Are we actually celebrating a slave trader?

Fratton Fred · 17-03-2012 12:57PM

44leto wrote: »

So it was Patrick who enslaved us into the catholic church and now after 1800 years of their rule we are finally unshackling ourselves,,huzzar.

Actually, it was the English.

Well, the Norman English anyway.

Fratton Fred · 17-03-2012 12:58PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Anyways if the Cambridge lads are that jealous they can start international England day and everyone can sit around drinking tea and complaining about the quality of the dentists.

Sounds like an average day at Eircom.

44leto · 17-03-2012 01:01PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Actually, it was the English.

Well, the Norman English anyway.

Actually they came later.

Doc Ruby · 17-03-2012 01:04PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sounds like an average day at Eircom.

Ah now I know its early yet but surely you can do better Fred, generations of slandered English dentists are depending on you to uphold their good name!

Keith186 · 17-03-2012 01:07PM

Ellis Dee wrote: »

:eek:

I remember the stories in school about St. Patrick being kidnapped by Irish pirates and made to work as a slave herding pigs in Co. Antrim. Then, after learning the language and escaping back to his homeland, becoming a priest and having a dream and going back to Ireland to put them on the road to salvation.:D

Yadda, yadda, yadda. A nice tale, but told by an organisation that, to put it mildly, falls a bit short in the credibility department.:rolleyes:

Now some researchers in Cambridge have come up with a new theory, according to which Patrick wasn't a slave at all, but a slave trader. I can't wait for the outburst of indignation from certain quarters, along the lines of "Next they'll be denying he drove the snakes out of Ireland!";)

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/slave-trader-or-saint-doubt-over-patricks-origins-3053413.html

It may initially seem hard to imagine the church as a slave-owner, but let us not forget the example of the Magdalene Laundries, which were a form of slavery and operated until only a few decades ago.:D

That's BS. Everyone knows he's our Patron Saint of Drinking.

Den_M · 17-03-2012 01:23PM

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Patrick wasn't a slave at all, but a slave trader

Get out! You're banned from this historical society. You and your children, and your children's children...for three months

megafan · 17-03-2012 01:29PM

Sindri wrote: »

The early Irish church though wasn't affiliated with Rome, in fact some believe it to have been opposed to Rome.

The early Christian church was more than likely affiliated to the other part of the Roman Empire Constantinople, the "Orthodox church".. late in the life of the Roman empire it split in two & long after Rome fell Constantinople continued on successfully for centuries & as the sea was the way to travel at that time the costal part of western Europe was relatively easily accessible... At the time of the Norman invasion 1170ish the Pope Rome was sponsoring them (The Normans) to bring the "true" church to ungodly Irish & in actual fact the hierarchy & set up of the modern Irish church dates from this period... & maybe the "New Roman" church used the myth of St Patrick on the Irish populace to make it seem the same management was in control??:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred · 17-03-2012 01:34PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Ah now I know its early yet but surely you can do better Fred, generations of slandered English dentists are depending on you to uphold their good name!

I've never met a dentist with a good name, so I'll have to disappoint you there.

Fratton Fred · 17-03-2012 01:35PM

44leto wrote: »

Actually they came later.

See above.

ejmaztec · 17-03-2012 01:35PM

Plazaman wrote: »

Bring back slave trading I say, there could be jobs in it and it'd be good for the economy.

Happy St Slave Traders Day everybody.

They did bring slavery back, but the slaves are now called interns.

jill_valentine · 17-03-2012 01:39PM

Plazaman wrote: »

Bring back slave trading I say, there could be jobs in it and it'd be good for the economy.

Happy St Slave Traders Day everybody.

http://www.jobbridge.ie/

Den_M wrote: »

Get out! You're banned from this historical society. You and your children, and your children's children...for three months

You guys, this post deserved a much bigger laugh.

44leto · 17-03-2012 01:49PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

See above.

See Wiki
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSaint_Patrick&ei=T4dkT6baF5GyhAer88WKCA&usg=AFQjCNH79e0xLzRW-zwcJwiy_otX8rSkYA&sig2=MkrZzfS_lKilmWYoK5PZlg

Patrick came to Ireland somewhere between 360 to 480 predating the Normans by at least 500 years. Catholicism did come later, but our own form of pagan/Christianity was routed in that time.

ejmaztec · 17-03-2012 01:55PM

Whatever St Patrick was, he did more damage to Ireland than anyone else ever did. Bring back the pagans.

jill_valentine · 17-03-2012 01:58PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

Whatever St Patrick was, he did more damage to Ireland than anyone else ever did. Bring back the pagans.

Hear hear. Animal powers are much cooler.

Sunnyisland · 17-03-2012 01:58PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

Whatever St Patrick was, he did more damage to Ireland than anyone else ever did. Bring back the pagans.

Sure if we didn't have St patrick who would we have named all those babies after

Ireland without its paddies ...never

Doc Ruby · 17-03-2012 02:01PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

Whatever St Patrick was, he did more damage to Ireland than anyone else ever did. Bring back the pagans.

Now yer talkin. If I get to say "By Crom's balls!" without having to be quoting a movie, I'm in.

suicide_circus · 17-03-2012 02:22PM

woodoo wrote: »

Pure guess work by the university. It doesn't matter what they say. These academics are given far too much credence anyway.

Bingo. So much of this historical academia is just conjecture and completely unproveable and as such, pretty pointless, its just a lot of eternal students living off the state (through grants, bursaries or being lecturers/proffs) and they occasionally have to release a piece or controversial guess work to justify their existence.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 17-03-2012 02:33PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Bingo. So much of this historical academia is just conjecture and completely unproveable and as such, pretty pointless, its just a lot of eternal students living off the state (through grants, bursaries or being lecturers/proffs) and they occasionally have to release a piece or controversial guess work to justify their existence.

Well said, my thoughts exactly.

cloptrop · 17-03-2012 03:20PM

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Is it not first communion?

The minor details arnt whats important here, we have better sacrements and holidays than them , they are jealous. Thats whats important.

bonzodog2 · 17-03-2012 03:49PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've never met a dentist with a good name, so I'll have to disappoint you there.

My dentist when I was a kid was Mr. Head. I thought that was a good name !

Ellis Dee · 17-03-2012 04:02PM

realies wrote: »

Sure if we didn't have St patrick who would we have named all those babies after Ireland without its paddies ...never

Actually, naming little boys Patrick only caught on big time in the 19th century, during the Victorian era.

Before that, the most common boys' name was Tadgh. That's why the fcuking Prods Irish people of the Protestant faith still sometimes refer to Catholics as "Taigs".:):):)

steddyeddy · 17-03-2012 05:07PM

Wibbs wrote: »

It does indeed. Patrick in his own writings heavily condemned slavery as an institution and even threatened excommunication on slavers when some of his "flock" were taken in a slave raid. He was very anti slavery. As were many local clerics who came after him. This was a cultural shock to a society where slavery and slave raiding was a given. Even so slavery of the old kind dropped off massively in the wake of his and other local Irish church missions.

Now one could argue as the researchers have that he changed his tune as this is how he wanted to be remembered. However that is hard to square with the fact that slavery at the time wasn't considered morally repugnant by the church or any of the societies within the church. In that cultural background a better rejig of his story would have been to claim he was a slave trader who saw the light. Even that would be odd given the church he belonged to wouldn't have seen it as a big moral improvement. More they would have seen it as somewhat controversial and would see his actual anti slavery rants as really controversial, because he was strongly suggesting a large scale active business of the Roman church was immoral.

Indeed he and the early Irish church were pretty much alone in this in the larger church. The article points out that the church was heavily involved in the practice(no great shock given they were Romans). Good example of this is the story of why the pope sent Augustine to England to convert same(a bit too late mind you. We were there for over a century doing it). Said pope was wandering through the slave market in Rome where he spied two young children. He remarked on their beauty and asked where they were from. He was told they were "Angles". He made a jokey word play saying they looked like Angels and should be brought into the faith as a people. A couple of things stand out from this. 1) The pope was a shít comedian and no Oscar Wilde. 2) they openly held slave markets in Catholic Rome and didn't see it as a moral problem even where young kids were concerned and 3) there's no mention of him freeing these children. Not so surprising given the Jesus himself makes no direct mention of the morality or not of slavery.

Plus how does "At the time slaves were also relatively easy to transport" square with "at a time when transportation was extremely complicated"? Go back to your research lads and apply some logic and common sense.

Best Paddy's day post goes to Wibbs!

Robdude · 17-03-2012 05:27PM

I thought Saint Patty was the guy who invented Green Beer?

What's all this nonsense about Christianity? Hang on, I gotta get to the parade, get my amusement park tickets and get to the pub....

El_Dangeroso · 17-03-2012 06:21PM

Sindri wrote: »

The early Irish church though wasn't affiliated with Rome, in fact some believe it to have been opposed to Rome.

I thought as much too, this was in the indo yesterday:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/what-religion-was-saint-patrick-3052610.html

Patrick and many later saints and missionaries who espoused the tenets of Christianity in and from Ireland were all adherents to 'Celtic Christianity,' or simply, a more pure form of Christianity that preceded the formalities of Roman Catholicism on these shores. The Celtic Church and men like Patrick, Columbanus and Colman claimed their authority and observances from the Apostle John (the disciple whom Jesus loved) and the churches he founded in Asia Minor. These Christians, like the early Jewish Church in Jerusalem, were Quartodecimans (from the word 'fourteen'), or those who upheld Jesus's (Yeshua's) words to remember His sacrificial and atoning death on Nisan 14th (in the Biblical calendar which Yeshua kept) -- or the Passover of the Lord.

The Snipe · 17-03-2012 06:24PM

The-Rigger wrote: »

He did a lot of good work regarding the snakes, to give him his dues.

If you consider putting them into power good work :P

Adolf Hipster · 17-03-2012 06:27PM

It's impossible to prove either way so I can't see why anyone would be upset.

nohawk · 17-03-2012 09:50PM

It obviously spooked the rugby team... Cunning plan lads!

Wibbs · 17-03-2012 09:57PM

Bloody hell. I just caught the start of the documentary on Beeb 2 "How God made the English"* and it's interesting in it's omissions. Omissions somewhat relevant to this thread. Talk about avoiding the whole Irish influence on the early English church. They don't even mention it. Sadly all too common with English commentators and it really grinds my effin gears TBH. This doc actually stated that Augustine was the first missionary directed beyond the roman influence by a pope in church history. Utter rot. Palladius(who some reckon is merged with the later Patrick) was ordered by the pope to go to "those believing in Christ[in Ireland)" in the mid 5th century, a century and a half before Augustine. Which also shows there was Christianity and Christians however small in number already here long before Patrick. Probably from ideas carried on the back of trade. Indeed popes had sent missionaries and bishops to the UK not long after Constantine found the christian god. Plus England though abandoned was considered "ex Roman" so within the fold. Other than possible apostolic forays to India in the first century Ireland was the first mission to a nation beyond the "the pale" of Rome at it's most expansive. Your early christians tended to avoid the barbarians beyond the gates. Paul of tarsus always stayed well within it.

Anyway Augustine was very late to the game. For a start, Patrick himself was a Christian from a family of same in the north of England so theywere obviously there in some numbers even before the Paddies showed up. BUt show up they did and founded monasteries and schools all over Scotland and northern England. The presenter of this documentary quoted the venerable Bede. They love him for this stuff, but funny leave out words from Bede's own pen...

"From that time, as the days went by, many came from the country of the Irish into Britain and to those English kingdoms over which Oswald reigned, preaching the word of faith with great devotion. Those of them who held the rank of priest administered the grace of baptism to those who believed. Churches were built in various places and the people flocked together with joy to hear the Word; lands and property of other kinds were given by royal bounty to establish monasteries, and English children, as well as their elders, were instructed by Irish teachers in advanced studies and in the observance of the discipline of a Rule.

Indeed they were mostly monks who came to preach. Bishop Aidan was himself a monk; he was sent from the island known as Iona, whose monastery was for a very long time chief among all the monasteries of the northern Irish and the Picts, exercising supervision over their communities. The island itself belongs to Britain and is separated from the mainland by a narrow strait, but the Picts who inhabit those parts of Britain gave it to the Irish monks long ago, because they had received the faith of Christ through the monks’ preaching."

He writes much of the Irish influence and is nearly always favourable and impressed, even though he was very much against them on some theological points and he was a proud Englishman who was making the English church it's own locally rooted history. He'd be surprised at the omissions of one of his descendants.

I've very rarely seen a UK documentary that acknowledges this stuff. Even when clearly Irish influenced, even directly written manuscripts are in front of their eyes. They'll avoid it with descriptions like "insular" or "celtic" or "Scottish" style but the I word is rarely mentioned. Hell the Book of Kells may have even been written in the north of England by Irish and locally trained monks. The Book of Durrow certainly was. The name gives the geographical game away.

Sorry had to vent and preferred to do so in AH. IMHO The best place on this site to mix rants and information and opinion. *Goes off to the Trinity library to blast the book of Kells with piss, while writing "your ma" on one of the folio pages. In crayon*.

*Christ I know how to fcuking party on Paddies day

Fratton Fred · 17-03-2012 10:08PM

44leto wrote: »

See Wiki
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSaint_Patrick&ei=T4dkT6baF5GyhAer88WKCA&usg=AFQjCNH79e0xLzRW-zwcJwiy_otX8rSkYA&sig2=MkrZzfS_lKilmWYoK5PZlg

Patrick came to Ireland somewhere between 360 to 480 predating the Normans by at least 500 years. Catholicism did come later, but our own form of pagan/Christianity was routed in that time.

Don't confuse catholicism with Christianity. They are not the same thing.

Wibbs · 17-03-2012 10:10PM

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I thought as much too, this was in the indo yesterday:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/what-religion-was-saint-patrick-3052610.html

I dunno ED. I'd love to see their evidence for this. Yes they had definite differences and they were much less anal than the Roman lot and yes a "cooler" more rooted easy faith it was, but a more eastern influence? I'm dubious. For a start although there is some evidence of knowledge and output of Greek, it's tiny by comparison to their knowledge and output in Latin(they caught up though. By the time of John Scottus he was considered one of the foremost Greek experts in Europe). There's even some evidence of some knowledge of hebrew and possibly some Coptic influence or at least contact. The Irish illuminated book found in the bog a few years ago had papyrus in it's construction and one of the annals mentions "our brothers from Egypt are buried in such and such a place". So contact yes, knowledge of probably, but direct and concrete influence? I really don't know. For a start where would Patrick himself have picked this up? He went from the UK, to Ireland, back to the UK, then to France and back to Ireland. Then you have all the letters of those he mentions who look quite clearly to Rome as the heart of the church, even when they're critical of it.

Interestingly to me at least... While reading the thread hereabouts on the Irish language socal site Ficheall reminded me that Jesus is Íosa as Gaelige. That's the Greek not Latin. Like the way Muslims say Isa, again from the Greek.

Are we actually celebrating a slave trader?

Comments