Atheist Ireland, pick your battles, will ya?

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

britain had to back away from introducing conscription in Ireland at the time, sounds to me like there was significant difference of opinion or it wouldnt have been an issue, everyone being British and what not

Conscription wasn't introduced in the British Isles until January 1916, and only became full conscription in May, by way of the Military Services Acts, which weren't enacted in Ireland. In fact conscription wasn't even considered in Ireland until 2 years later, so arguably the results of how the British conducted their response to the Rising created the opposition to conscription, rather than that opposition being indicative of support for the Rising in the first place; I think you got the cart a bit before the horse there. Over 200,000 volunteers from Ireland joined the British army in World War 1, so there was obviously a substantial will to serve King and Country; some of whom ended up having to fight terrorist rebels on the streets of their hometown....

silverharp wrote: »

its certainly a stronger case than if they dont have the capacity

Maybe; since neither is actually a good case it's hardly a worthwhile consideration though, is it? And of course, the Provisional IRA could avail of both as a rationale... as could al Queda and ISIS.

silverharp wrote: »

many States around today started off with one form of terrorism or another and various groups like the French Resistance or the Jewish Ghetto uprising were described as terrorists so I cant see that it can be universally condemned or praised. Just because an Army does something doesnt make it right or wrong and just because terrorists do something doesnt make it right or wrong. it is kind of a case by case.

Sure; the case being the victor gets to write the history. The fact that you agree with some of them doesn't make them any more right than the ones you don't agree with.

Nick Park

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We are still quite a way from such a society, as you no doubt must be aware, and this ban was introduced in a much more religiously observant society than today's, so don't blame us.

I didn't dream of blaming you.

I'm no stalinist Nick, and you know better than to make ludicrous slurs against other posters. If you want the law changed make a credible argument for change.

I didn't make any slur. I simply pointed out that if someone wants religion to be banned from advertising on radio or TV, and also opposes any granting of free air time to religion, then that is a Stalinist-style intolerance. I would use the same word for any bigot who tried to use the law to enforce their religion over the airwaves, or to ban Michael Nugent from appearing on radio or TV.

As for making a credible argument for change, I already have. In a secular society churches should be treated in exactly the same way as the Vegetarian Society, the ISPCA or Atheist Ireland. No special privileges and no special restrictions. That makes excellent sense and is reasonable and credible.

Nick Park

robindch wrote: »

It's quite inappropriate to equate a belief that religions shouldn't advertize commercially with the activities of a murderous regime of a totalitarian nutter like Josef Stalin (whose christian leanings have been well documented, as you're well aware).

I admire your faith that the guy who oversaw the League of the Militant Godless was a Christian and not an atheist at all. Today is a singularly appropriate day to acknowledge such a stance. Of course I made no claim as to whether Stalin was a true Scotsman atheist or not.

However, in your impatient zeal to say something witty every time a Christian makes a point in this forum, you failed to address what I was saying. I wasn't just addressing the view that religions shouldn't advertise commercially. I was addressing the view that seeks to both prevent religions from advertising commercially and also complains about them being given any free air time - in effect wanting religion to be banned from the airwaves altogether. I think Stalinism is indeed an appropriate term for such an intolerant position.

It's equally inappropriate to attempt to equate whatever suffering you've endured here in Ireland on account of your religious beliefs - currently none, so far as I'm aware - with the genuine suffering and deaths of Stalin's victims

Nice try. But you speak English well enough to know that nobody attempted to make any such equation.

recedite

silverharp wrote: »

.. the Good Friday agreement was not worth the preceding violence whereas the the creation of the Irish state was worth the preceding campaign.

Not sure how you would make these calculations, but presumably it would be based on deaths and misery caused V net positive change resulting.

Oddly enough, people tend to analyse the deaths and misery in great detail, but very rarely look at the net result with any kind of intellectual rigour.
The net result of several years of war was the creation of the Free State as opposed to Home Rule which had already been approved by parliament.
Either of these could have been 26 county or 32 county, depending on the sentiment of unionists at the time of enactment.

So what exactly is the resultant net change there? Well, obviously after several years of seeing some of their brethren being burned out of their houses in the 26 counties, the unionists would have become more negative to any 32 county proposal, so that would definitely be off the table either way.
In terms of Free State V Home Rule I'm not entirely sure what the difference is exactly. I presume the main difference would be that the Free State has its own standing army. Home Rule would presumably be more like what was offered to Scots in the recent Scottish independence referendum. Having said that, there would be nothing to stop citizens in a "home rule" situation voting for a "free state" subsequently, and then later voting for a republic. Canada and Australia could vote for a republic any time they wanted to, just as 26 county Ireland did.

Its hard to see any huge net benefit, although as with all "what if" type scenarios, we just don't know what would have happened without the easter rising.

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

Not sure how you would make these calculations, but presumably it would be based on deaths and misery caused V net positive change resulting.

Oddly enough, people tend to analyse the deaths and misery in great detail, but very rarely look at the net result with any kind of intellectual rigour.
The net result of several years of war was the creation of the Free State as opposed to Home Rule which had already been approved by parliament.
Either of these could have been 26 county or 32 county, depending on the sentiment of unionists at the time of enactment.

So what exactly is the resultant net change there? Well, obviously after several years of seeing some of their brethren being burned out of their houses in the 26 counties, the unionists would have become more negative to any 32 county proposal, so that would definitely be off the table either way.
In terms of Free State V Home Rule I'm not entirely sure what the difference is exactly. I presume the main difference would be that the Free State has its own standing army. Home Rule would presumably be more like what was offered to Scots in the recent Scottish independence referendum. Having said that, there would be nothing to stop citizens in a "home rule" situation voting for a "free state" subsequently, and then later voting for a republic. Canada and Australia could vote for a republic any time they wanted to, just as 26 county Ireland did.

Its hard to see any huge net benefit, although as with all "what if" type scenarios, we just don't know what would have happened without the easter rising.

if you take the latter civil war , that never made sense to me in terms of you have a country with a government use it why argue with the status you negotiated, it can be changed unilaterally shortly thereafter.

A lot of it was of its time, I wouldn't suggest the Basques or the Scottish :pac: do it today whereas the Kurds appear to live in a state of existential threat on an on going basis.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Conscription wasn't introduced in the British Isles until January 1916, and only became full conscription in May, by way of the Military Services Acts, which weren't enacted in Ireland. In fact conscription wasn't even considered in Ireland until 2 years later, so arguably the results of how the British conducted their response to the Rising created the opposition to conscription, rather than that opposition being indicative of support for the Rising in the first place; I think you got the cart a bit before the horse there. Over 200,000 volunteers from Ireland joined the British army in World War 1, so there was obviously a substantial will to serve King and Country; some of whom ended up having to fight terrorist rebels on the streets of their hometown....

a lot of those 200k either wanted a job or just adventure , I don't think many of them quite had the patriotic zeal of the English public schools for instance. based on my own family history I don't think a light switched on after 1916 , they would have been quite resentful of the status quo at the time.

Absolam wrote: »

Maybe; since neither is actually a good case it's hardly a worthwhile consideration though, is it? And of course, the Provisional IRA could avail of both as a rationale... as could al Queda and ISIS.

its not like anyone can logically convince someone not to be a terrorist , it comes down to trying to convince people that either their end goal isn't a good one or that it has zero chance of working or that the costs will be disproportionate to any potential benefits.

Absolam wrote: »

Sure; the case being the victor gets to write the history. The fact that you agree with some of them doesn't make them any more right than the ones you don't agree with.

it depends doesn't it. at the end of the day the State isn't the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, Individual self determination is and collective groups of such individuals are by virtue of asserting so with force if needed.
Would you accept that if Ireland was invaded by a foreign power in the morning that everyone would be faced with 3 broad options, leave, fight or knuckle under and that neither of the choices can be eliminated because of some higher logic or being in drastic conflict with human nature/rights?

Bannasidhe

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Going by your argument, what are the demographics of the Ulster again? It wasnt totally ethnically cleansed, though they tried their best, there are still a large contingent of Irish people living there.

Ulster is not the "homeland" of people who view themselves as British subjects, their home is from wherever in Britain they emanated from.

You cannot immigrate to another country, expell the natives and then suddenly declare that country as "my homeland".

Seriously. If you are going to play the 'homeland' card and lecture on the geographical origins of a given group of people you might want to conduct a tad more research.

Ulster was in fact the original homeland of most of the 'Scottish' planters.
Their ancestors crossed over from Ulster and formed a colony - eventually the whole country came to be called 'Scotland' after these people who decided to "immigrate to another country, expell the natives and then suddenly declare that country as "my homeland" " as you yourself put it - 'Ireland' in the Middle Ages was commonly known in Latin as Scotia and the 'Irish' were 'Scotti'.

The Scots of Dalriada were originally from Ireland, from an area along the Antrim coast and part of the province of Ulster (now counties Antrim and Down). The originator of the political territory of the Dál Riata in Scotland was Fergus Mór mac Eirc who arrived in Kintyre c. 500.

http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/early/settlement/settlement_page1.html

The 'Scots' are of 'Irish' origin - specifically from Ulster and the Kingdom of Dál Raida spanned East Ulster, the Islands and the Western Highlands.

The 'Scottish' planters in Ulster were, ethnically speaking, Gaelic in culture and language and were 'coming home' - they, in fact, had far more connections to the region than say an 'Irish' Munsterman.

Also - at the time of the Plantation of Ulster they did not consider themselves 'British' as Scotland was still an independent kingdom which happened to share a monarch with England. They were not officially united until 1707.
At the time of the Plantation 'Britain' existed only in the mind of James I (VI) therefore no-one considered themselves 'British' until at least the reign of Queen Anne.

Lastly, it was the Ulster 'Scots' who invented Irish Republicanism in the first place - the best the Southern 'Irish' could come up with in terms of quasi-independence was the Royalist 'Catholic Confederacy' of the 1640s which was top heavy with RCC highranking clergy and 'Old English' and swore an oath of loyalty to Charles I.

Now do feck off with your pseudo history and do some proper research before spouting any more nonsense.

As an aside - I assume you do not consider Australians to be 'proper' Australian and as for North America....most of the population of those two regions arrived long after the 'Scots' in Ulster and have far less ethnic connections to their 'new' homeland.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

a lot of those 200k either wanted a job or just adventure , I don't think many of them quite had the patriotic zeal of the English public schools for instance. based on my own family history I don't think a light switched on after 1916 , they would have been quite resentful of the status quo at the time.

Can you actually quantify how many were patriots? We certainly know they did sign up to fight for King and country, and there was a heck of a lot more of them than signed up for the Rising; I think that's not an unreasonable basis for inferring where most peoples loyalties lay, what about you?

silverharp wrote: »

its not like anyone can logically convince someone not to be a terrorist , it comes down to trying to convince people that either their end goal isn't a good one or that it has zero chance of working or that the costs will be disproportionate to any potential benefits.

I don't know what 'it all' you're talking about, since you haven't said, but yes, getting people to agree that your grandad was less of a terrorist than the provos is best done by convincing them that his goal was better than theirs. Unfortunately, an even handed view would be they both had the same goals

silverharp wrote: »

it depends doesn't it. at the end of the day the State isn't the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, Individual self determination is and collective groups of such individuals are by virtue of asserting so with force if needed.

I'm not sure it does depend; can you point to times when the loser got to write the history of a conflict rather than a victor?

silverharp wrote: »

Would you accept that if Ireland was invaded by a foreign power in the morning that everyone would be faced with 3 broad options, leave, fight or knuckle under and that neither of the choices can be eliminated because of some higher logic or being in drastic conflict with human nature/rights?

Can you explain what you think that has to do with whether your grandad was a terrorist or a freedom fighter?

Bannasidhe

donaghs wrote: »

To me is fairly obvious that that the anniversary is celebrated by supporters of the Rising at Easter, because Easter was deliberately chosen by Pearse to signify the Resurrection of the Irish nation. Whether you're religious or not, the connection is crucial to understanding Pearse's motives, and shouldn't be denied.

Just want to point out that it was Connolly not Pearse who was the driving force behind the Rising.

riffmongous

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously. If you are going to play the 'homeland' card and lecture on the geographical origins of a given group of people you might want to conduct a tad more research.

Ulster was in fact the original homeland of most of the 'Scottish' planters.
Their ancestors crossed over from Ulster and formed a colony - eventually the whole country came to be called 'Scotland' after these people who decided to "immigrate to another country, expell the natives and then suddenly declare that country as "my homeland" " as you yourself put it - 'Ireland' in the Middle Ages was commonly known in Latin as Scotia and the 'Irish' were 'Scotti'.


http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/early/settlement/settlement_page1.html

The 'Scots' are of 'Irish' origin - specifically from Ulster and the Kingdom of Dál Raida spanned East Ulster, the Islands and the Western Highlands.

The 'Scottish' planters in Ulster were, ethnically speaking, Gaelic in culture and language and were 'coming home' - they, in fact, had far more connections to the region than say an 'Irish' Munsterman.

Also - at the time of the Plantation of Ulster they did not consider themselves 'British' as Scotland was still an independent kingdom which happened to share a monarch with England. They were not officially united until 1707.
At the time of the Plantation 'Britain' existed only in the mind of James I (VI) therefore no-one considered themselves 'British' until at least the reign of Queen Anne.

Lastly, it was the Ulster 'Scots' who invented Irish Republicanism in the first place - the best the Southern 'Irish' could come up with in terms of quasi-independence was the Royalist 'Catholic Confederacy' of the 1640s which was top heavy with RCC highranking clergy and 'Old English' and swore an oath of loyalty to Charles I.

Now do feck off with your pseudo history and do some proper research before spouting any more nonsense.

As an aside - I assume you do not consider Australians to be 'proper' Australian and as for North America....most of the population of those two regions arrived long after the 'Scots' in Ulster and have far less ethnic connections to their 'new' homeland.

Have you any more evidence for this?

The founding myth of Scotland tells of an Irish King, Fergus Mor, settling Scots from Ireland in Argyll. The English historian Bede wrote that the Irish Scots under Reuda took lands from the Picts. These origin tales influenced later historians but there is no evidence on the ground for an Irish invasion of Argyll.
The Gaels of Dál Riata and Ireland lived in different types of house; they wore different styles of brooch and dress pin; they carved different stone monuments. The archaeological evidence does not support the origin tales. It is now thought that the Gaels of Argyll, the Dál Riatans, were a native population who shared a common language with the peoples of Ireland a few miles over the sea. The Gaels of Dál Riata were probably the descendants of the Bronze Age cairn builders of Kilmartin Glen.

http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/britonsgaelsvikings/dalriata/index.asp

And the Confederate oath to Charles had as much to do with defence against the protestant dominated Parliamentarians and Covenanters who wanted to destroy the catholic religion and gentry in Ireland, and of course followed it up after the war. Their oath certainly didn't stop them from fighting the Royal force in Ireland either at Kilrush and New Ross

Tone and Russell were from the South were they not?

It is amazing you would tell such a biased version of Irish history while accusing someone else of pseudo-history, very disappointing from someone I had a lot of respect for in the history forum

Bannasidhe

riffmongous wrote: »

Have you any more evidence for this?

http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/britonsgaelsvikings/dalriata/index.asp

And the Confederate oath to Charles had as much to do with defence against the protestant dominated Parliamentarians and Covenanters who wanted to destroy the catholic religion and gentry in Ireland, and of course followed it up after the war. Their oath certainly didn't stop them from fighting the Royal force in Ireland either at Kilrush and New Ross

Tone and Russell were from the South were they not?

It is amazing you would tell such a biased version of Irish history while accusing someone else of pseudo-history, very disappointing from someone I had a lot of respect for in the history forum

Evidence of what exactly?



That the 'Scots' had their origins in Ulster?
I believe I have supplied evidence of that but a read of any reputable history site will confirm it. Indeed the link you supplied confirms what I have said so I am a bit confused as to what you want further evidence of.
I am not going to go into the minutia of population migration and intermingling lines of ethnicity here as the fact remains that the poster I was responding to was claiming the Scots planters simply landed in a 'foreign' land, took it over and claimed it as their homeland by right of conquest/habitation. I pointed out that many of these 'planters' had a very strong ethnic, linguistic and cultural connection with Ulster as their ancestors were part of same 'kingdom' and saw no political division between 'Ulster' and 'Argyll'.

If the Confederate Oath was as you describe why was there a split with Owen Roe O'Neill firmly in the Anti-Royalist camp?
You are also ignoring that the vast majority of the 'gentry' were 'Old English' not Gaelic Irish and were actually seeking to return to their post-Norman/ pre-Tudor reformation dominance. They allied with Anglicised Protestant 'Irish' families such as The O'Briens whose power was reliant on the assistance of a monarch on the throne of England.
They were royalist because they needed a monarchical political system to retain their status.

It seems to me that you are trying to play a variation of the Irish = Catholic/ Protestant = 'British', Southern = Nationalist/ Northern = Unionist card which is simply untrue even if it does form part of our nationalist myth.

Things are never that simple. Ever.

Oh dear - I 'disappointed' you because you don't like what I have to say. How will I ever cope.
I guess I'll have to stop reporting what I have spent some 20 odd years reading in the primary sources and working with colleagues to unravel very complex issues because someone I don't know on the internet thinks I'm biased.

Anyhoo - this is not the History forum, I normally get paid to do this much 'work' so here ends my lesson.

The fact remains that going by the poster I was responding to's definition the Ulster Scots were not, ethnically speaking, foreigners. They had a lot more 'Irish' blood in their veins than most of the Gentry of the Catholic Confederacy.

riffmongous

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Their ancestors crossed over from Ulster and formed a colony

These origin tales influenced later historians but there is no evidence on the ground for an Irish invasion of Argyll.

Yes please do end your history 'lesson', I can't bare to read anymore of it

recedite

riffmongous wrote: »

Have you any more evidence for this?

riffmongous wrote: »

Yes please do end your history 'lesson', I can't bear to read anymore of it

Don't ask the question if you can't bear the answer :pac:

Bannasidhe

riffmongous wrote: »

Yes please do end your history 'lesson', I can't bear to read anymore of it

Don't worry.

I have no intention of engaging with someone whose idea of a response is a wee petulant childish dig.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Can you actually quantify how many were patriots? We certainly know they did sign up to fight for King and country, and there was a heck of a lot more of them than signed up for the Rising; I think that's not an unreasonable basis for inferring where most peoples loyalties lay, what about you?
I don't know what 'it all' you're talking about, since you haven't said, but yes, getting people to agree that your grandad was less of a terrorist than the provos is best done by convincing them that his goal was better than theirs. Unfortunately, an even handed view would be they both had the same goals
I'm not sure it does depend; can you point to times when the loser got to write the history of a conflict rather than a victor?
Can you explain what you think that has to do with whether your grandad was a terrorist or a freedom fighter?

are you saying that all freedom fighting\terrorism is wrong?

riffmongous

recedite wrote: »

Don't ask the question if you can't bear the answer :pac:

The poster claimed the ulster scots originally came from Ireland, my link says there is no evidence for this and asked him to back it up. If you are going to accuse others of pseudo history it's probably best not to be posting your own version of it

Canadel

I don't see the problem with him speaking on this issue. Asking him to stay silent is similar to the argument that others would make about how atheists should stay silent on issues such as the angelus and so on. There are always going to be bigger matters, but we should never as a society ignore the smaller ones either.

As for the rising itself, the objectives of the rebels were disgusting.

The people celebrating the rebels and the rising are those who need heroes. I guess you could say it is similar to those who need God. The truth is too difficult. Too uncomfortable.

Anyway. Nonsense.

riffmongous

Canadel wrote: »

As for the rising itself, the objectives of the rebels were disgusting.

Yes civil and religious liberties along with equal rights and opportunities are indeed disgusting.

I'm out of this

recedite

riffmongous wrote: »

The poster claimed the ulster scots originally came from Ireland, my link says there is no evidence for this and asked him to back it up. If you are going to accuse others of pseudo history it's probably best not to be posting your own version of it

She said the Scotti tribe were northern Irish originally, and colonised Scotland, giving it the name.
She gave this link, did you not read it?
The Picts were more native to Scotland, but after the Romans abandoned Britain, the Irish scotti and the Norse moved into Scotland in a big way. The Irish seem to have been the most numerous, hence the language of Scots Gallic is still in use today.
All this should be no surprise; if you visit the NE coast of this island you can see various peninsulas and islands. Some are parts of Scotland, but its not easy to know which are in Ireland and which are in Scotland. In those days travel by sea was quicker than by land, so the people would not have had much reason to differentiate between what we now call the two different countries.

riffmongous

recedite wrote: »

She said the Scotti tribe were northern Irish originally, and colonised Scotland, giving it the name.
She gave this link, did you not read it?
The Picts were more native to Scotland, but after the Romans abandoned Britain, the Irish scotti and the Norse moved into Scotland in a big way. The Irish seem to have been the most numerous, hence the language of Scots Gallic is still in use today.
All this should be no surprise; if you visit the NE coast of this island you can see various peninsulas and islands. Some are parts of Scotland, but its not easy to know which are in Ireland and which are in Scotland. In those days travel by sea was quicker than by land, so the people would not have had much reason to differentiate between what we now call the two different countries.

Yes I read the link and was familiar with the story from years ago, but I had also read links recently that say there is no actual evidence for this, one of which I provided and I asked for more evidence from that poster to back up their assertion, which did not come.

The founding myth of Scotland tells of an Irish King, Fergus Mor, settling Scots from Ireland in Argyll. The English historian Bede wrote that the Irish Scots under Reuda took lands from the Picts. These origin tales influenced later historians but there is no evidence on the ground for an Irish invasion of Argyll.

The Gaels of Dál Riata and Ireland lived in different types of house; they wore different styles of brooch and dress pin; they carved different stone monuments. The archaeological evidence does not support the origin tales. It is now thought that the Gaels of Argyll, the Dál Riatans, were a native population who shared a common language with the peoples of Ireland a few miles over the sea. The Gaels of Dál Riata were probably the descendants of the Bronze Age cairn builders of Kilmartin Glen.

The poster accuses someone of posting pseudohistory while, from what I can see, is also posting pseudohistory and getting thanked for it. I really don't see a point in continuing any further beyond this, this is my 3rd time posting it. Have a good evening

Bannasidhe

riffmongous wrote: »

Yes I read the link and was familiar with the story from years ago, but I had also read links recently that say there is no actual evidence for this, one of which I provided and I asked for more evidence from that poster to back up their assertion, which did not come.


The poster accuses someone of posting pseudohistory while, from what I can see, is also posting pseudohistory and getting thanked for it. I really don't see a point in continuing any further beyond this, this is my 3rd time posting it. Have a good evening

For someone who has had enough you do keep harping on.

By 'evidence' you appear to be referring to archaeological evidence.
I am not an archaeologist, I do not deal with 'on the ground' or in the ground. I deal with documents. I never mentioned archaeological evidence nor would I as I am not aware of how extensive any excavations have been.
I do remember the whole Bann Flakes controversy here which seemed to 'prove' that human habitation of Ireland began in Ulster... until Peter Woodman (who had found the Bann Flakes in the first place) found 'proof' of earlier habitation on the ground along the Blackwater Valley, and just a few weeks ago wasn't there articles about proof on the ground (or more exactly in a cave) which pushed the dates of human habitation of Ireland back thousands of years...

I deal in primary sources or secondary sources by accredited and reputable named Historians. Not some vague allusions to the shape of houses in a web article written by an unknown author overly fond of the word 'may'.

Documents like this one
https://books.google.ie/books?id=PS_9-iSvS4cC&pg=PA106&dq=kingdom+of+the+Dal+Riada&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kingdom%20of%20the%20Dal%20Riada&f=false

or this one:

https://books.google.ie/books?id=xNcKzZwHmnYC&pg=PR22&dq=kingdom+of+the+Dal+Riada&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kingdom%20of%20the%20Dal%20Riada&f=false

or this one:
https://books.google.ie/books?id=AkYVAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT137&dq=kingdom+of+the+Dal+Riada&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kingdom%20of%20the%20Dal%20Riada&f=false

or this one
https://books.google.ie/books?id=cDhWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA106&dq=kingdom+of+the+Dal+Riada&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kingdom%20of%20the%20Dal%20Riada&f=false


or this one
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G105003/index.html

Do you have access to JSTOR? I have lashings of articles you could read.

I have also read Bede - have you?
I find the old boy pretty spot on when he writes about the northern part of the island of Britain but you might feel that an educated man living in Northumbria during the existence of the Kingdom of Dál Riada knows nothing compared to 20th/21st century archaeologists.

But lets be politic - the Scots who moved to Ulster from what had been the 'Scottish' portion Kingdom of Dál Riada before it was merged with the Kingdom of Alba believed they not only had strong cultural and linguistic ties, political alliances (for example Áodh Rua Ua Domhnall's mother was Fionnuala Inion Dubh Nic Dhomhnaill - who is mentioned frequently in the Irish Annals but not once referred to 'an Gall' [a foreigner] and the Annals are very picky about such things as I am sure you know from your extensive research) but also - and this is the important part - felt they were ethnically the same 'race' of people as those living in the Ulster portion of that same kingdom. Now, I am sure I don't need to explain Gaelic concepts of 'race' to you and how they are clan/bloodline based not at all like our modern meaning of the word.
But they didn't know that Dr Ewan Campbell and Professor Leslie Alcock would find no archaeological evidence (I am sure they looked absolutely everywhere) and note that there are place name differences (which doesn't exist between the other Irish provinces at all at all) - however even archaeologists who find no evidence concede that the Kingdom of Dál Raida bestrode the Irish sea and had territory in both Ulster and Western Scotland.

Which means that many of the 'Scots' who came to Ulster did so from what had been part of a united East Ulster/West Scots kingdom meaning they were not the 'foreigners' the poster I was responding to tried to portray them.
One could even posit they were ethnically the same people due to sharing a common cultural tradition.

There. Are we done now?

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

are you saying that all freedom fighting\terrorism is wrong?

I'm saying your grandad was as much a freedom fighter as the Provisional IRA, and as much a terrorist as al Quada.

Whether or not any of them are or were right or wrong depends entirely on the side you choose to support.

riffmongous

.

fisgon

Donald Clarke, (an avowed atheist) in the Irish Times, comments on the AI view of The Rising..

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/donald-clarke-this-atheist-dogma-is-beyond-belief-1.2595119

I agree with him. It is becoming more and more clear that Michael Nugent's comments on the Rising were profoundly ill-judged, and not in any way representative of atheist opinion (if such a thing exists). Michael has done a lot of good work, and continues to do so, but in this he really misjudged things very badly.

Donald Clarke's piece is now being highlighted on the front page of irishtimes.com.

recedite

There is a lot wrong with that article.

First and foremost there are still creme eggs in the shops

We may not believe the Nazarene cheated death, but we can’t deny that Easter happens. That’s when the shops stop selling Creme Eggs. It is true that the rebellion was not “democratic”. Few rebel movements have the infrastructure to organise a national plebiscite before taking up arms. No popular votes took place in colonial America or Bourbon France before their respective revolutions. Both those disturbances resulted in the death of innocent people. We trust, therefore, that Atheist Ireland will stay away from the American and French embassies on, respectively, the 4th and 14th of July.
There is, of course, a pacifist argument to be made here, but Atheist Ireland does not declare itself to be a pacifist body.

Following the creme egg faux pas, he admits that Nugent was right about the lack of democracy. Then he goes on about the French and American revolutions not being democratic. Eh... they won theirs because of the amount of popular support and participation they had. Proof of the pudding etc..

Then we have a couple of strawman arguments, where he is actually railing against the inaccurate reporting of his own newspaper;

A report in this newspaper explained that “atheist leaders” – in the collective form of Atheist Ireland – had refused an invitation to be part of the epic bash .

I've never heard of anyone claiming to be an "atheist leader".

But Atheist Ireland does not speak for the Atheist community. How can I say this so baldly? Because there is no “atheist community”. The idea is preposterous.

That's right, he doesn't, and he even pointed that out.

Nugent and his team could hardly have seemed more out of touch if they’d sought to ban Christmas

If Nugent was invited to attend prayers for the official state celebration of Christmas, I hope and presume he would respectfully decline, while giving his very good reasons. That's not the same as "attempting to ban Christmas".

The author keeps pointing out that he is an atheist, but he is obviously playing to the gallery. Maybe this was an April Fools Day article? He reminds me of that pathetic gay fella who was put at the front of the campaign to stop same sex marriage.

meeeeh

recedite wrote: »

The author keeps pointing out that he is an atheist, but he is obviously playing to the gallery. Maybe this was an April Fools Day article? He reminds me of that pathetic gay fella who was put at the front of the campaign to stop same sex marriage.

No he is just not a zealot. I liked the article very much actually.

BTW anyone with basic historic knowledge would know you need a bit more than just the popular support to win a revolution or any other war or fight. And I mean really basic.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

The author keeps pointing out that he is an atheist, but he is obviously playing to the gallery. Maybe this was an April Fools Day article? He reminds me of that pathetic gay fella who was put at the front of the campaign to stop same sex marriage.

Nah he writes in the same pseudo-arch tone every week. It's usually not quite this irritating though.

It's all very well for Jonathan Miller, a son of secular Jews who grew up in a largely secular UK, to say that for him atheism has no impact on his life. Didn't stop him getting a (good) TV series and probably a book or two out of it though

The 'we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in ghosts or witches' etc. thing is disposed of by Michael Nugent's video from the World Atheist Conference I posted in post 43.

One of the main aims of AI is to promote a secular Ireland, and it can and does take common cause with (minority, oddly enough, the two largest churches ain't interested as the current setup suits them) theists in the promotion of secularism. But a "Secular Ireland" organisation could not take aim at the ridiculous idea of religion in general, and frankly an emperor so insufficiently clothed needs to be called out on it.

Bannasidhe

meeeeh wrote: »

No he is just not a zealot. I liked the article very much actually.

BTW anyone with basic historic knowledge would know you need a bit more than just the popular support to win a revolution or any other war or fight. And I mean really basic.

Really???

:pac:

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I'm saying your grandad was as much a freedom fighter as the Provisional IRA, and as much a terrorist as al Quada.

Whether or not any of them are or were right or wrong depends entirely on the side you choose to support.

its just a label then a bit like the US army was the same as the Nazi Army, great but doesnt get me anywhere, perhaps the gardai are as much policemen as the Gestapo?

fisgon

recedite wrote: »

There is a lot wrong with that article.

The author keeps pointing out that he is an atheist, but he is obviously playing to the gallery. Maybe this was an April Fools Day article? He reminds me of that pathetic gay fella who was put at the front of the campaign to stop same sex marriage.

April Fools Day? You seem to be suggesting that it is so ludicrous that it cannot be taken seriously. That is a very strange position to take, considering that, at least online, atheists who actually agree with Michael Nugent are in the minority.

The truth is that AI has shot itself in the foot badly here. It has taken an issue that has absolutely no relevance to religion or atheism, or to a secular state, and seen fit to comment publicly on it and refuse an invitation that was actually recognizing Atheist Ireland as a relevant organization in Irish life.

The comparison to the gay man at the head of Mother and Fathers matter is also absurd. The referendum was an issue that was clearly in the interests of gay people, and that man was almost alone among gay people in opposing it.

In this case the issue is not in any way an atheist issue, has nothing whatsover to do with an atheist or secular cause, and in fact the majority of atheist opinion actually supports Donald Clarke and opposes whoever in AI decided to refuse the invitation.

There is a section of public opinion who sees atheists as a bunch of whingers, and AI in the last week or two has only cemented that. It has been a spectacular own goal on an issue of no importance to secularists and atheists.