Northern Ireland: a colonial conflict

gerardnfarrell

An intractable dispute on wikipedia over whether or not Northern Ireland should be included in a template list of British colonial campaigns. They are looking for outside input to resolve it. I can't post links but you will find it under the talk page of the template page for "British Colonial Campaigns" if anyone would like to contribute.

Charles Babbage

The definition of a colony is posted there, Northern Ireland meets this definition
perfectly.

A settlement in a new country; a body of people who settle in a new locality, forming a community subject to or connected with their parent state; the community so formed, consisting of the original settlers and their descendants and successors, as long as the connection with the parent state is kept up.’

jonniebgood1

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The definition of a colony is posted there, Northern Ireland meets this definition
perfectly.

A settlement in a new country; a body of people who settle in a new locality, forming a community subject to or connected with their parent state; the community so formed, consisting of the original settlers and their descendants and successors, as long as the connection with the parent state is kept up.’

It all depends on the definition used. For examle take this... "an area that is controlled by or belongs to a country and is usually far away from it" from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony

NI doesn't qualify if that is used as it isn't far away in anyones terms. Alternatively there are several definitions that do see it qualify. Is there any significance in which it is called?
I would have thought since the act of union that they were part of the uk as opposed to a colony.

Charles Babbage

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It all depends on the definition used. For examle take this... "an area that is controlled by or belongs to a country and is usually far away from it" from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony

NI doesn't qualify if that is used as it isn't far away in anyones terms. Alternatively there are several definitions that do see it qualify. Is there any significance in which it is called?
I would have thought since the act of union that they were part of the uk as opposed to a colony.

"Usually" means that it can sometimes be less far away presumably, and it is overseas. And as recent discussions on the 1916 centenary indicates the forms of union do not mean the actuality. Notwithstanding the union of Great Britain and Ireland the troops in 1916, or Derry in 1972, were clear that they were British and not Irish. NI has "British" subjects, ruled by the "British" government on behalf of colonists who think themselves "British", which is a classic colony.

jonniebgood1

Charles Babbage wrote: »

"Usually" means that it can sometimes be less far away presumably, and it is overseas. And as recent discussions on the 1916 centenary indicates the forms of union do not mean the actuality. Notwithstanding the union of Great Britain and Ireland the troops in 1916, or Derry in 1972, were clear that they were British and not Irish. NI has "British" subjects, ruled by the "British" government on behalf of colonists who think themselves "British", which is a classic colony.

What is the significance of accepting that ni is a colony?

KingBrian2

NI is a Unionist stronghold with very little dissent away from the very traditional hardline approach to outsiders. They are very clear of their ancient beliefs. For them Westminster is were the overlords are.

Manach

From a book I recently read "Elizabethan Ireland" by Morton would seem to suggest that it was early colonial endeavours during the 16th century (Laois Offaly and Munster) which acted as the earlier template for such colonies. Thus Ulster would have been a beta-version to those.

riffmongous

I am not convinced by the distance argument, Germans in the Baltic were originally described as colonists and Russians and Cossacks in the Caucasus are always referred to as colonists even up until the 1950s (The Lone Wolf and the Bear, Three Centuries of Chechen Defiance of Russian Rule)

jonniebgood1

I wouldn't be bothered by any of the definitions to be honest. The original plantations may have created a colony. However ni now has members of the uk parliament that influence realtime decisions. This suggests to me it is not a colony. Did for example a colony like India have such representation?

Manach

One could argue that there is not a one side fits all definition of colony. Thus if a sufficent number of people from the metropole gain enough power and retain links to the core, then the accretion into the body politic becomes a matter of time: eg in the case of numerous US states and the outward expanision of the Russian empire as it incorporated various outlying settlements from Peter the Great onward.

riffmongous

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I wouldn't be bothered by any of the definitions to be honest. The original plantations may have created a colony. However ni now has members of the uk parliament that influence realtime decisions. This suggests to me it is not a colony. Did for example a colony like India have such representation?

I don't know about India, my guess would be no, but I am pretty sure people in Algeria were represented in at least some aspects of French government, if you see the results of the election in the following link, there is a party from Algeria represented, the only such colonial group represented. And the Algerian War would certainly be described as a colonial action.

link

riffmongous

Manach wrote: »

One could argue that there is not a one side fits all definition of colony. Thus if a sufficent number of people from the metropole gain enough power and retain links to the core, then the accretion into the body politic becomes a matter of time: eg in the case of numerous US states and the outward expanision of the Russian empire as it incorporated various outlying settlements from Peter the Great onward.

Yes, at what point do the people stop being colonists? It certainly sounds strange to describe the Troubles as a colonial conflict alright, but sounding strange isn't really a good enough reason

Charles Babbage

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I wouldn't be bothered by any of the definitions to be honest. The original plantations may have created a colony. However ni now has members of the uk parliament that influence realtime decisions. This suggests to me it is not a colony. Did for example a colony like India have such representation?

The Act of Union was not designed to benefit Ireland, or give it more influence, rather it was designed to emasculate it. The nature of British rule remained much the same before and after.

riffmongous wrote: »

Yes, at what point do the people stop being colonists? It certainly sounds strange to describe the Troubles as a colonial conflict alright, but sounding strange isn't really a good enough reason

People stop being colonists when they throw their lot in with the place they are in rather than the mother ship. That certainly has not happened in NI.

Fratton Fred

Charles Babbage wrote: »

People stop being colonists when they throw their lot in with the place they are in rather than the mother ship. That certainly has not happened in NI.

Is a Spanish citizen, living in Barcelona a colonist if they are not a separatist?

Charles Babbage

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is a Spanish citizen, living in Barcelona a colonist if they are not a separatist?

If they've lived in Catalonia for hundreds of years, but would deny they are Catalan and wish to suppress Catalan culture and language, then quite possibly.

Fratton Fred

Charles Babbage wrote: »

If they've lived in Catalonia for hundreds of years, but would deny they are Catalan and wish to suppress Catalan culture and language, then quite possibly.

Very old colonists then.

BalcombeSt4

Yes, what Britain was involved was trying to surpress a centuries old colonial conflict & at the same time denying they were involved in one. A bit like Franco with Basque & Catalonia.

maryishere

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is a Spanish citizen, living in Barcelona a colonist if they are not a separatist?

Or indeed a Spanish citizen living in Tenerife, or Lanzarote, which are just off the coast of North Africa.
Or an American living thousands of miles away in Hawaii?

dpe

Charles Babbage wrote: »

People stop being colonists when they throw their lot in with the place they are in rather than the mother ship. That certainly has not happened in NI.

Do they? Where is that definition written down? Because it certainly doesn't apply to anywhere in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, or Asian Russia.

tac foley

maryishere wrote: »

Or indeed a Spanish citizen living in Tenerife, or Lanzarote, which are just off the coast of North Africa.
Or an American living thousands of miles away in Hawaii?

I'll be truthful here when I write that so far I have not heard of any dissident activities being undertaken by Hawaiians to persuade Washington to give them independence from the rest of the USA. That might be difficult, to say the least, since every Hawaiian citizen is already an American citizen, and the USA takes a very dim view of folks trying to force their choices on the US government by use of arms and explosives.

Do you know of any such movement in Hawaii?

tac

maryishere

tac foley wrote: »

I'll be truthful here when I write that so far I have not heard of any dissident activities being undertaken by Hawaiians to persuade Washington to give them independence from the rest of the USA. That might be difficult, to say the least, since every Hawaiian citizen is already an American citizen, and the USA takes a very dim view of folks trying to force their choices on the US government by use of arms and explosives.

Do you know of any such movement in Hawaii?

tac

No. Nor do I know of any such movement for independence in Sicily, the Canaries, Tasmania, Achill, the Shetland islands, South island New Zealand or any of the Japanese islands. Maybe we could send a few lads out to those places to educate them on the many glorious advantages of being independent? Why should Hawaii be exploited and under the boot of Uncle Sam? Hawaii for the Hawaiians. Yanks out peace in.

Victor

gerardnfarrell wrote: »

An intractable dispute on wikipedia over whether or not Northern Ireland should be included in a template list of British colonial campaigns. They are looking for outside input to resolve it. I can't post links but you will find it under the talk page of the template page for "British Colonial Campaigns" if anyone would like to contribute.

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:British_colonial_campaigns

Seing as "Great Britain" didn't exist until 1707, it shouldn't really include events of the 17th century. While it does say "Colonial conflicts involving the English/British Empire", I think that's a fudge. Should it consider Scottish overseas possessions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_colonization_of_the_Americas and the seizing of the Orkneys and Shetlands from Denmark / Norway? Should it consider British royal possessions in Germany in the 18-19th centuries?

So, anything pre-1707 in Ireland shouldn't be included in a list of British Colonial Campaigns.

Post-1801, Ireland was part of the Union and Irish people had the same right to vote as British people, albeit that many people (in Britain and Ireland) initially didn't have the vote.

I don't see The Troubles as a colonial conflict. There may be scope to qualify it as a post-colonial conflict.

Abhoth

It's clearly an edge case for which the classification is sensitive to the definition used. A definition that included NI would probably logically also include several other wars that are not included on that page, including conflicts in Scotland and several additional conflicts in Ireland. As these additional wars are not classified as colonial in normal usage, it seems pragmatically correct to choose a definition that excludes the conflict in NI.

robp

tac foley wrote: »

I'll be truthful here when I write that so far I have not heard of any dissident activities being undertaken by Hawaiians to persuade Washington to give them independence from the rest of the USA. That might be difficult, to say the least, since every Hawaiian citizen is already an American citizen, and the USA takes a very dim view of folks trying to force their choices on the US government by use of arms and explosives.

Do you know of any such movement in Hawaii?

tac

There is a well known and serious Hawaiian Independence movement. Not violent but does it have to be.

Abhoth

As the question relates to Wikipedia, an issue arises as to whether classifying the conflict in NI as colonial would reflect a neutral point of view. There is a history of attempts to have NI's status defined as colonial, in part as a means to gain UN support for the separation of NI from Britain and its attachment to the Republic. See, for example: mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/1339-the-decolonization-of-northern-ireland.html. Given this, it is clear that including the NI conflict in a list of colonial conflicts would not represent a neutral point of view.

Arsemageddon

maryishere wrote: »

No. Nor do I know of any such movement for independence in Sicily, the Canaries, Tasmania, Achill, the Shetland islands, South island New Zealand or any of the Japanese islands. Maybe we could send a few lads out to those places to educate them on the many glorious advantages of being independent? Why should Hawaii be exploited and under the boot of Uncle Sam? Hawaii for the Hawaiians. Yanks out peace in.

You should do a little research before posting....

There is an independence movement for Ainu people on Hokkaido and for Okinawa to secede from Japan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryukyu_independence_movement

..same goes for the Canary Islands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Islands_Independence_Movement

same goes for Sicily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Independence_Movement

...There is a movement to give Shetland and the Orkneys quasi autonomy (along the lines of the Isle of Man). During the Scottish referendum there was talk of them seceding from an independent Scotland.

...the same goes for Tasmania back in the 1920s and 30s
http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/php/hb/secession.htm

......and then there is Hawaii
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_sovereignty_movement

So, there you go now Mary.

As for the Wikipedia debate on Norn Iron, I agree with Victor i.e. it is a post colonial conflict.

tac foley

Thanks for that post A'geddon. One little point though. As far as I can determine, none of these organisations used bombs and wholesale murder to convince the rest of the population of the benefits of of independence.

tac

Arsemageddon

tac foley wrote: »

Thanks for that post A'geddon. One little point though. As far as I can determine, none of these organisations used bombs and wholesale murder to convince the rest of the population of the benefits of of independence.

tac

I've just wasted a good part of the afternoon looking up stuff about the separatist movement in the Canaries because I half remembered something about the Tenerife air disaster in 1977 being partly caused by a bomb scare. These lads were responsible... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerzas_Armadas_Guanches
There is a lot more information online in Spanish, but I didn't think there was much point in posting those links.

Sicilian separatism is unsurprisingly tied up with the Mafia and left-wing v right wing politics in the aftermath of WW2. There was a lot of violence on the island, but it's tricky trying to figure out who was doing what and why they were doing it. However, here's one pretty clear example of separatist violence perpetrated against civilians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portella_della_Ginestra_massacre

I'm not really trying to make any kind of point with all this, just satisfying my own curiosity.

By the by, on that programme about the Vikings last night on BBC they showed the Shetlanders all tooled up for Up-helley-aa. I'd love to see those lads fighting for independence using only traditional Norse weapons and tactics.

K-9

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It all depends on the definition used. For examle take this... "an area that is controlled by or belongs to a country and is usually far away from it" from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony

NI doesn't qualify if that is used as it isn't far away in anyones terms. Alternatively there are several definitions that do see it qualify. Is there any significance in which it is called?
I would have thought since the act of union that they were part of the uk as opposed to a colony.

I'd argue it is the exception to the rule, the Plantations would sway me to view it as a colony. Would be interesting to see how Scotland would view itself.

Victor

Arsemageddon wrote: »

..same goes for the Canary Islands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Islands_Independence_Movement

I used to live with two Canarians. They saw Canarian independence as a joke along the lines of Cork independence. I wonder how much of it was actually anti-Franco activity, as many socialists were deported to the Canaries after the civil war. Similar to Northern Ireland, the colonization was hundreds of years ago and "it is generally considered that the Guanches no longer exist as a distinct ethnicity". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanches

K-9 wrote: »

I'd argue it is the exception to the rule, the Plantations would sway me to view it as a colony.

At the time on the plantations, yes. But at the time, Britain wasn't a country.

Would be interesting to see how Scotland would view itself.

A 'not so' equal partner. While many Scots 'hate' the English, the queen is their queen.

riffmongous

Victor wrote: »

At the time on the plantations, yes. But at the time, Britain wasn't a country.

The initial colonisation of Algeria took place under the July Monarchy, while the Algerian war took place under the 5th Republic (iirc, French history doesn't interest me so much), perhaps a similar example of a discontinuity.

I'm not that convinced myself, but any argument should be consistent

Victor

riffmongous wrote: »

The initial colonisation of Algeria took place under the July Monarchy, while the Algerian war took place under the 5th Republic (iirc, French history doesn't interest me so much), perhaps a similar example of a discontinuity.

However, there were very real differences between the rights of the minorities and the disenfranchised majority in Algeria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Algeria#Rise_of_Algerian_nationalism_and_French_resistance

Arsemageddon

Victor wrote: »

I used to live with two Canarians. They saw Canarian independence as a joke along the lines of Cork independence. I wonder how much of it was actually anti-Franco activity, as many socialists were deported to the Canaries after the civil war. Similar to Northern Ireland, the colonization was hundreds of years ago and "it is generally considered that the Guanches no longer exist as a distinct ethnicity". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanches

I presumed that would be the case, little more than a handful of loons.

There were similar fringe groups in Scotland, Wales and Cornwall all of which called themselves National Liberation Army. IIRC there was a member of the SNLA living in Ireland who was convicted and imprisoned in Dublin about 5 years ago for making hoax bomb threats.

I remember the Cornish NLA burning out a few houses about a decade ago - one British paper called them the Ooh-ar-a.

kksaints

riffmongous wrote: »

The initial colonisation of Algeria took place under the July Monarchy, while the Algerian war took place under the 5th Republic (iirc, French history doesn't interest me so much), perhaps a similar example of a discontinuity.

I'm not that convinced myself, but any argument should be consistent

Algerian war started under the 4th Republic (and helped bring it down) and led to the De Gauile being returned and the 5th Republic in 1958 which then led to the independece of most of French Africa in 1960 and Algeria in 1962.

Manach

On the Algerian conflict, both its roots, events and continuing effects on France/Algeria the book The French Intifada: The Long War Between France and Its Arabs by Andrew Hussey was an informative read for me.

Arsemageddon

Manach wrote: »

On the Algerian conflict, both its roots, events and continuing effects on France/Algeria the book The French Intifada: The Long War Between France and Its Arabs by Andrew Hussey was an informative read for me.

Thanks, I remember reading a review of that book, planning to buy it and promptly forgetting the title.

Another great book about the Algerian War is A Savage War of Peace by Alistair Horne. It was first published in the 70's but has been re-published in the last few years because of demand from military types studying counter-insurgency.

Charles Babbage

Victor wrote: »

I used to live with two Canarians. They saw Canarian independence as a joke along the lines of Cork independence. I wonder how much of it was actually anti-Franco activity, as many socialists were deported to the Canaries after the civil war. Similar to Northern Ireland, the colonization was hundreds of years ago and "it is generally considered that the Guanches no longer exist as a distinct ethnicity". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanches

The Canaries are largely a distraction in this matter, as there is no doubt that Irish people remain in the 6 counties, unlike the Guanches. A "successful" colony which exterminates the natives, literally or culturally, can become the mother territory and cease to be a colony. In such a place the inhabitants may strongly identify with their place of residence, but see this as a fully constituent part of their larger nation. An unsuccessful colony eventually disappears. A partially successful colonisation remains undigested and remains colonial in nature. There is no doubt that the colonisation project remains, a map of the Plantation of Ulster overlaid with a modern political map of the 6 counties would show a very large overlap.

youreadthat

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The Canaries are largely a distraction in this matter, as there is no doubt that Irish people remain in the 6 counties, unlike the Guanches. A "successful" colony which exterminates the natives, literally or culturally, can become the mother territory and cease to be a colony. In such a place the inhabitants may strongly identify with their place of residence, but see this as a fully constituent part of their larger nation. An unsuccessful colony eventually disappears. A partially successful colonisation remains undigested and remains colonial in nature. There is no doubt that the colonisation project remains, a map of the Plantation of Ulster overlaid with a modern political map of the 6 counties would show a very large overlap.

Ireland is an EXTREMELY successful colony in that case, seeing as nothing Irish identity bases itself from has anything to do with the original inhabitants of Ireland. It's ok though cause they're long dead and can be degraded to storybook status while we focus on our minor modern prejudices.

TheFatHombre

youreadthat wrote: »

Ireland is an EXTREMELY successful colony in that case, seeing as nothing Irish identity bases itself from has anything to do with the original inhabitants of Ireland. It's ok though cause they're long dead and can be degraded to storybook status while we focus on our minor modern prejudices.

Really? Like we're is your proof of this ridiculous statement

Young Blood

Northern Ireland is not a distinct colony since it only existed from 1920 onward. Settlers and their descendants (including 'native' Irish who wish to remain part of Britain) have been there since God knows when, and most are more Irish than De Valera ever was, that's for sure.

LordSutch

gerardnfarrell wrote: »

Northern Ireland: a colonial conflict

Being the devils advocate here, I think it might depend on the definition of what a colony actually is.

From one perspective Ireland & Britain are but two adjoining islands in a group of islands (in a single archipelago) - Therefore, can the neighbouring island claim to be a colony of the other island (context being that the two neighbours have been interconnected since the ice age), hence can the term colony really be extended to next door? < questionmark.

Surely the very definition of a 'colony' would have to include some distance and the clash of totally alien cultures (North America, South America, Hong Kong, India, & Australia) come to mind, for they certainly are /were colonies.

Seeing as the Normans invaded & conquered Ireland (via England in 1066) should England also claim to have been colonised by the French? Is England an ex French colony?

I have noted that ther term colony (in relation to Ireland) has become very common & fashionable post the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, so maybe that has something to do with a change in mindset, as we strive to make sense of our newly formed East West-North South relationships ??? I don't know.

I certainly never remember the term Colony being used (in relation to Ireland) in school or on the airwaves in the late 70s or 80s, and then (as I say) since 1998 you can hardly have an historical discussion about the relationship between these two islands (neighbours) without the dreaded Colony word being inserted.

Just my personal prespective, so I don't want anyone getting too hot & bothered, as I am not syaing that I am correct, more like stating from a geographical & cultural perspective how the term colony might be 'stretched' a bit in this case.

Its a good discussion whatever ones opinions . . . .

tabbey

Yes, England was colonised by the Normans from 1066.

The colonisation process goes back even further. Normandy today is two regions, Upper Normandy and Lower Normandy.
Lower Normandy was part of Brittany until the Vikings captured and colonised it in the 9th or 10th centuries.
These vikings went upmarket, spoke French and called themselves Normans for the next stage of conquering.

When they moved on Ireland they were Anglo Normans or Cambro-Normans, or to the then native Irish, they were English.

BalcombeSt4

Of course it was a colonial conflict. It was never a natural part of the British state & was taken & held by force with the help of sending over people to invade & taken the native peoples land and rewarding them for doing it.

GHOST MGG

The english came and not only took the natives land...they rounded up all the local warlords and had them killed..then they slaughtered their way through the province..bringing in scottish royalists to resettle the land..northern ireland in a nutshell.albeit extremely simplified for the layman.

tac foley

It was a long time before the Normans became Anglicised enough to be called English. Before the Normans arrived in England, the REAL English had left you all alone. It took the Normans, coming over from from occupied England, to invade the Irish island. By the time they were calling themselves English, the invasion and occupation was all over. The large number of Norman surnames names, and names derived from the Normans in Ireland today should have told you that - not many Irish were called Ethelbert, were they?

By way of contrast, the native Irish, and latterly the Scandinavian settlers in Cos Dublin Wexford, Waterford and Cork had carried out slave raids into Wales for hundreds of years. That's how your own patron saint ended up in Ireland...

tac

ilkhanid

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The Canaries are largely a distraction in this matter, as there is no doubt that Irish people remain in the 6 counties, unlike the Guanches. A "successful" colony which exterminates the natives, literally or culturally, can become the mother territory and cease to be a colony. In such a place the inhabitants may strongly identify with their place of residence, but see this as a fully constituent part of their larger nation. An unsuccessful colony eventually disappears. A partially successful colonisation remains undigested and remains colonial in nature. There is no doubt that the colonisation project remains, a map of the Plantation of Ulster overlaid with a modern political map of the 6 counties would show a very large overlap.

You have also the case of the Americas,where the aboriginal inhabitants were killed,driven into insignificance but the colonists took over the subordinate relationship and regarded themselves as the subjects of a colony, now hostile to the Mother country.

tabbey wrote: »

The colonisation process goes back even further. Normandy today is two regions, Upper Normandy and Lower Normandy.
Lower Normandy was part of Brittany until the Vikings captured and colonised it in the 9th or 10th centuries.
These vikings went upmarket, spoke French and called themselves Normans for the next stage of conquering.
When they moved on Ireland they were Anglo Normans or Cambro-Normans, or to the then native Irish, they were English.

It cpuld be said that colonisation is a rolling project, only called colonisation when it fails. Otherwise the assimilation of outlying parts into the centre assumes a natural character withy time. Who now regards the North of England, Andalusia, Prussia (before the last war) Siberia,or Provence as colonised areas?