Would you wear an Easter Lily?

Fratton Fred

Hidalgo wrote: »

Any proper academic history of Ireland does not paint Ireland in the above light. Is it just over simplify what you want to suit your argument??

Irish tribes were involved in battles against each other long before the Englis came along.
Many Irish people were down trodden before the English came, were downtrodden during English rule and downtrodden when Ireland gained independence

I know, sarcasm doesn't work too well on t'internet!

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

So acting in the right way requires majority approval now? Fascinating.

Bringing democracy to people whether they like it or not because we damn well know best

I thought that was a bad thing, please make your mind up.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Bringing democracy to people whether they like it or not because we damn well know best

I thought that was a bad thing, please make your mind up.

.....you'll find context is everything.

Boyne Standard

The threat of violence 'achieved' partition

Actually, that is false Chuck Stone and just Republican propaganda on your behalf. The opposition was against Home Rule and Ulster patriots armed themselves against Home Rule. It was a logical conclusion after the War of Independence that the Protestant people in Ulster should not be forced into a hostile and Romanist controlled state.

You might not agree with that but partition happened because of "violence" isn't correct. Looking back at it then and now, it was the perfectly sensible thing to do.

OCorcrainn

Boyne Standard wrote: »

Actually, that is false Chuck Stone and just Republican propaganda on your behalf. The opposition was against Home Rule and Ulster patriots armed themselves against Home Rule. It was a logical conclusion after the War of Independence that the Protestant people in Ulster should not be forced into a hostile and Romanist controlled state.

You might not agree with that but partition happened because of "violence" isn't correct. Looking back at it then and now, it was the perfectly sensible thing to do.

Look everyone, its Keith! Howya doing Keith, just as well you have come along now, we are in need of a laugh or two.

Chuck Stone

Boyne Standard wrote: »

Actually, that is false Chuck Stone and just Republican propaganda on your behalf. The opposition was against Home Rule

Says it was false.

and Ulster patriots armed themselves against Home Rule.

Acknowledges it was true.

You might not agree with that but partition happened because of "violence" isn't correct.

Denies reality.

Bing blang blaow - close the internet. :pac:

Thomas_I

Fratton Fred wrote: »

History shows that pretty much every country was either a coloniser or a colony, particularly in europe.

I know Irish history depicts the Irish as down trodden, peaceful poets who were busily studying the bible before the nasty English came along, but in reality a great many we're out there colonising and conquering alongside the English, Welsh and Scots. Just look at the number of Irishmen awarded the VC during the sepoy rebellion. It's also worth asking why Montserrat celebrates St Patrick's day.

As Gallag points out, the reason Ireland did not have its own empire came down to ability rather than moralistic reasons.

You´re the first one on these boards who admitted that in a post, but I´m also aware that you´re neither an nationalist nor an republican. I´ve come up with these things in some posts myself (re the Irish committment within the UK and the BE). These remarks were just ignored either as if it never happened or because it´s a fact and nothing to say about that anyway.

In general, because history can´t tell otherwise, I don´t think that the Irish had such an aspiration towards an own Empire. So it´s not only a question of ability itself, it´s also a question of aspiration and the will to get it. Moralistic reasons is a modern concept and to judge historical developments by that is a false approach.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

.....you'll find context is everything.

It really is.

Let me bring you up to speed. It's Easter 1916, there is currently a World War engulfing Europe, the majority of residents in Dublin do not support revolutionary violence. A small militia group holds an entire city to ransom causing the unnecessary deaths of civilians for absolutely nothing.

Given the context the 1916 rising wasn't the right thing to do.

mathepac

I always buy an Easter lily, and have worn both "stickies" and "pinnies" together.

It saddens me to observe that those same scurrilous gombeen men who kept us enslaved for so long have now sold us back into financial slavery, negating the freedom and right to self-determination others (on all sides) died for.

RIP Éire.

Thomas_I

Chuck Stone wrote: »

...
So they've lost their penchant for crushing democracy if that democracy looks like it's going to produce the wrong result? Greece 1946-9, Iran 1953, British Guiana 1963. They also allowed the Unionist suppression of the NICRA 1969- up to and including gunning down protesters on the streets of Derry.

I´d like to ask you not to interprete too much into my posts when it comes about the British and their view and practice of democracy back home and abroad. Democracy itself has, aside and despite its real meaning, more often been "raped" by "power" to suit the ruling classes. British democracy wasn´t perfect all the time, but Britain was one of the few through centuries that had it constitutionally whereas other countries in Europe were maintaining absolutism and despotism. I admit that when Britain acted abroad she had formost her own interests in the first place in mind and followed that. I don´t object that at all because it´s naturally for every country to serve its own interests in the first place. In addition to that there were also geo-strategic interests playing along the others, so I don´t blame the British for everything they did. The British "ill-policy" towards NI can also be seen as a result of the partition which took place not in the interest of the British in the first place but of the Unionists / Loyalists in NI. The British themselves couldn´t "let them down" because they were "loyal" to the Crown and even if they wanted, it was impossible because the signal such an act had given to the British Empire itself would had been "desastrous". Other countries seeking for independence, most important in this case was India, would had taken the complete secession of Ireland from the UK as a reason to even emphasize their own demands towards independence. Just like the way to say "why can you let go of Ireland wich is an integral part of the UK but keep us in your chains?".

If I´m going to back up Britain in her historical or present actions because I think that they were or are right, than I state that clearly and without hesitation. But that wasn´t the case in my recent posts on this thread, so you´ve missed the irony in that. I admit that this was rather hidden or even ill-presented, but also not very much intended. I was referring to historical facts, without personal comment or consent.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Remembrance day month in the UK is a fucking farce at this stage with x-factor goons singing 'hero songs' to the back-drop of scenes of modern British military adventurism and its soldier victims.

God forbid you'd appear on TV in Britain naked of poppy - the bleating poppy fascists would want to hang your guts on the Siegfried line.

That is a very strong exaggeration and I for myself haven´t noticed any Muslim without any familiary relation to the British fallen wearing a poppy, my it been on TV or just in public. That´s just as an example.

It´s rather unhealthy to keep the "bogeyman image" of Britian in mind. The British society is more multicultural and tolerant than you want to believe, let alone to say to accept. But Great Britain isn´t the same as Northern Ireland, these are still two different worlds within one United Kingdom.

Bloody*Mary

mathepac wrote: »

I always buy an Easter lily, and have worn both "stickies" and "pinnies" together.

It saddens me to observe that those same scurrilous gombeen men who kept us enslaved for so long have now sold us back into financial slavery, negating the freedom and right to self-determination others (on all sides) died for.

RIP Éire.

The freedom and right to self determination surely was the reason that those

'gombeen men' got into power, was it not?

Or have I interpreted your post incorrectly?

Thomas_I

philologos wrote: »

It really is.

Let me bring you up to speed. It's Easter 1916, there is currently a World War engulfing Europe, the majority of residents in Dublin do not support revolutionary violence. A small militia group holds an entire city to ransom causing the unnecessary deaths of civilians for absolutely nothing.

Given the context the 1916 rising wasn't the right thing to do.

That is your opinion from your point of view in historical hindsight.

It was the right thing to do in the view of the then Irish Republicans, just following the advice of P. Pearse "Englands difficulties are Irelands opportunities". No better time to start the Easter Rising than in 1916 and to "give the Brits a stroke in the back when they´re most vulnerable".

Not surprising though, because that´s - like it or not - is one of the (also true) manner of the English. Strike the enemy when he mostly doesn´t expect it and then strike hard to bring him down. Well, the British were not that weak enough, the support among the Irish people themselves was not strong enough (because they didn´t know it will happen) so the Irish lost in 1916, but the Irish were not stupid, they abandoned the way of "battle warfare" and adopted the "English way of counterstrike strategies" and as history shows, they succeeded in 1919 to 1921. So to day, the brought the British down to their knees by the only way they could and the only language they understood - at that time. Empires has been built by such strategies as well as countries got their independence just through war against the colonial power. That´s the way it went, no glorification, just taken from the mirror of the history of mankind.

In my opinion, also with historical hindsight, the Irish were right in 1916, they were right in 1919 to 1921 but they were wrong in 1922 to 1923 in fighting themselves. If I were an Irish person living in these times, I´d had proably joined them and supported the Easter Rising as well as the necessarily following Irish War of Independence, because enough was enough and there was no trust towards Westminster left after decades of rejecting and postponing Home Rule for Ireland. Quite so and right so.

Bloodshed had could been avoided by having Westminster passing Home Rule for Ireland in time, long before even Sinn Féin was founded, but the British were too much following the demands of the Unionists and bussy to keep their face within the BE. If they Irish had no need to fight, they wouldn´t had launched the Easter Rising and there hasn´t followed a war of independence. Easy to put the blame on the Irish or just on the British, the truth lies in the middle but the British were ruling over the Irish then. That´s the way it went and Britain at that time was not what it is in our time. She was formost an imperial power and had to act according that term to keep herself in power.

philologos

They postponed it for an entirely justified reason namely they needed to put their tine and energy into resolving the European conflict.

1916 and 1919 did absolutely nothing to further that goal. If you would have joined 1916 (ignoring the irony that you're saying I'm looking back in hindsight for now. ) you would be in the minority and you wouldn't be serving the majority interest of Dublin.

I can't justifiably oppose other atrocities that held cities to ransom against their will and say that was OK. The context damns the event even more in my mind.

7/7, Madrid, Mumbai and 9/11 all claimed they were justified because unbelieving nations were taking part in imperialist wars in the Middle East and Africa.

Edit: perhaps I should challenge the sacred cows and say just because Padraig Pearse said something doesn't mean that I have to agree with him as an Irish person . I question heavily how Irish history was taught at our schools and I'm not convinced it is entirely accurate or free from bias.

That doesn't make it OK. Nationalist tendencies of any sort also don't make terrorist activity OK.

The truth is that Ireland owes far more to the MPs that sat in Westminster over militants.

Happyman42

philologos wrote: »

They postponed it for an entirely justified reason namely they needed to put their tine and energy into resolving the European conflict.

1916 and 1919 did absolutely nothing to further that goal. If you would have joined 1916 (ignoring the irony that you're saying I'm looking back in hindsight for now. ) you would be in the minority and you wouldn't be serving the majority interest of Dublin.

I can't justifiably oppose other atrocities that held cities to random against their will and say that was OK. The context damns the event even more in my mind.

7/7, Madrid, Mumbai and 9/11 all claimed they were justified because unbelieving nations were taking part in imperialist wars in the Middle East and Africa.

That doesn't make it OK. Nationalist tendencies of any sort also don't make terrorist activity OK.

The truth is that Ireland owes far more to the MPs that sat in Westminster over militants.

Enough of moralist nonsense, of course it's not ok, what sane, rational person wants to live in a warzone? BUT IT HAPPENS, has happened and will continue to happen when people with power, abuse that power, to suppress and subgugate for their own ends.
We know moralists like to portray people who stand up for them selves (usually using the very same indiscriminate violence that was used to subgugate them) as physcos and refuse point blank to see that they are a product of where they came from and what they endured, History shows us that there is always a reason and a context for violence, in Ireland the origin and motivation for it's violent past can always be traced to the one constant. The British and their prescence.
The men/women of 1916 did not believe the British, based on past dealings with them. They where not some raging physcos, intent on self destruction. Context is everything.
The notion that all of Dublin and Ireland was against the Rising of 1916 is based on the writings and commentary of the pro British press of the time. If that was the case, how do you explain the surge in support when these men where executed? Executions where common at the time, they wouldn't have caused the controversary that they would now. Unless of course there was an underlying sympathy there to begin with?
The British Government and Irish partitionists always misread the inherent republicanism of the Irish, witness, the reaction to Bloody Sunday on the streets of Dublin and around the country and the reaction to the deaths on the hunger strikes. Huge public relations cock-ups by the British and the Dublin governments.
You'll be telling us next the GFA was achieved because a few same MP's woke up one day and suddenly decided in a vacum to share power fairly and equally. Context and motivation is everything, you need to file the moralising hindsight away in the Useless file and look closely at primary sources.

I have no problem with British people wearing a poppy to honour their dead, I do have a problem with Irish people wearing one though, to wear one shows a concious and deliberate disrespect for OUR history, whatever you think of that history. Find another way to honour the fallen Irishmen who fought for the British, the wearing of the Poppy is not appropiate for anyone who considers themselves Irish.

philologos

Are you saying that ethics shouldn't inform what we support or value?

Like Nodin you say context is everything but it still doesn't justify it. Indeed it is because of the context that I can't praise the 1916 Rising.

The real struggles for Irish independence took place in parliament.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you really do need to brush up on your history if you want to call yourself a history student. there is more to world history than what is written in an phoblacht you know.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/slavery/montserrat.htm

I'm going to do my best to ignore your snide and pretentious remarks and respond civilly.
You'll find that the slavery of Irish people in Montserrat long predated that totally justified rebellion.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/1638

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076

So clearly there was a strong Irish heritage in Montserrat prior to the rebellion (69 per cent of the people on the island were Irish slaves in the mid 1600s)

There's no doubt that there were indeed Irish planters and slave owners on the island as well but there is plenty of evidence to suggest they also held Irish slaves.

http://www.iannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2277:black-irish&catid=69:mick&Itemid=195

The fact is, as the above link shows, it's quite hard to get a clear view of the complicated history of Montserrat, with different historians saying different things.

What is clear is that Irish slaves were sent there and to other Caribbean and south american territories in their thousands.

Would you look at that, not a single reference to An Phoblacht.

More importantly, this is all way off topic.

I wonder do Montserratins have a lily type thing to commemorate their rebellion. Perhaps a shamrock of some sort.

Thomas_I

philologos wrote: »

Are you saying that ethics shouldn't inform what we support or value?

Like Nodin you say context is everything but it still doesn't justify it. Indeed it is because of the context that I can't praise the 1916 Rising.

The real struggles for Irish independence took place in parliament.

No it didn´t, it took place at the Easter Rising, the Irish War of Independence and the Anglo-Irish-Treaty negotiations that followed the cease fire from July to December 1921. The British Parliament was not involved in this, because the Home Rule for Ireland bill has been dropped and replaced by the Act of Ireland Bill in 1920. The parliamentary struggle for Irish Independence failed by the postponing of the Home Rule for Ireland Bill. The British parliament was just involved after the Anglo-Irish-Treaty negotiations to ratify the Anglo-Irish-Treaty as well as the Irish Dáil in her part.

The Negotiations took place between the provisional Irish Government and the British Government, such is the way to negotiate treaties, not directly between two parliaments.

Ethics and values are no static issues, they alterate themselves according the demands of the times and circumstances. What was right in the past may be wrong in the present and what is wrong in the present may be right in the future. Pacifism was wrong and condemned in 1916 but is on higher value in the present. Who´s to judge the past and by which standards?

Happyman42

philologos wrote: »

Are you saying that ethics shouldn't inform what we support or value?

Like Nodin you say context is everything but it still doesn't justify it. Indeed it is because of the context that I can't praise the 1916 Rising.

The real struggles for Irish independence took place in parliament.

You don't need to go back to 1916 to see my point, just look at what inforned and pressurised the parlimentary debate in the run up to the GFA.
Take the blinkers off and ask yourself, what brought people around that table as equals?

Thomas_I

philologos wrote: »

They postponed it for an entirely justified reason namely they needed to put their tine and energy into resolving the European conflict.

1916 and 1919 did absolutely nothing to further that goal. If you would have joined 1916 (ignoring the irony that you're saying I'm looking back in hindsight for now. ) you would be in the minority and you wouldn't be serving the majority interest of Dublin.

I can't justifiably oppose other atrocities that held cities to ransom against their will and say that was OK. The context damns the event even more in my mind.

7/7, Madrid, Mumbai and 9/11 all claimed they were justified because unbelieving nations were taking part in imperialist wars in the Middle East and Africa.

Edit: perhaps I should challenge the sacred cows and say just because Padraig Pearse said something doesn't mean that I have to agree with him as an Irish person . I question heavily how Irish history was taught at our schools and I'm not convinced it is entirely accurate or free from bias.

That doesn't make it OK. Nationalist tendencies of any sort also don't make terrorist activity OK.

The truth is that Ireland owes far more to the MPs that sat in Westminster over militants.

I´m sorry but I think that you don´t understand the circumstances of that time and you´re judging it by our modern standards. That´s utterly wrong, if I may say so.

The Volunteers didn´t give a damn about "majorities" within the Irish society because they couldn´t afford it to take it into account. Just like to say "well folks, we´re going to start an uprising to get rid off the British and set Ireland free from a 700 years ongoing oppression and we beg your understanding for these cruel means we´ve to take up but we´re lost with no other solution for the sake of Irelands freedom, so please join us and form a majority support of our cause. Thanks a lot and please don´t tell the British, because it´s their "Easter Surprising Pressy" and we won´t ruin their day. Your Irish Volunteers, signed ...". Sounds rather silly, does it?

Any notion the British intelligence had received about an prepard uprising, they´d been bound to act previously to prevent that, cos it had been their duty in doing so.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I'm going to do my best to ignore your snide and pretentious remarks and respond civilly.
You'll find that the slavery of Irish people in Montserrat long predated that totally justified rebellion.

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/1638

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076

So clearly there was a strong Irish heritage in Montserrat prior to the rebellion (69 per cent of the people on the island were Irish slaves in the mid 1600s)

There's no doubt that there were indeed Irish planters and slave owners on the island as well but there is plenty of evidence to suggest they also held Irish slaves.

http://www.iannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2277:black-irish&catid=69:mick&Itemid=195

The fact is, as the above link shows, it's quite hard to get a clear view of the complicated history of Montserrat, with different historians saying different things.

What is clear is that Irish slaves were sent there and to other Caribbean and south american territories in their thousands.

Would you look at that, not a single reference to An Phoblacht.

More importantly, this is all way off topic.

I wonder do Montserratins have a lily type thing to commemorate their rebellion. Perhaps a shamrock of some sort.

Sorry Jack, does the truth hurt?

The Irish people are no better or worse than anyone else.

thecommietommy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

History shows that pretty much every country was either a coloniser or a colony, particularly in europe.

I know Irish history depicts the Irish as down trodden, peaceful poets who were busily studying the bible before the nasty English came along, but in reality a great many we're out there colonising and conquering alongside the English, Welsh and Scots. Just look at the number of Irishmen awarded the VC during the sepoy rebellion. It's also worth asking why Montserrat celebrates St Patrick's day.

As Gallag points out, the reason Ireland did not have its own empire came down to ability rather than moralistic reasons.

Most of the Irish who joined the British forces were economic conscripts who only as a last resort joined the Brits as a means of survival. And a lot of the so called ' Irish ' men who won VC's were in fact English in Irish regiments.

In fact when England was on it's knees in WW2 you unionists refused to be conscripted as they kept complaining that their feet were too sore form all the orange marches !!!!

thecommietommy

Boyne Standard wrote: »

Actually, that is false Chuck Stone and just Republican propaganda on your behalf. The opposition was against Home Rule and Ulster patriots armed themselves against Home Rule. It was a logical conclusion after the War of Independence that the Protestant people in Ulster should not be forced into a hostile and Romanist controlled state.

If they were just great patriots how come they abondoned 1/3 of Ulster and tens of thousands of unionists with it

You might not agree with that but partition happened because of "violence" isn't correct. Looking back at it then and now, it was the perfectly sensible thing to do.

Yes it happened because of British violence as they outnumbered us vastly. Unionists didn't bring about partition, they weren't even invovled in the Treaty discussions, it was the threats of that war criminal Churchill, Birkenhead etc

Fratton Fred

thecommietommy wrote: »

Most of the Irish who joined the British forces were economic conscripts who only as a last resort joined the Brits as a means of survival. And a lot of the so called ' Irish ' men who won VC's were in fact English in Irish regiments.

In fact when England was on it's knees in WW2 you unionists refused to be conscripted as they kept complaining that their feet were too sore form all the orange marches !!!!

Read the lists, plenty of Irish names there. Men who joined for numerous reasons, the poor farmer desperate for work is just one of them. Most would have joined for the same reason they join today, the sense of adventure of being a soldier.

My forefathers all fought in both wars, some volunteers, some conscripts.

philologos

Thomas_I wrote: »

Ethics and values are no static issues, they alterate themselves according the demands of the times and circumstances. What was right in the past may be wrong in the present and what is wrong in the present may be right in the future. Pacifism was wrong and condemned in 1916 but is on higher value in the present. Who´s to judge the past and by which standards?

There lies the crux of our issue. We have different philosophies. I hold to moral realism / moral universalism and indeed a moral law giver. I can't hold to this idea that morality is whatever we make it to be because it makes no sense in reality

Hunterbiker

You can apply that term to the whole of the UK and Empure at the time not just the Irish part of it.

As unsavoury as it is to many, Irish men served, at the time, as Britons in the British Army. This idea that they were in some way apart or different from the rest of the British Army of the time is a fantasy. Many had strong Nationalist and Republican desires but at the time of serving they were part of The UK just the same as Scots, Welsh and English troops were.

philologos

Happyman42 wrote: »

You don't need to go back to 1916 to see my point, just look at what inforned and pressurised the parlimentary debate in the run up to the GFA.
Take the blinkers off and ask yourself, what brought people around that table as equals?

The blinkers are on the republican side.

I'm trying to evaluate these things from an objective perspective. I'm not hugely patriotic in respect to this or any other issue.

I think patriotism causes more issues in societies than it solves. I wish less people cared as much about nationality, I genuinely believe the world would be a better place as a result.

Crooked Jack

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sorry Jack, does the truth hurt?

The Irish people are no better or worse than anyone else.

Who said they were, I simply objected to an over simplified view of history.
Good response though, it really hammered home your point. You might as well have just put up a picture of yourself with your fingers in your ears going "nanananana."

Thomas_I

philologos wrote: »

There lies the crux of our issue. We have different philosophies. I hold to moral realism / moral universalism and indeed a moral law giver. I can't hold to this idea that morality is whatever we make it to be because it makes no sense in realury

You can call in different philosophies if you will, I for myself hold on the historcal facts and the ethics and values of the time concerned, not judging it by our modern standards. The approach of some modern historians is that they go wrong in judging events of the past by modern standards because they know the result, the people actually acting then didn´t know that and barely could have forseen all the consequences, except to expect to be executed in the event the rising failes and because it failed, it went as we know it today.

One could ge even further in this because it is the lack of empathy on both sides that makes it so hard to come to terms as it is still the case in NI. Less of the people on both sides take the time to bother and think about how they would think and act if they would be in their place. Otherwise it might be easier to enter in some compromises and for peace sake, there are more moderate people in charge in NI as ever before and that brings some hope for the people there. Hopefully this peace process will prevail and bring peace to NI and in a wider context to the whole of the Irish Island.

There are still differences to overcome as to see in this thread, different cultural perceptions and traditions. Every man to his own customs.

philologos

Thomas_I wrote: »

You can call in different philosophies if you will, I for myself hold on the historcal facts and the ethics and values of the time concerned, not judging it by our modern standards. The approach of some modern historians is that they go wrong in judging events of the past by modern standards because they know the result, the people actually acting then didn´t know that and barely could have forseen all the consequences, except to expect to be executed in the event the rising failes and because it failed, it went as we know it today.

One could ge even further in this because it is the lack of empathy on both sides that makes it so hard to come to terms as it is still the case in NI. Less of the people on both sides take the time to bother and think about how they would think and act if they would be in their place. Otherwise it might be easier to enter in some compromises and for peace sake, there are more moderate people in charge in NI as ever before and that brings some hope for the people there. Hopefully this peace process will prevail and bring peace to NI and in a wider context to the whole of the Irish Island.

There are still differences to overcome as to see in this thread, different cultural perceptions and traditions. Every man to his own customs.

As I see it the context makes it far worse rather than better. I'm sure that Al Queda could give you a context for their involvement in the Madrid bombings but the question is does it justify the action.

For me no way. In order to be logically consistent I have to apply that to every other case of terrorism.

Thomas_I

thecommietommy wrote: »

... it was the threats of that war criminal Churchill, Birkenhead etc

What kind of war crimes had they committed? Some evidence to that at hand?

Sir Winston S. Churchill was no war criminal, he was the greates Englishman that ever lived, imo.:)