Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

History forum general discussion

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Just to add to this information on the 1641 project - the discussion is going on about the documents. Even the expert linguistic insights into the documents are enlightening – Barbara Fennell of Aberdeen University claims that the depositions are ‘all mediated testimony’ i.e. not direct. The Conference also stressed the importance of the propaganda aspects of the depositions.

    But a very important thing to note - and as was pointed out by Prof Jane Ohlmeyer - is that the actual depositions record only the Protestant side of these events. No depositions were taken by the authorities from the Catholic side - so atrocities against Catholics have no similar record. Yet other evidence from archeology and other sources suggest similar atrocities committed against Catholics.

    Yea there was theres a whole list of people online who took part.http://1641.tcd.ie/index.php Also is there a list of people massacred? :o That might be too much to ask for probably..


  • Options
    #93
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    HellsAngel wrote: »
    Ah yes, the enlightened once again sneering at the ignorant Irish masses, Conor Cruise O'Brien or Ruth Dudley Edwards couldn't put it better. Quite clearly our friend here's view of historical accuracy and ' balance' is -

    Irish = Ungrateful, illogical peasants who needed a firm hand to put them in their place

    British/unionists - Benign, benevolent, charitable civilisers.

    I'm sure if say, John Mitchell had been an officer in the British army and had defended the empire by mass murdering the fuzzy wuzzy's with the aid of the gattling gun and the best of British pluck, he'd be a right little hero now wouldn't he.

    Here's a good example of the above's ' balance '. " Cromwell acted in Ireland AFTER an Irish army arrived in England to support the Royalists and against the backdrop of the Massacre of Protestants in Ulster. His opposition in Ireland were the Royalist forces led by the Anglican Duke of Ormonde and the Catholic Confederacy led by Eoghan Ruadh Uí Neill - the latter being those same folk guilty of what can only be described as a concerted attempt at ethnic cleansing in Ulster. "

    Well ethnic cleansing in Ulster or others parts of Ireland certainly wasn't started by Eoghan Ruadh Uí Neill, it was going on decades and centuries before - something which our friend would like to overlook of course. Indeed if those who were lucky enough to survive went out and hung some of those invovled in previous campaigns of ethnic cleansing against them - who could blame them ?

    And also for the record, there has always been a serious question mark over the "the Massacre of Protestants in Ulster" - though our friend here accpets the unionist/British version without question, just like he seems to regarding good British intentions during the Famine etc (from an earlier post #63) "The sources from Westminster show a genuine horror at the living conditions in Ireland - after the Act of Union in 1801 London worked frantically to get some form of structure in place (within the confines of the prevailing political ideology of the time) to aid the poor ".

    Maybe this might enlighten him and open up his mind on the subject " How lies about Irish 'barbarism' in 1641 paved way for Cromwell's atrocities - A two-day academic conference (18-19 February) will expose unsubstantiated propaganda within the 31 handwritten volumes of witness statements that provided Oliver Cromwell with justification for his subsequent slaughter of defeated garrisons at Drogheda and Wexford. Described as a prototype "dodgy dossier" featuring allegations of cannibalism, the 17th-century accounts of atrocities committed against Protestant settlers have been put online for the first time. "That image is drawing on biblical prophecy ... and contemporary accounts of European massacres. While these depositions were being taken, they were being leaked and published in London with the clear intention that they would elicit the sympathy of English Protestants."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/18/1641-irish-rebellion-anti-catholic-propaganda

    I'm sorry but that is very cruel to say that people are lying about protestants being massacred. As far as i'm concerned most of the stuff you post is either made up or is some stupid myth that never happened. I would like to see evidence that people were lying because they obviously weren't.


  • Options
    #94
    HellsAngel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭HellsAngel


    owenc wrote: »
    I'm sorry but that is very cruel to say that people are lying about protestants being massacred. As far as i'm concerned most of the stuff you post is either made up or is some stupid myth that never happened. I would like to see evidence that people were lying because they obviously weren't.
    Maybe you should try reading the link provided in the post.


  • Options
    #95
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    owenc wrote: »
    Yea there was theres a whole list of people online who took part.http://1641.tcd.ie/index.php Also is there a list of people massacred? :o That might be too much to ask for probably..

    I am quoting from the Conference - the fact that it is a deposition of Protestants only was a direct quote from Prof Ohlmeyer. The authorities who took the depositions did not take any information from the Catholic side as stated at the Conference in Aberdeen and at Glucksman.


  • Options
    #96
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    HellsAngel wrote: »
    Maybe you should try reading the link provided in the post.

    Yes i did read the link and it shows the 1641 depositions. These are written accounts that show what happened back then. This is evidence that protestants were massacred so once again your theory is proven incorrect.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I am quoting from the Conference - the fact that it is a deposition of Protestants only was a direct quote from Prof Ohlmeyer. The authorities who took the depositions did not take any information from the Catholic side as stated at the Conference in Aberdeen and at Gluckman House in NY.

    YES they did. :eek:http://1641.tcd.ie/searchResults.php?County=7

    THe following names are irish catholic names.

    o quin
    o cahan etc..


  • Options
    #98
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    It is a good discussion and the information that Bannasidhe is posting hits the nail on the head of what was a big turn off for me on Irish History.

    Its a bit like what JPII said (on seeing Mel Gibson's movie the Passion of the Christ) " It is as it was" .

    My point is whatever your point of view, Gibson went for the Catholic Historiography and some amazingly old sources and of its genre it will be very hard to top as a movie, but it may not be supported by historical sources.

    In my case, it was the History did not match up with my family history and that created doubt and scepticism. I am not out to challenge any orthodoxy but I would like the history published to be a little closer to the truth.


  • Options
    #99
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Here is a video clip that I found of Professor Jane Ohlmeyer giving a lecture on the 1641 project - You can hear her say at the beginning that there is only 'one side' recorded.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve_1oIPuerU


  • Options
    #100
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Here is a video clip that I found of Professor Jane Ohlmeyer giving a lecture on the 1641 project - You can hear her say at the beginning that there is only 'one side' recorded.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve_1oIPuerU

    Well theres the flippin evidence they are WRONG!


  • Options
    #101
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    CDfm wrote: »
    It is a good discussion and the information that Bannasidhe is posting hits the nail on the head of what was a big turn off for me on Irish History.

    Its a bit like what JPII said (on seeing Mel Gibson's movie the Passion of the Christ) " It is as it was" .

    My point is whatever your point of view, Gibson went for the Catholic Historiography and some amazingly old sources and of its genre it will be very hard to top as a movie, but it may not be supported by historical sources.

    In my case, it was the History did not match up with my family history and that created doubt and scepticism. I am not out to challenge any orthodoxy but I would like the history published to be a little closer to the truth.

    Any idea where he got his inspiration for Braveheart from?

    The film managed to get the name right and that's about it....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    owenc wrote: »
    YES they did. :eek:http://1641.tcd.ie/searchResults.php?County=7

    THe following names are irish catholic names.

    o quin
    o cahan etc..

    Don't assume an Irish name means Catholic - many Irish 'converted' when they submitted- the best example being the O'Briens earls of Thomond who were Anglican and one can't get more Irish then the descendants of Boru!

    Race is often brought into this when, in fact, the concept of 'race' as we know it was only beginning to develop and didn't really start to be a major issue until much later. The main issues of contention then were religion and culture. In Ireland under the Tudors Culture was the main thing with far more emphasis being placed on the annihilation of Gaelic culture then on religious conversion.

    It might be worth discussing the Gaelic Irish conception of 'race' here. To them there were two types of people - An Gael (the 'Irish') and An Gáll (everyone else!). The Scots confused the issue a bit as they were also 'Gaelic' but when living in Ireland were usually referred to as Gálloglaigh (gallowglass - foreign warrior).
    When the Gaelic Irish referred to their 'race' they meant their specific Clan and their 'country' was their clan lands. Although they may collectively occasionally refer to themselves as 'Irish' - this was more akin to us calling ourselves 'European' than an assumption of a national identity.

    A person's 'race' was defined by their surname - descent was patrilinier [i.e through the male line].

    To illustrate by way of example:
    Gráinne Ní Mháille (Lit - Gráinne daughter of [distant male ancestor] Máille) was An Gael. Her 'country' was Umhall Uí Máille - now Murrisk in Mayo.
    Her first husband was Domhnaill Na Chogaidh Ua Flaithbhertaigh (Domhnaill son of [distant male ancestor] Flaithbhertaigh of Iar Chonnacht. Also An Gael.

    They had a daughter Máireadh Ni Fhlaithbhertaigh - she was An Gael. She married Risteard Mac Deamon an Chorrán á Búrc of Erris[ descendent of William Concur de Burgh via Eamonn Albanach á Búrc and Sabh Ní Mháille who founded the Mayo Bourkes) - An Gáll as his patrilinier line of descent was not Gaelic. Culturally he was completely Gaelic and fought against Anglicisation his entire life. Máireadh and Mac Deamon had a son - Daithi á Búrc = An Gáll.

    Gráinne and Domhnaill's son Muirtaigh Na Moar Ua Flaithbhertaigh - An Gael - married Cáitriona á Búrc -[ also descended from William Concur de Burgh but of the Galway branch) An Gáll. Their children were all 'An Gael'.

    When Domhnaill died, Gráinne returned to Umhall Uí Máille - i.e. her 'race' and her 'country' as her husband's death had ended the marriage alliance and as a 'foreigner' she had no business being in Iar Chonnacht. Her 3 children from the marriage stayed as they were of the 'race' of Flaithbhertaigh.

    Gráinne later married Risteard In Iarainn á Búrc of Burrishoole (Mayo Bourkes]- (Risteard In Iarainn was the nephew of Gráinne's first husband via the marriage of Daithi á Búrc to Fionnghula Ní Fhlaithbhertaigh) he was An Gáll. They had one son - Tibboid na Long á Búrc - Yup, he was An Gáll. He married Meabh Ni Chonchobhair Sligigh - guess what she was...yes..An Gael! but their children bore the surname á Búrc making them all An Gáll.

    The Uí Chonchobhair Sligigh was loyal to the crown of England but Sliocht Ullig - one of the 4 main septs of the Mayo Bourkes (collectively known as the Mac Uilliam Íochtair) [Sliocht Ullig's 'country' was Burrishoole, Erris and Achill] of whom Gáinne's second husband, youngest son and son-in-law were all members (and at some point all sept leaders and holders of the banned title of Mac Uilliam Íochtair) engaged in a 30 year war to try and prevent Anglicisation. Richard Bingham particularly targeted them for harsh reprisals - including the hanging of 3 children under 5 in 1586.
    So the main opposition to the Tudors in North Connacht was conducted by people who called themselves 'English' but refused to give up Gaelic Culture while among those aiding the Crown were the (Anglican) O'Briens of Thomond - descendants of Ború and Uí Chonchobhair Sligigh - descendent of the O'Connor kings of Connacht and (occasional) high kings of Ireland. All of them 'Irish' to the core.

    When we say Irish fought English - who exactly were the 'Irish' and who were the 'English'? Perhaps this blurring of the racial boundaries is why the powerful, rebellious and utterly committed to Gaelic culture Mac Uilliam Íochtair á Búrcs of Mayo are nearly invisible in Irish historiography - even though they fought longer and harder than anyone else against the Tudors and were the reason Connacht remained the most 'Irish' of the provinces...but they called themselves 'English'....

    It's a funny old world when ya have a poke at it!


  • Options
    #103
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    owenc wrote: »
    Well theres the flippin evidence they are WRONG!

    That is history for you.

    As new sources emerge a better perspective emerges , not always flattering either, and a secondary source like archaelogy might cast doubt on events as recorded.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Any idea where he got his inspiration for Braveheart from?

    The film managed to get the name right and that's about it....

    It seemed pretty accurate to me- Lethal Weapon 1305 AD - my example was to illustrate historiography and sources rather than put a point of view forward.

    Haven't I floated the idea past you before that 1916 was almost a British affair with Pearse being half English and Connolly Scottish.


  • Options
    #104
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Any idea where he got his inspiration for Braveheart from?

    The film managed to get the name right and that's about it....

    I heard a story that Gibson used to drink in a pub in Sydney called 'The William Wallace' - I have no sources...I was told this by Aussies in the vein of 'what a complete t**t Gibson is - remember when he used to drink in the Willie Wallace?' 'Oh yeah, mate - remember that bloody painting they had of Willie on the wall?' - cue Aussies rolling around with laughter.


  • Options
    #105
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    No the o cahans were definitely catholics they used to own all the land in county londonderry you can read up about them here :http://oldkillowen.angelfire.com/page1.html


  • Options
    #106
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    The Willy Wally

    theWilly2.jpg


  • Options
    #107
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    owenc wrote: »
    No the o cahans were definitely catholics they used to own all the land in county londonderry you can read up about them here :http://oldkillowen.angelfire.com/page1.html

    I'm just saying don't assume religion based only on surname...sure if we did that where would Gerry Adams be?

    Look at Miler McGrath Archbishop of Cashel in the 16th century - he yoyoed back and forth between Catholicism and Anglicanism so often that in the end he held both Catholic and Anglican Archbishoprics as no one could work out what the hell he was!

    After the introduction of the Penal Laws it became quite common among large landholding families for the eldest son to be baptised Anglican so he could inherit unopposed while the rest of the family remained Catholic.


  • Options
    #108
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    owenc wrote: »
    Well theres the flippin evidence they are WRONG!

    Not wrong - just giving one side of the story. Tis a rare thing to find a source that gives both sides....


  • Options
    #109
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I'm just saying don't assume religion based only on surname...sure if we did that where would Gerry Adams be?

    Look at Miler McGrath Archbishop of Cashel in the 16th century - he yoyoed back and forth between Catholicism and Anglicanism so often that in the end he held both Catholic and Anglican Archbishoprics as no one could work out what the hell he was!

    After the introduction of the Penal Laws it became quite common among large landholding families for the eldest son to be baptised Anglican so he could inherit unopposed while the rest of the family remained Catholic.

    Yes i know that i have catholic cousins with protestant names etc. But i had just said that because i knew they were natives etc and i was just saying that aberdeen university was wrong because they were in it.:)


  • Options
    #110
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    CDfm wrote: »
    It seemed pretty accurate to me- Lethal Weapon 1305 AD - my example was to illustrate historiography and sources rather than put a point of view forward.

    Haven't I floated the idea past you before that 1916 was almost a British affair with Pearse being half English and Connolly Scottish.

    Accurate apart from the lack of an actual bridge at the battle of stirling bridge (a key part of the battle), and Wallace fathering Princess Isobella's child ( she was born in 1295, Wallace was executed in 1305.

    Then there's the kilts......


  • Options
    #111
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    As a thought, this thread has morphed somewhat.

    Could we maybe rename it an off topic thread, or a general discussion one and sticky (or is that stickie) it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    (or is that stickie) it?

    That being the french translation of course.;)


  • Options
    #113
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    As a thought, this thread has morphed somewhat.

    Could we maybe rename it an off topic thread, or a general discussion one and sticky (or is that stickie) it?

    It has morphed. There is some good clarification of issues such as sources that could be helpful/ educational in some sort of guide but I will leave it as is for the moment.


  • Options
    #114
    HellsAngel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭HellsAngel


    Well since we're on the topic of revisionism etc I thought I'd introduce a little humour with this ditty poking fun at John A Murphy, Ruth Dudley Edwards and Yer Man being Eoghan Harris. :)

    btpoem.gif


  • Options
    #115
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Very droll, I don't think I have ever heard an Irish Ballad mention Erskine Childers snr , has anyone ???


  • Options
    #116
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    I found this but Childers was hardly the only member of the ascendency involved in the War of Independence

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYx0WFqepoI


  • Options
    #117
    #15
    Registered Users Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15


    Bannasidhe, I think you are mistaken in attributing the problems with the ''everybody knows'' attitude to LC history.

    The roots are deeper than that IMO.
    I would say it is caused by
    (i) the simplistic JC programme. It is essentially a course of 'headlines'. That is where the misconceptions are cemented in the heads of students.
    (ii) a generation of older teachers who were allowed encouraged to pepper history lessons with their political beliefs. These teachers are mostly gone by now, but they have influenced a lot of students, now parents, who have passed on their simplistic views to their kids. Those views are then affirmed when those kids take the JC programme.

    LC history students are usually the ones who have managed to get past the black-and-white world view.

    I would guess that your problem students (the ''everybody knows'' people) are often the ones who did not or could not take LC History, and decide that 1st year Arts is the perfect time to revive their interest in the subject. Of course, it creates hostility when their assumptions are questioned or even shredded. And that causes you problems!!


  • Options
    #118
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    owenc wrote: »
    Well theres the flippin evidence they are WRONG!
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Not wrong - just giving one side of the story. Tis a rare thing to find a source that gives both sides....

    The point being made is that there is no equivalent recorded Catholic side to counter or accompany the 1641 Protestant depositions. Not that the source [or any source] would be expected to give both sides - but that there is no written testimony by Catholics that is equally equivalent. The evidence on the Catholic side comes from archeology and literary writing.


  • Options
    #119
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    #15 wrote: »
    Bannasidhe, I think you are mistaken in attributing the problems with the ''everybody knows'' attitude to LC history.

    The roots are deeper than that IMO.
    I would say it is caused by
    (i) the simplistic JC programme. It is essentially a course of 'headlines'. That is where the misconceptions are cemented in the heads of students.
    (ii) a generation of older teachers who were allowed encouraged to pepper history lessons with their political beliefs. These teachers are mostly gone by now, but they have influenced a lot of students, now parents, who have passed on their simplistic views to their kids. Those views are then affirmed when those kids take the JC programme.

    LC history students are usually the ones who have managed to get past the black-and-white world view.

    I would guess that your problem students (the ''everybody knows'' people) are often the ones who did not or could not take LC History, and decide that 1st year Arts is the perfect time to revive their interest in the subject. Of course, it creates hostility when their assumptions are questioned or even shredded. And that causes you problems!!

    #15 - you could have hit the nail on the head there. I must admit that I have little experience of the JC (back in my day it was still the 'Inter') as my own son didn't sit it -we lived in Australia so he took their Schools Cert- so I also missed his friends sitting it.
    I do know I have the most ferocious arguments with my mother (a 77 year old Fianna Fail voting 'republican' who blames Britain for everything yet does all her shopping in Marks :rolleyes:) and my 30 year old nephew ( a now unemployed former 'breakfast roll' man).


  • Options
    #120
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MarchDub wrote: »
    The point being made is that there is no equivalent recorded Catholic side to counter or accompany the 1641 Protestant depositions. Not that the source [or any source] would be expected to give both sides - but that there is no written testimony by Catholics that is equally equivalent. The evidence on the Catholic side comes from archeology and literary writing.

    No there isn't an extant equivalent - but this is not to diminish the significance of the 1641 Depositions as a source. One must factor in their origins, that they contain exaggerations, etc. The o'l formula of Who/What/When/Where/Why.

    To ignore them would be akin to dismiss sources from slave plantation owners as there is no equivalent from the slaves. Or from the Conquistadors as their are no Aztec/Incan/Mayan sources.

    The one point of view nature of the 1641 Depositions in, in itself, evidence to be considered.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    A bit off the current subject matter, a question I have is on the Battle of the Boyne heritage.

    Wasn't the Battle of Aughrim more significant and I read that until a callender change it was the one celebrated.


Advertisement