The whole 800 years thing...

fingal hoop · 02-11-2008 12:57AM

the british empire were involved in genocide in a number of there colonies-why would they treat the irish any differently?

Terry · 02-11-2008 12:57AM

brianthebard wrote: »

Dude, what?

Firstly, where are you getting the millions evicted? The prisoner population of Australia was in the tens of thousands at most. Secondly, the idea that the famine was due to apathy is totally wrong, there were government debates on the Irish system of farming for decades before 1845, it was seen as a problem and attempts were made to fix it. I'm not trying to justify Imperialism, far from it, but there's no good in playing fast and loose with history.

I though someone living in hell Connaught would agree with me.

How anyone can deny that the British occupation was anything but brutal and oppressive is beyond my comprehension.

brianthebard · 02-11-2008 12:58AM

fingal hoop wrote: »

most of the irish went to America

when ireland was starving to death it was also a net exporter of food - that is the fact that cant be disputed & which shows what the brits thought of the Irish

But they weren't evicted to America?

And I can absolutely dispute that fact, the British government imported five times as much grain as was exported in 1847. One of the problems though was poor distribution of the grain. Up to two million people were fed daily by soup kitchens and workhouses, another British system. In fact if the Church hadn't spread rumours about "taking the soup" being conditional upon conversion to Protestantism, maybe even more people could've been fed. Another thing that needs to be noted is the majority of people who died didn't starve, they died of diseases like dysentry and choleria, do you think the British spread those as well?

Terry wrote: »

I though someone living in hell Connaught would agree with me.

Maybe I'm a Fir bolg?

How anyone can deny that the British occupation was anything but brutal and oppressive is beyond my comprehension.

I agree it was oppressive because taking another countries sovereignty is oppressive, but I'm not going to agree with the misleading statements you are making. If it was as brutal as you say then there should be no need for you to make up figures to bolster your claims.

fingal hoop · 02-11-2008 01:03AM

brianthebard wrote: »

But they weren't evicted to America?

And I can absolutely dispute that fact, the British government imported five times as much grain as was exported in 1847. One of the problems though was poor distribution of the grain. Up to two million people were fed daily by soup kitchens and workhouses, another British system. In fact if the Church hadn't spread rumours about "taking the soup" being conditional upon conversion to Protestantism, maybe even more people could've been fed. Another thing that needs to be noted is the majority of people who died didn't starve, they died of diseases like dysentry and choleria, do you think the British spread those as well?

Maybe I'm a Fir bolg?

I agree it was oppressive because taking another countries sovereignty is oppressive, but I'm not going to agree with the misleading statements you are making. If it was as brutal as you say then there should be no need for you to make up figures to bolster your claims.

Ireland was a net exporter of food during the irish hunger - the brits needed the food to feed their soldiers in their imperialist wars

that is the the fact of the matter

sock puppet · 02-11-2008 01:05AM

fingal hoop wrote: »

the british empire were involved in genocide in a number of there colonies-why did they treat the irish differently?

Fixed.

Allowing merchants to export their goods is not the same as trying to wipe out an entire population. The British government had interfered in previous famines yet it didn't stop more of them occuring. Perhaps they thought it better to just leave things alone. Not saying it was the right decision however they did learn their lesson afterwards.

fingal hoop · 02-11-2008 01:09AM

sock puppet wrote: »

Fixed.

Allowing merchants to export their goods is not the same as trying to wipe out an entire population. The British government had interfered in previous famines yet it didn't stop more of them occuring. Perhaps they thought it better to just leave things alone. Not saying it was the right decision however they did learn their lesson afterwards.

people were starving to death & they were shipping food out of ireland-

how many other countries did the British commit genocide in - a fcuk load- why would they treat us differently?

brianthebard · 02-11-2008 01:10AM

fingal hoop wrote: »

Ireland was a net exporter of food during the irish hunger - the brits needed the food to feed their soldiers in their imperialist wars

that is the the fact of the matter

The Irish soldiers?
And no its not the fact of the matter.

And you do know that the people exporting the food were Irish, usually medium to large Catholic farmers yeah?

dlofnep · 02-11-2008 01:10AM

Marco Little Pail wrote: »

You did indeed get me. Usually when I post in reference to another, I do so using quotes, especially if the post I'm referring to is two pages behind the most current messages on the thread. Your unorthodox method of reference is indeed ground-breaking and perplexing to those of us unfamiliar with your cunning ways. Pardon me kindly.

You saw the post, let's not pretend you didn't. Don't back-peddle now Frodo.

Terry · 02-11-2008 01:11AM

brianthebard wrote: »

But they weren't evicted to America?

And I can absolutely dispute that fact, the British government imported five times as much grain as was exported in 1847. One of the problems though was poor distribution of the grain. Up to two million people were fed daily by soup kitchens and workhouses, another British system. In fact if the Church hadn't spread rumours about "taking the soup" being conditional upon conversion to Protestantism, maybe even more people could've been fed. Another thing that needs to be noted is the majority of people who died didn't starve, they died of diseases like dysentry and choleria, do you think the British spread those as well?

Maybe I'm a Fir bolg?

I agree it was oppressive because taking another countries sovereignty is oppressive, but I'm not going to agree with the misleading statements you are making. If it was as brutal as you say then there should be no need for you to make up figures to bolster your claims.

Firstly, I didn't make up figures. I did get them somewhere, but I can't remember where. It wasn't wikipedia though.

Secondly, Grain was taken from Irish farmers and experted to Britain.
i'd like to see your facts that five times etc.
Thirdly, Yes, the church did play a part in screwing things up, but not as much as peple want to believe. It's all to easy to blame the church on everything these days and have people believe it because of the sex abuse stuff.

Fourthly; I will once again bring up the penal laws and the brutality inflictided on those who opposed them.

OMG I'm typing in English.
Yes, that's because the Irish language was all but wiped out and the Irish rebel in me rejected learning it in school.

While I do have a dislike of English music, I do love the works of Shakespear and think he was a genius.

I hold no grudge towards the English of today and I converse with daily with English people, but I will never forget the damage they inflicted on this land.

dSTAR · 02-11-2008 01:15AM

fingal hoop wrote: »

...the brits needed the food to feed their soldiers in their imperialist wars

And what was happening in Ireland wasn't an 'imperial war' just a 'problem' with the locals not bowing down to the masters who had a 'divine right to rule' over an ancient land?

brianthebard · 02-11-2008 01:18AM

Terry wrote: »

Firstly, I didn't make up figures. I did get them somewhere, but I can't remember where. It wasn't wikipedia though.

Secondly, Grain was taken from Irish farmers and experted to Britain.
i'd like to see your facts that five times etc.

I didn't say you got them from wiki, but that doesn't change the nature of it. If you want to see the facts on the five times, read nineteenth century Ireland by Boyce. I tried to find an online source before but can't.

Thirdly, Yes, the church did play a part in screwing things up, but not as much as peple want to believe. It's all to easy to blame the church on everything these days and have people believe it because of the sex abuse stuff.

I'm not going to go into church bashing any more than brit bashing, I'm just trying to add some balance.

Fourthly; I will once again bring up the penal laws and the brutality inflictided on those who opposed them.

OMG I'm typing in English.
Yes, that's because the Irish language was all but wiped out and the Irish rebel in me rejected learning it in school.

While I do have a dislike of English music, I do love the works of Shakespear and think he was a genius.

I hold no grudge towards the English of today and I converse with daily with English people, but I will never forget the damage they inflicted on this land.

See you say you haven't a grudge, but when you talk about the harm done to us or never forget the damage they inflicted, you talk about it as if its ongoing, or part of recent memory.

4zn76tysfajdxp · 02-11-2008 01:19AM

dlofnep wrote: »

You saw the post, let's not pretend you didn't. Don't back-peddle now Frodo.

"Frodo"

I'd post an appropriate response but I'm too busy clutching my sides, in hysterics over your searing wit. Nobody's EVER said that before.

sock puppet · 02-11-2008 01:20AM

fingal hoop wrote: »

people were starving to death & they were shipping food out of ireland-

how many other countries did the British commit genocide in - a fcuk load- why would they treat us differently?

Who?

And they did commit genocide in many countries. Fortunately, Ireland was not one of them.

dlofnep · 02-11-2008 01:21AM

There was no Irish famine. There was adequete food supplies. They however were exported to Britain by the wealthy landlords. Let's set that straight.

dlofnep · 02-11-2008 01:22AM

Marco Little Pail wrote: »

"Frodo"

I'd post an appropriate response but I'm too busy clutching my sides, in hysterics over your searing wit. Nobody's EVER said that before.

I didn't feel the need to conjure up any remnants of originality for someone who's too lazy to read the first page of a thread, and then come in a few pages later with guns a blazing attacking his own national anthem which was in response to another anthem.. Which btw, was all in good fun. I've better things to do with my time than argue with sarky people on the interwebz.

fingal hoop · 02-11-2008 01:23AM

Domo230 wrote: »

Most historians would agree that Ireland was much better off because of Britain. As my old professor used to say "Ireland was never more peaceful nor more prosperous then before 1916"

.

:D

no point arguing with you when you come out with tripe like that

fingal hoop · 02-11-2008 01:24AM

sock puppet wrote: »

Who?

And they did commit genocide in many countries. Fortunately, Ireland was not one of them.

landlords

fingal hoop · 02-11-2008 01:24AM

Domo230 wrote: »

No food supplies were short in all of Europe and Australia. The famine hit everyone but it hit Ireland hardest because of our reliance on potatoes.
Again people have to take things into context, famines were extremely common back then, most european nations were short of food at the time.

there was no famine in ireland though:rolleyes:

brianthebard · 02-11-2008 01:25AM

fingal hoop wrote: »

there was no famine in ireland though:rolleyes:

Catching on...

fingal hoop · 02-11-2008 01:25AM

dSTAR wrote: »

And what was happening in Ireland wasn't an 'imperial war' just a 'problem' with the locals not bowing down to the masters who had a 'divine right to rule' over an ancient land?

sorry should have said other imperialistic wars

dlofnep · 02-11-2008 01:28AM

Domo230 wrote: »

No food supplies were short in all of Europe and Australia. The famine hit everyone but it hit Ireland hardest because of our reliance on potatoes.
Again people have to take things into context, famines were extremely common back then, most european nations were short of food at the time.

Look, I don't doubt food was scarce. But the vast majority of life could have been saved if food wasn't exported. There was still meat & fish and grain. Not to mention, we received little support from Britain. If my memory serves me correct, we received more support from the native Americans.

Terry · 02-11-2008 01:30AM

Domo230 wrote: »

Of course theres going to still be prejudice in the North. Things dont suddenly become better over night. But compare it to other horrors nations have forgiven one another for and it seems fairly minor.

Good crops, Ireland sold Britain absolute muck and made a far larger profit off it than they would have selling it at home. Again the shipping of Irish produce is brought up. Oversimplified in the extreme. And no one brings up all the other famines the Irish survived because of British aid and embargoing.

People emigrated because they needed work and there were several famines. Without Britain we would have had no work.

You know most of the Irish crops went to Australia to help prevent a famine they were suffering. Cattle were considered the best produce to transport because it was living and would keep. You can argue it was a bad plan but in pretty much every other famine they made the right calls and saved millions.

If Britain didnt give a f*** then why was Prime Minister Robert Peel go ahead and implement a policy which helped Ireland but affected British traders so much that he got sacked over it?

But have you read any good ones? Given the popularity of Irish history, countless authors publish biased one sided pro Irish trash in order to get a sale. You seem to be very biased and biased historians are often the type to gravitate towards books which reinforce their views rather than challenge them.

I can find countless authors who have written books claiming the holocaust never happened, do I take them seriously, of course not.

Im not an appologist, im a historian, I only deal with the facts but the reality is people dont give a damn about what really happened, all thats important is what people think happened unfortunately.

Compared to every other nations laws at the time, Englands were probably the most civilised and fair in the world at the time. Stop looking at things from a modern perspective and take things into perspective of the age they happened in.

Most historians would agree that Ireland was much better off because of Britain. As my old professor used to say "Ireland was never more peaceful nor more prosperous then before 1916"

Thank god for Nazi Germany then.

In short; I'm right, you're wrong.

brianthebard wrote: »

I didn't say you got them from wiki, but that doesn't change the nature of it. If you want to see the facts on the five times, read nineteenth century Ireland by Boyce. I tried to find an online source before but can't.

I'm not going to go into church bashing any more than brit bashing, I'm just trying to add some balance.

See you say you haven't a grudge, but when you talk about the harm done to us or never forget the damage they inflicted, you talk about it as if its ongoing, or part of recent memory.

"They" refers to the past tense.

As above, I'm right, you're wrong.

The simple fact of the matter is that British invaded Ireland.
Some Irish people helped them in their task.
some Irish people helped them with their farms.
some Irish people helped them with their oppression.

Some Irish people. Not all Irish people.
The average Irish person under British rule was a peasant and had no rights.
He was treated as scum and to pretend that these things did not happen is simply idiotic.

The British in Ireland were as brutal as they were in India and Africa.
They were the scum of the earth and had chavs as soldiers.
Fúck all you apologists. You can all suck my balls.

4zn76tysfajdxp · 02-11-2008 01:30AM

dlofnep wrote: »

I didn't feel the need to conjure up any remnants of originality for someone who's too lazy to read the first page of a thread, and then come in a few pages later with guns a blazing attacking his own national anthem which was in response to another anthem.. Which btw, was all in good fun. I've better things to do with my time than argue with sarky people on the interwebz.

You seem pretty sure that I didn't read the first page, maybe you should check again.

nlgbbbblth · 02-11-2008 01:30AM

dlofnep wrote: »

I hold a grudge against the British Government.. Not the English people.

Then it's not a proper grudge.

All or nothing.

PrivateEye · 02-11-2008 01:33AM

Do I have any ill-feeling towards ordinary British people?
No, not in the slightest.

Do I have any ill-feeling towards the British armed forces, the British political establishment and the like?
Damn right.

Imperialism is ugly. It was ugly here, and its still ugly today.
I hope a good crowd turn out tomorrow to protest the R.I.R peacefully (and not alongside oppurtunistic Shinners or other Chuckies..) on the grounds that the RIR are the modern sons of the UDR, and are returning from two illegal occupations. You can't forget what happened, you have to move on but justice is essential. Relatives in the north do not have justice yet (and by that I mean relatives of those blown to bits by nationalist carbombs as well as shot by state forces)

The ordinary British people were being hammered by Thatcher even when people in the North were being put down by her government too. Irish people have often suffered WITH British workers, but fallen for the 'divide and conquer' stuff whipped up by nationalists on both sides.

Hearing they were going to march the RIR down an Irish street reminded me of those lines from Christy Moores 'minds locked shut'

It happened on a Sunday afternoon

On a lovely bright crisp winters afternoon

On a perfect day for walking.

Peace and justice have to be top of the agenda.

sock puppet · 02-11-2008 01:34AM

fingal hoop wrote: »

landlords

But many of those landlords were born and raised in Ireland. I hate this belief that it was "The Brits" who just stole all of our food during the famine. Also a lot of landlords, while wealthy in that they lived lavish lifestyles, were heavily in debt. If they couldn't make money they'd fall further into debt. Now it was their own fault for being in this situation and I seriously doubt anyone feels any sympathy for them but from their point of view the evictions were understandable.

nlgbbbblth · 02-11-2008 01:35AM

Terry wrote: »

OMG I'm typing in English.
Yes, that's because the Irish language was all but wiped out and the Irish rebel in me rejected learning it in school.

seems kinda contradictory.

most of us had the opportunity to learn Irish in school.

Some took that opportunity, others decided to blame the teaching methods etc.

brianthebard · 02-11-2008 01:38AM

Terry wrote: »

In short; I'm right, you're wrong.

"They" refers to the past tense.

As above, I'm right, you're wrong.

The simple fact of the matter is that British invaded Ireland.
Some Irish people helped them in their task.
some Irish people helped them with their farms.
some Irish people helped them with their oppression.

Some Irish people. Not all Irish people.
The average Irish person under British rule was a peasant and had no rights.
He was treated as scum and to pretend that these things did not happen is simply idiotic.

The British in Ireland were as brutal as they were in India and Africa.
They were the scum of the earth and had chavs as soldiers.
Fúck all you apologists. You can all suck my balls.

What the hell terry there's a difference between trying to give a balanced historiography and pretending it didn't happen. At no point did I suggest that British imperial rule did not happen, and if you had read my posts you'd see I agreed it was oppressive. What do you think the average Irish person was before British rule? As for chavs as soldiers, the Irish were hugely overrepresented in the British army, about half the troops in India were Irish at one point.

fingal hoop wrote: »

landlords

Like Daniel O'Connell and C.S. Parnell right?

mike65 · 02-11-2008 01:38AM

Is Terry drunk? Saturday night, gone midnight....hmmmmm.

Mike

Mr Magnolia · 02-11-2008 01:42AM

I love seeing the English getting beaten in sporting events due incidents like the riots in Landsowne in '95 and the Martin Johnson red carpet incident, nothing political there. I've friends and relation English so I hold absolutely no animosity.

Domo230 wrote: »

Of course theres going to still be prejudice in the North. Things dont suddenly become better over night. But compare it to other horrors nations have forgiven one another for and it seems fairly minor.

That's grand so. You should probably point that out to people who lost loved ones in the North and have been refused enquiries.

Good crops, Ireland sold Britain absolute muck and made a far larger profit off it than they would have selling it at home. Again the shipping of Irish produce is brought up. Oversimplified in the extreme. And no one brings up all the other famines the Irish survived because of British aid and embargoing.

People emigrated because they needed work and there were several famines. Without Britain we would have had no work

You know most of the Irish crops went to Australia to help prevent a famine they were suffering. Cattle were considered the best produce to transport because it was living and would keep. You can argue it was a bad plan but in pretty much every other famine they made the right calls and saved millions.

If Britain didnt give a f*** then why was Prime Minister Robert Peel go ahead and implement a policy which helped Ireland but affected British traders so much that he got sacked over it?

But have you read any good ones? Given the popularity of Irish history, countless authors publish biased one sided pro Irish trash in order to get a sale. You seem to be very biased and biased historians are often the type to gravitate towards books which reinforce their views rather than challenge them.

I can find countless authors who have written books claiming the holocaust never happened, do I take them seriously, of course not.

Im not an appologist, im a historian, I only deal with the facts but the reality is people dont give a damn about what really happened, all thats important is what people think happened unfortunately.

Compared to every other nations laws at the time, Englands were probably the most civilised and fair in the world at the time. Stop looking at things from a modern perspective and take things into perspective of the age they happened in.

Most historians would agree that Ireland was much better off because of Britain. As my old professor used to say "Ireland was never more peaceful nor more prosperous then before 1916"

Thank god for Nazi Germany then.

You're right. It's great we suffered the invasion, the loss of democracy, the famine, the troubles, the hunger strikes and the countless deaths, it's made us the nation of sarcastic fcukers we are.

The whole 800 years thing...

Comments