of British institution in Ireland. After all O'Faolain didn't call Dublin Castle "an alien institution for nothing"

dubhthach wrote: »

So it's quite possible, but it's really just a "what if". After all the O'Connor's were basically basing themselves out of Tuam, if they had managed to consolidate their control you would imagine the "national capital" would be in the west (Tuam been the caput of Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair)

I don't really agree with this statement. It makes sense that Dublin would be the capital in those times for economic sense. It would be easier to trade with Europe, especially Britain if Ireland's capital was in the East. Also, I thought more people lived in the East than in the West because the land was easier to farm. Also you seem to be forgetting the Uí Néill hegemony in Mide and the North, they would never let a capital be established in Tuam!

Young ned of the hill

Absolutely nothing. They robbed of our heritage and culture.

"Ireland will be Ireland,
When England was a Pup.
And Ireland will be Ireland,
When England is buggered up."

jonniebgood1

Young ned of the hill wrote: »

Absolutely nothing. They robbed of our heritage and culture.

I disagree. I believe Ireland is rich in 'heritage and culture'. If you think our heritage is robbed you should explain how and if possible give examples also of how our 'culture' is lacking due to it being 'robbed'? You need to back up your opinion with a fact or source to give it weight. For example I point to the Neolithic monuments of Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth as examples of our heritage being still appreciated today.

Judgement Day

Young ned of the hill wrote: »

Absolutely nothing. They robbed of our heritage and culture.

"Ireland will be Ireland,
When England was a Pup.
And Ireland will be Ireland,
When England is buggered up."

This is the History Forum not AH. :rolleyes:

Young ned of the hill

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I disagree. I believe Ireland is rich in 'heritage and culture'. If you think our heritage is robbed you should explain how and if possible give examples also of how our 'culture' is lacking due to it being 'robbed'? You need to back up your opinion with a fact or source to give it weight. For example I point to the Neolithic monuments of Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth as examples of our heritage being still appreciated today.

The British have diluted what means to be Gaelic, a parasite if you like that has been eating away at the very fabric of our culture, they almost drove our native tongue into extinction, entire local dialects have been made extinct forever right across the country, they have annihilated all the old clan systems and how work with one another. How pass there land down from generation to generation. They have been killing of our bravest sons almost a millennia. The British ripped the heart out of Gaelic Ireland in the name of profit. The British have done to Ireland what Yanks have done to the ‘Native Americans’ or what the Nazis have done to the Jews. The Gaelic Irish had a connection with the land and its people that the barbaric British could never comprehend. sin é.

Judgement Day

Yeah, Ireland was a bastion of democracy, dancing at the crossroads etc. before the Normans arrived. Change the record would you. :rolleyes:

dubhthach

Young ned of the hill wrote: »

The British have diluted what means to be Gaelic, a parasite if you like that has been eating away at the very fabric of our culture, they almost drove our native tongue into extinction, entire local dialects have been made extinct forever right across the country, they have annihilated all the old clan systems and how work with one another. How pass there land down from generation to generation. They have been killing of our bravest sons almost a millennia. The British ripped the heart out of Gaelic Ireland in the name of profit. The British have done to Ireland what Yanks have done to the ‘Native Americans’ or what the Nazis have done to the Jews. The Gaelic Irish had a connection with the land and its people that the barbaric British could never comprehend. sin é.

Inflammatory comments such as this are in breach of the Forums charter, I will not tolerate them. As a result please enjoy a 10 day forum ban.

Farcheal

Judgement Day wrote: »

Yeah, Ireland was a bastion of democracy, dancing at the crossroads etc. before the Normans arrived. Change the record would you. :rolleyes:

But were the Normans really that democratic either? Ever hear of Englishry? You can't rule out the interesting opportunity it would have been to see how Irish customs would have developed without outside influence, of course eventually they would have to conform, but its an interesting thought. They did have Brehon law so you can't argue the thing was completely hopeless. It would have be cool to see how the complex clan/family/sept thing would have worked itself out.

Fratton Fred

Farcheal wrote: »

But were the Normans really that democratic either? Ever hear of Englishry? You can't rule out the interesting opportunity it would have been to see how Irish customs would have developed without outside influence, of course eventually they would have to conform, but its an interesting thought. They did have Brehon law so you can't argue the thing was completely hopeless. It would have be cool to see how the complex clan/family/sept thing would have worked itself out.

Were the Irish clans any different to the numerous tribes of what is now Britain?

dubhthach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Were the Irish clans any different to the numerous tribes of what is now Britain?

From a genetic point of view Western British are closest to Irish people. This isn't most surprising given the geography but also the underlying fact that Celtic languages survived the longest in western Britain. For example up until the 12th/13th century in Cumbria and the late 18th century in Cornwall.

There is however a genetic disconnect compared to eastern England. Unsurprising if you take samples from Ireland, England and Netherlands and plot them on a chart based on Principle component analysis the English would plot between the Irish on the left (west) and Dutch on east. I recall reading a similiar study using populations from Dublin, Edinburgh and London. Unsurprising the Scots plotted in middle with overlap on both Irish and English sample populations.

Fratton Fred

dubhthach wrote: »

From a genetic point of view Western British are closest to Irish people. This isn't most surprising given the geography but also the underlying fact that Celtic languages survived the longest in western Britain. For example up until the 12th/13th century in Cumbria and the late 18th century in Cornwall.

There is however a genetic disconnect compared to eastern England. Unsurprising if you take samples from Ireland, England and Netherlands and plot them on a chart based on Principle component analysis the English would plot between the Irish on the left (west) and Dutch on east. I recall reading a similiar study using populations from Dublin, Edinburgh and London. Unsurprising the Scots plotted in middle with overlap on both Irish and English sample populations.

What about the cultures, legal systems etc. A lot is spoken about the Brehon system, would the British and even Germanic tribes have had similar systems?

dubhthach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What about the cultures, legal systems etc. A lot is spoken about the Brehon system, would the British and even Germanic tribes have had similar systems?

Well the term British is ambigous in this. Namely as modern concept of British is very much a creation of 17th century.

For example the earlier Briton specifically refers to speakers of the Brythonic branch of the Celtic language family. In context of surviving Celtic languages these are Welsh, Breton and Cornish (revival movement). The spilt between Brythonic and Goidelic branches is put at about 900BC by guys doing linguistic analysis.

Welsh law has several parallels with Brehon law which is unsurprising. Pre-Christian Germanic law isn't something i'm familiar with. Unsurprising the core of the Germanic world became the "Holy Roman Empire" which adopted a system based on Roman/Christian law.

There is an article on "Early Germanic Law" on wikipedia that links to specific laws connected to different Germanic peoples. Most dating from period 500-900AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Germanic_law

From a linguistic point of view of course Celtic and Germanic language families are both Indo-European. As a result you see common features from Proto-Indo-Europeans in things such as language/religion/cultural cognates.

Though it looks like Celtic and Italic are closer together then either are to Germanic. Interesting enough there is some correspondence with distribution of Male Y-Chromosome haplogroups that seem to match this. (With regards to Haplogroup R1b anyways)

goose2005

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What about the cultures, legal systems etc. A lot is spoken about the Brehon system, would the British and even Germanic tribes have had similar systems?

Laws would have varied a lot in different area, and how it was written on paper often differed from actual practise. Lords of the era acted a lot like Mob bosses - taking a cut of everything, intimidating those who opposed them, but at least bringing a semblance of order and stability.

I know that in Germanic law the lord was more powerful as an individual, and women couldn't inherit land.