Northern Ireland: a colonial conflict

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?