How British are You?

Grayson

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Cromwell <Insert name of Irish Republician> was a blood thirsty republican who didn't care how many civilians were killed as long as he got what he wanted. In some parts of Ireland that is considered worthy of being hero worship.

Yep

Wibbs

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Come off it, Wibbs. There are limits to revisionism.

Nope it's not revisionism. revisionism would be to suggest he was a thoroughly good egg and misunderstood. You'll note I said he was a cúnt and a Puritan nutjob? However describing him as Ireland's Hitler is daft, historically inaccurate and the simplistic goodies/baddies thinking of the mob. The generals he left behind were significantly worse. He prosecuted battles very close to the "rules of war" of his time. Unlike others he never sacked a town or killed civilians of a town that had negotiated a surrender. The exception being Wexford, but that was a bloody mess to start with. Yes he was a fiercely and hypocritically ambitious god bothering nutjob. Yes he was the figurehead for the worst that was to befall this island after he left. Yes he is a good boogieman, but the history is a little more subtle than that.

Do I disagree? Of course I do. Do you believe that the French should like Hitler were it not for that unfortunate episode involving the Jews?

The Jews would be the least of the French objections. They happily handed them over in their thousands. And French resistance? Yea well they have one thing in common with us there. You talk to the average French man and they had a "grandfather in the resistance". In much the same way as every Dubliner appears to have had a "Grandfather in the GPO". I'm sure their grandfathers bought stamps in the place either side of Easter '16, but if the numbers of these deluded muppets were true the queue to get into O'Connell street would have stretched to Finglas.

Wibbs

joolsveer wrote: »

He sent a lot of Irish to the West Indies as slaves too.

No. He didn't. Again historically incorrect. That happened after he left and didn't stop as you point out with the restoration of the English Crown. They were at pains to overturn other Cromwellian plans, but seemed to have no issue with that. Mostly because it suited their plans and didn't have the smell of Cromwell's name attached.

Doc Ruby

Yes Keith, if Cromwell hadn't slaughtered lots of Irish people, most Irish people wouldn't have a big problem with him. We wouldn't like or approve of him, but it wouldn't resonate, obviously. France and most European countries had their its fair share of butchers too, but we never hear about them.

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed so. The idea that we're "celts" and they're "saxons" is not borne out by the genetics. There's pretty much eff all Celtic DNA in our blood(or theirs).

There's something quite peculiar about Irish DNA though.

Men with Gaelic surnames coming from the west of Ireland are descendants of the oldest inhabitants of Europe. In a recent study, scientists at Trinity College, Dublin, created a new genetic map of the people of Ireland. By comparing this map to European genetic maps they have shown that the Irish are one of the last remnants of the pre-Neolithic hunters and gatherers who were living throughout Europe over 10,000 years ago, before the invention of agriculture. The Irish really ARE different.

What's in a name?

Surnames in Ireland have been passed from father to son for almost 1,000 years. The surname system in Ireland is thought to exist as one of the oldest applications of the hereditary surname system in the world. In Ireland this system was not introduced but rather it is thought that toponymics (names derived from place names) and nicknames were adopted. For example, the name O'Callaghan comes from the Irish O'Ceallachain, a diminutive of ceallach, which was taken to mean 'frequenter of churches.'

Traditionally, newly married women have taken up residence in the homeland of their husband, meaning that family names have remained in the area of the particular clans or septs for generations. Surnames, except in the infrequent case of non-paternity, are therefore an indication of family history, and on a larger scale, of population history.

In developing the new genetic map, the scientists studied the DNA of 221 men from all over the country. The DNA was separated into groups of people with names coming from the same area. For example, names that originated in Ulster, such as Gallagher and O'Reilly, were grouped together. Names from Munster (e.g. Hogan, Meagher, Ryan); Leinster (e.g. Conlan, Phelan, Rafter); and Connaught (e.g. Conway, Flynn, McHugh, Ruane) were all grouped accordingly and were considered to be Gaelic Irish. Also names of English (e.g. Harrison, Hill, Jacob, Moore) Scottish (e.g. Hamilton, Johnston, Knox), Norman (e.g. Barry, Bryan, MacNicholas) and Norse (e.g. Doyle) descent were grouped separately. These were considered to be non-Gaelic Irish. By separating the DNA as such, they could study the genes that were present in a particular region of Ireland over 1,000 years ago, when the surname system was adopted.

The science behind it

In Issue 88 of INSIDE IRELAND, the article "Who are we? - It's in the Genes" outlined the basic science behind genetic studies of populations. Each cell in our body contains a signature of our past. Modern technology allows us to look directly at the amount of variation in the genes in these cells. Variation accumulates over time through a random process of mutation. Mutations occur at a constant rate. Therefore, the more different two people are genetically, the longer they have been separated.

Using modern technologies to look at the differences between genes in the different peoples of Ireland, the scientists in Trinity College studied the genes on the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome is the male-specific sex chromosome that is passed from father to son in the same way that surnames are passed from father to son.

A distinct genetic pattern

By performing a number of genetic tests the scientists were able to identify a particular genetic pattern in the Y chromosome of the Irish. An ancient genetic marker, known as haplogroup 1, was found in most Irish men. Scientists think that most of the population of Western Europe carried this gene over 10,000 years ago. Over time however, through the movement and mixing of peoples, this gene was diluted. Now it is found in relatively fewer people throughout Europe.

The greatest movement and migration of peoples in Europe has been the movement of farmers from the south-east of the continent after the invention of agriculture about 10,000 years ago. The farmers moved with their new technologies north-west into Europe, probably displacing the local hunter-gatherer populations that were living there at the time. In this way the haplogroup 1 genes in Europe were diluted, the farmers introducing new and different genes.

Men with Gaelic names are more ancient

This resulted in the formation of a gradient of haplogroup 1 genes throughout the continent, the lowest frequency of these ancient genes being found in Turkey, and the highest frequency in Ireland, with intermediate frequencies in continental populations. In Ireland 78.1% of all men have the haplogroup 1 gene.

In Ireland men with Gaelic names have higher frequencies of this ancient marker than men with non-Gaelic names. For example, men in Ireland with surnames of English origin have 62% haplogroup 1 genes; men with Scottish names have 52.9% and men with Norman and Norse names have 83%. In Leinster, 73.3% of men with Gaelic surnames have this gene, in Munster, 94.6% and in Ulster 81.1%.

Connaught men are the most Irish of the Irish

The most striking finding was that in Connaught, the westernmost point of Europe, almost all men (98.3%) carry this particular gene. This means that the people of Connaught have been relatively isolated, genetically, from the movements of people that shaped the genetic makeup of the rest of the continent. By comparison, in the east of the country there has been a lot more mixing of genes coming from foreign sources.

The prevalence of ancient genes in Ireland suggests that the Irish have largely maintained their pre-Neolithic genetic heritage. There has been little genetic influence from outside the country since the first people came to Ireland almost 9,000 years ago.

The Early Bronze Age

By looking at the amount of variation (the number of mutations that have accumulated over time) in the haplogroup 1 genes of these men it was possible for the scientists to estimate a date for the origin of the bulk of these genes in the country. They estimated that most of the genetic variation in Ireland has accumulated over the past 4,200 years following a rapid growth of the population at this time. This is the time of the Early Bronze Age in Ireland.

The Early Bronze Age in Ireland, among other things, saw the appearance of megalithic tombs. Newgrange in Co. Meath is the best known example. The scale and magnanimity of these structures suggest that the creators belonged to a large, highly socially evolved society.

The scientists have shown most of the genes present in Ireland today came from the people who were living at the time of Newgrange. These people were the descendants of the ancient hunter-gatherers of Europe.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the "most Irish of the Irish" guff since that's a cultural reference but the long and the short of it is that the direct descendants of the people who moved here first after the ice withdrew, long before Saxons, Gaels, Brits, Franks or Celts, are still here to a great extent, unique in most of Europe and probably the world.

Still, I await the next carefully timed breathless St Patricks day "study" from Cambridge or Oxford which clearly shows that the Irish actually emigrated here from the US in the 17th century. :rolleyes:

kfallon

KeithAFC wrote: »

Oliver Cromwell is misunderstood in history. He should really be liked in Ireland. If he didn't do what he did with the killing at Drogheda, people would admire him much more than they do.

You just have to look at it from a historical point of view and understand these things happened back then. Cromwell actually give orders for his soldiers to not harm the country folk.

:rolleyes:

Oliver Cromwell was a cunt and I hope he is burning in hell as we speak, hopefully to be joined shortly by Thatcher. Prob the most despicable person in History imo.

Liked in Ireland I tell you something Keith, I'd say you could start an argument in an empty room. Now run along, the Queen's corgis need to be walked and don't forget to bring your bowler hat and sash

Oh and for the sake of the OP's question, I'm as British as Ann Doyle's gee :pac:

Cavehill Red

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope it's not revisionism. revisionism would be to suggest he was a thoroughly good egg and misunderstood.

He's been described as misunderstood on this thread twice already. Sort of hard to misunderstand genocide, but there you go. Apparently it's misunderstood.

Wibbs wrote: »

You'll note I said he was a cúnt and a Puritan nutjob?

Insufficient condemnation. Milton was a **** and a puritan nutter. And he wrote tedious poems. But he wasn't a genocidal maniac in two countries.

Wibbs wrote: »

However describing him as Ireland's Hitler is daft, historically inaccurate and the simplistic goodies/baddies thinking of the mob.

I didn't Godwin the thread. But both were genocidists and the comparison extends as far as noting that such facts really ought to remain the primary context and issue of discussion when considering either individual.

Wibbs wrote: »

The generals he left behind were significantly worse.

Who left them behind? Under whose orders did they operate? Who had given them the example for their behaviour?

Wibbs wrote: »

He prosecuted battles very close to the "rules of war" of his time. Unlike others he never sacked a town or killed civilians of a town that had negotiated a surrender.

Not true.

Wibbs wrote: »

The exception being Wexford, but that was a bloody mess to start with.

THERE it is. See? He did sack towns that had negotiated surrenders and kill civilians. But apparently that's okay for some reason?

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes he was a fiercely and hypocritically ambitious god bothering nutjob. Yes he was the figurehead for the worst that was to befall this island after he left. Yes he is a good boogieman, but the history is a little more subtle than that.

As with the Provo Godwin's law, there ought to be a negative equivalent of damning with faint praise. Sort of praising with faint damnation perhaps. You're committing that in this thread. He was a genocidist on two countries. There is no mitigation.

Wibbs wrote: »

The Jews would be the least of the French objections. They happily handed them over in their thousands. And French resistance? Yea well they have one thing in common with us there. You talk to the average French man and they had a "grandfather in the resistance". In much the same way as every Dubliner appears to have had a "Grandfather in the GPO". I'm sure their grandfathers bought stamps in the place either side of Easter '16, but if the numbers of these deluded muppets were true the queue to get into O'Connell street would have stretched to Finglas.

You missed the point, which was that according to Keith we would all love Cromwell were it not for one little boo-boo he made in Drogheda. (Never mind the many other atrocities.) Which I pointed out was akin to the French (feel free to insert Dutch, Polish, Danes, Bulgars whatever you're having yourself) loving Hitler had he not killed the Jews. An obviously unlikely event no matter which occupied nation you choose, because the Nazi horrors extended further and deeper than the Jews, and that what Hitler did to the Jews, akin to Cromwell at Drogheda, is not something to be forgotten.

domkk

KeithAFC wrote: »

Oliver Cromwell is misunderstood in history. He should really be liked in Ireland. If he didn't do what he did with the killing at Drogheda, people would admire him much more than they do.

You just have to look at it from a historical point of view and understand these things happened back then. Cromwell actually give orders for his soldiers to not harm the country folk.

Oliver Cromwell...saviour of the culchie!

Happy Monday

galwayrush wrote: »

KeithAFC wrote: »

Look up the history. Oliver Cromwell tried to over throw the Monarchy and many people should like him for that in Ireland. The problem comes with what he did during Drogheda. That is the main problem.

But if he hadn't done that, he would probably be admired in some quarters.

The 11 year siege of Galway wasn't very popular here at the time............

Dont you mean 11 months?

The tribes of Galway would have been strongly pro Royalist at that time.

Cromwell came here for 4 reasons.

1 Destroy his royalist enemies.
2 Destroy the power of the Catholic Church.
3 Seek revenge for the slaughter of Protestant settlers in the North in 1641.
4 Give lands to the nobles who had fought for him.

A nasty bit of work by any standard.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the "most Irish of the Irish" guff since that's a cultural reference but the long and the short of it is that the direct descendants of the people who moved here first after the ice withdrew, long before Saxons, Gaels, Brits, Franks or Celts, are still here to a great extent, unique in most of Europe and probably the world.

From what I've read on this, that area of study has been updated more recently and the haplogroup version isn't as old as we used to think. It's not the same one as the older Basque* as is often claimed. It's a later variant. We've also not got much Spanish in us either. An idea that held some currency until very recently and still does outside genetics circles(blood of the armada and all that). Yes we've had less of a mixture going on. Our isolated position was a large part of that. The peoples of Britain have more, because of more invasions and migrations(inc us), but they don't have that much more. EG only a tiny percentage of them have any Saxon genes and those genes are the minority.

Genes don't begin to tell the whole story, though it's the science de jour. Very fashionable. England did have an actual historical Saxon invasion and settlement. Many thousands of the buggers, yet if one was to rely on the genetics you'd conclude maybe a few sailors showed up and got busy with a few locals. It's quite interesting how fast new blood gets bred out.

As for unique in the world or Europe? Maybe the latter, but there are other populations more isolated. The Basques, the Sami people to name but two and they would be significantly more "ancient" than us. Worldwide? Not even close. The Andaman islanders, the San, Native Australians and shedloads more.






*Funny enough I do have the Basque variant so someone was shagging Spaniards in my past

Old Tom

senorwipesalot wrote: »

What do you love about our neighbours?
Do you like them alot more than the kuntz next door.


Ya?

I had nothing against the Brits until I went a number of times to the Canaries.

Them fat, tattooed ******* really must think they own the world and that they are god's gift to humanity :pac:

While walking on a footpath I had to escape a number of times, otherwise the moving pile of fat would crush me like a tank. Fat parents, fat kids and a terrible, demanding attitude. And that bloody "posh" accent, drama.

That's how I see it.

Corvo

Another thread ruined by the history buffs.

Happy Monday

Griffin1988 wrote: »

Another thread ruined by the history buffs.

Another fine mess you got me into!

Born to Die

The FA cup semi-final and the Aintree Grand National on today. I love Britain today. Today Britain is great.

Doc Ruby

Wibbs wrote: »

From what I've read on this, that area of study has been updated more recently and the haplogroup version isn't as old as we used to think.

Not really. Here's a bit more information on the genetics and some maps of compared distribution with megalithic sites. There's a very clear correlation in both timeframes. Incidentally the last article I quoted named the haplogroup wrongly, its R1b not I, thats the Scandinavian grouping.

The picture that builds up is of a people who moved here first after the ice age and established a powerful civilisation across western Europe. It may not have been connected as an empire, but it was definetely connected. A cultural empire would probably be the most reasonable hypothesis since obviously the continent wasn't devoid of people either.

Over time then with the drift of populations these "original" people were pushed further and further west, which is again a pattern that has been repeated many times throughout history.

Its not only fascinating, it does make good sense when you think about it.

Now some people get very excited about these facts and try to misrepresent or actively hide them for nationalistic or political reasons, such as the St Paddys day scholars, whether that's a demented dedication to former administrations or terror of any sentiment that proves a difference between Ireland and the rest of Europe, but the reality does not support them.

Wibbs wrote: »

Genes don't begin to tell the whole story, though it's the science de jour. Very fashionable. England did have an actual historical Saxon invasion and settlement. Many thousands of the buggers, yet if one was to rely on the genetics you'd conclude maybe a few sailors showed up and got busy with a few locals. It's quite interesting how fast new blood gets bred out.

Language tells its own story as well, for example the majority of English words directly correspond to modern French words. But neither can be taken in isolation naturally.

Wibbs wrote: »

*Funny enough I do have the Basque variant so someone was shagging Spaniards in my past

I've no doubt theres a little bit of Ireland in most countries too, we're well known for it!

giles lynchwood

smcgiff wrote: »

Your ma's called London?

I L O L.I applaud you sir.

deman

kfallon wrote: »

KeithAFC wrote: »

I'm as British as Ann Doyle's gee :pac:

I'm pretty sure it has has a bit of British in it.

AngryBollix

I married a brit.

Wibbs

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not true.

Yes true. Except for Wexford.

THERE it is. See? He did sack towns that had negotiated surrenders and kill civilians. But apparently that's okay for some reason?

Read up on the siege of Wexford and get back to me. It's not so black and white. Thumbnail sketch: The negotiation went back and forth. The commander of the town asked for stuff that now way was cromwell going to agree to, but back and forth they went. While this was going on and just as a letter agreeing to terms was sent, some of Cromwells troops got through the defences and started killing and looting. Cromwell didn't order the attack. Neither did he stop it of course. Wexford was a bloody mess that got well out of hand. He lost the plot in Drogheda and went on a god fueled blood rampage. However in every single case of a town that negotiated terms(remarkably favourable in some cases) Cromwell did not kill civilians, or even surrendered combatants.

Abi

Bizarre thread.


I for one welcome new British overlords etc. etc.

Wibbs

Old Tom wrote: »

I had nothing against the Brits until I went a number of times to the Canaries.

Them fat, tattooed ******* really must think they own the world and that they are god's gift to humanity :pac:

While walking on a footpath I had to escape a number of times, otherwise the moving pile of fat would crush me like a tank. Fat parents, fat kids and a terrible, demanding attitude. And that bloody "posh" accent, drama.

Fat tattooed English people are a far cry from posh in accent. Jeremy Kyle fodder alright.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Not really. Here's a bit more information on the genetics and some maps of compared distribution with megalithic sites. There's a very clear correlation in both timeframes. Incidentally the last article I quoted named the haplogroup wrongly, its R1b not I, thats the Scandinavian grouping.

Oh I'm with you on the broader notion of the megalithic connections DR, but I meant the R1b isn't as homogenous as was thought. "Ours" is a later variant compared to the Basques say.

I've no doubt theres a little bit of Ireland in most countries too, we're well known for it!

I've also got Neandertal DNA so fcuk know where that came from. Funny I'm most proud so to speak of that. 60-100,000 year old shenanigans between people who weren't quite the same species of human.

Born to Die

Abi wrote: »

Bizarre thread.


I for one welcome new British overlords etc. etc.

Bizarre used to be a good thing in AH.

FTGFOP

I like my toast done on one side... then the other. So fifty per cent British, well English. Hmm. Bloody broken toaster.

0.5(English) * (Britishness of Englishness factor) = ?

Spellcheck wants to change 'Britishness' to 'Brutishness', lol.

Wibbs

AngryBollix wrote: »

I married a brit.

I lost my cherry to one.

Born to Die

AngryBollix wrote: »

I married a brit.

My daughter is one

cena

I'm 1/4 english

Cavehill Red

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes true. Except for Wexford.

Which makes it not true.

44leto

AngryBollix wrote: »

I married a brit.

No wonder you're an AngryBollix

Abi

Born to Die wrote: »

Abi wrote: »

Bizarre thread.


I for one welcome new British overlords etc. etc.

Bizarre used to be a good thing in AH.

I dunno. Bizarre/funny maybe, but this...

Madam

losthorizon wrote: »

TBH I prefer France - the average French person has the right attitude about life, a great lifesyle and they like Ireland ( except for Sarkozy and Parisians).

Why would you assume Parisians don't like Irish people?

Born to Die

Abi wrote: »

I dunno. Bizarre/funny maybe, but this...

Just too much derailment of threads with "serious debate".
"Intellectual googling" and the ctrl c doesn't lead to entertaining banter.:(