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
Ulster Scots & Irish Nationalism and Republicanism
Options
-
24-06-2013 1:42am#1A thought struck me today. Many 'Ulster Scots' call themselves as such because, unless I am mistaken, they refuse to associate themselves with the 'natives'.
They are predominantly of unionist leanings. However, have there been notable Ulster Scots who not only considered themselves Irish but were also Irish nationalists/republicans?0
Comments
-
Henry Joy McCracken I would imagine.0
-
Catholics and Dissenters had common cause against the state and the established church in the latter part of the 18th century.gobnaitolunacy wrote: »Henry Joy McCracken I would imagine.
Events in 1798 showed that the things that divided them were stronger than the things that united them.0 -
OCorcrainn wrote: »A thought struck me today. Many 'Ulster Scots' call themselves as such because, unless I am mistaken, they refuse to associate themselves with the 'natives'.
they call themselves ulster scots because thats what they are...they're ancestors come from scotland
just like the kilburn irish call themselves irish cause they're ancestors come from ireland
got nothing to do with refusing to associate with the "natives"0 -
they call themselves ulster scots because thats what they are...they're ancestors come from scotland
just like the kilburn irish call themselves irish cause they're ancestors come from ireland
got nothing to do with refusing to associate with the "natives"
Care to actually address my question?0 -
i know a few people who are ulster-scot on one side of the family and would be nationalists if that counts0
-
Advertisement
-
-
OCorcrainn wrote: »A thought struck me today. Many 'Ulster Scots' call themselves as such because, unless I am mistaken, they refuse to associate themselves with the 'natives'.
They are predominantly of unionist leanings. However, have there been notable Ulster Scots who not only considered themselves Irish but were also Irish nationalists/republicans?
Coming from an Ulster/Scots background on both sides of my family, one Catholic the other Protestant. Its true the Catholic side would be perceived as more Nationalist(not all), Protestants - Unionist but not overly so(although I did find them on the Ulster Covenant), not part of any groups, unlike my Catholic side - some joined the IRA in the 1900s which I suppose proves the stereotype:) As for not associating themselves with 'natives', I think it would be more to do with your religion coming from that background(just the same with the native Irish at that time)but I can only speak from my own family background where the intermingling really confuses me no end - Catholic names being Protestant - Protestant names Catholic and back again.0 -
Depends on what you mean by "nationalist" or "Republican".
The first great republican to have a big influence on Irish affairs was a chap called Cromwell who came to prominence nearly 150 years before the so-called Founder of Irish Republicanism, Wolfe Tone.
Cromwell was a committed democract, distrustful of Monarchy, contemptuous of the aristocracy and very much in favour of a meritocracy of free men. He also despised the bloated, hierarchical and corrupt church of the day. By which I mean the Church of England, of course. As for the Church of Rome.....
The political allegiances and outlooks of ethnic or religious groups change and shift over the generations. The most ardent true republicans in 1798 were the non-conformist protestants of north east Ulster. Far more so than the Catholic sectarian rabble rousers of Wexford. They weren't "republicans" at all, just disenfranchised, disinherited, alienated peasants.
Of course these good protestant Ulster Republicans, who were affected by many of the Penal Laws brought in to bring Roman Catholics to heel...(they couldn't take the Oath of Supremacy acknowledging the King as head of the Church because they believed any man claiming that right was an Antichrist and therefore couldn't sit in Parliament) were no fans of Catholicism per se.
100 years later their great grandsons were signing the Solemn League and Covenant in their own blood and getting ready to fight the Papist Nationalists.
These same Papist Nationalists were in many cases the inheritors of the mantle of O'Connell who wanted devolved Government for Ireland but was otherwise loyal to the Crown. O'Connell's Repeal movement issued membership cards to its subscribers which bore the legend "God Save the Queen". (Not exactly Tiocfaidh ar la, is it?)
And in 1914, the leader of the Irish nationalists was urging his followers to join up and fight to preserve the Empire. The first of the newly raised Irish divisions to see serious action was sent to Gallipoli to try and steal as much as possible of the Ottoman Empire from the Turks, who of course had been if not a British ally at least a country with whom Britain could do business and maintain friendly relations since the time of the crusades. A lot had changed, apparently in 1915 since the Crimean War 60 years previously.
So in the long run there is nothing eternally "Irish" about being Catholic, or anything particularly "Scottish" or "British" about being protestant.
Feck it, in another 50 years or so we could all be just "Europeans".0 -
It's seems to have been more popular in the past than it is now, most people who call themselves Ulster-Scots today would be strongly Unionist. Kind of ironic given they had such a big part in the birth of modern Irish Nationalism.0
-
Awakening2014 wrote: »New number plates I32 stand for Ireland 32 counties
Yeah sure, why not?. :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
Snickers Man wrote: »Depends on what you mean by "nationalist" or "Republican".
The first great republican to have a big influence on Irish affairs was a chap called Cromwell who came to prominence nearly 150 years before the so-called Founder of Irish Republicanism, Wolfe Tone.
Cromwell was a committed democract, distrustful of Monarchy, contemptuous of the aristocracy and very much in favour of a meritocracy of free men. He also despised the bloated, hierarchical and corrupt church of the day. By which I mean the Church of England, of course. As for the Church of Rome.....
The political allegiances and outlooks of ethnic or religious groups change and shift over the generations. The most ardent true republicans in 1798 were the non-conformist protestants of north east Ulster. Far more so than the Catholic sectarian rabble rousers of Wexford. They weren't "republicans" at all, just disenfranchised, disinherited, alienated peasants.
Of course these good protestant Ulster Republicans, who were affected by many of the Penal Laws brought in to bring Roman Catholics to heel...(they couldn't take the Oath of Supremacy acknowledging the King as head of the Church because they believed any man claiming that right was an Antichrist and therefore couldn't sit in Parliament) were no fans of Catholicism per se.
100 years later their great grandsons were signing the Solemn League and Covenant in their own blood and getting ready to fight the Papist Nationalists.
These same Papist Nationalists were in many cases the inheritors of the mantle of O'Connell who wanted devolved Government for Ireland but was otherwise loyal to the Crown. O'Connell's Repeal movement issued membership cards to its subscribers which bore the legend "God Save the Queen". (Not exactly Tiocfaidh ar la, is it?)
And in 1914, the leader of the Irish nationalists was urging his followers to join up and fight to preserve the Empire. The first of the newly raised Irish divisions to see serious action was sent to Gallipoli to try and steal as much as possible of the Ottoman Empire from the Turks, who of course had been if not a British ally at least a country with whom Britain could do business and maintain friendly relations since the time of the crusades. A lot had changed, apparently in 1915 since the Crimean War 60 years previously.
So in the long run there is nothing eternally "Irish" about being Catholic, or anything particularly "Scottish" or "British" about being protestant.
Feck it, in another 50 years or so we could all be just "Europeans".
i think your making quite a few casual assumptions there , not least conflating collaboration with a foreign occupier as the basis for nationality . Its like stating Petain wasnt French or Quisling not Norwegian .
Fuurthermore while there were certainly sectarian elements caught up in the events around wexford the rebel forces also democratically selected many of their own leaders , and more than a few of those chosen were protestant . Protestant rebels were also just as implicated in the events at Scullabogue as their fellow catholics. And while ignorance abounded throughout the country thanks to penal laws that forbade education of the bulk of the countrys population, many of the catholic rebels were also highly politicised and radicalised . They were known collectively as croppies because of their open identification with the jacobin philosophy of republican france and their decision to consciously adopt the austere cropped hairstyle .
The history of what happened then is a lot more complicated than the simplistic version youve proffered .
And completely overlooked too is the very deliberate promotion of sectarianism accross Ulster in particular by the British government in response to the unity formed between United Irishman and defender, using quite horrific yeoman and Orange terror as the stick and very generous financial bribes as the carrot . A policy that lasted decades .0 -
kreuzberger wrote: »i think your making quite a few casual assumptions there , not least conflating collaboration with a foreign occupier as the basis for nationality . Its like stating Petain wasnt French or Quisling not Norwegian .
Had someone asked Petain or Quisling their nationalities they would have answered French or Norwegian. Ask the average Ulster Scot today their nationality and they will almost certainly say British.
Perhaps you deny that they are. In which case what is your definition of national self determination? Is it what somebody considers themselves to be or is it what somebody else, eg you, considers them to be?
I didn't delve too deeply into the labyrinthine loyalties and conflicts of interest current during the 1798 rebellions. I was merely pointing out that the situation then as at other times, including now, was rather more complicated than a simplistic "catholic v protestant" or "Irish v English" struggle. As indeed all struggles in this land have been.
Which, if that was the point you were trying to make, is one on which I would probably agree with you.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »The first great republican to have a big influence on Irish affairs was a chap called Cromwell who came to prominence nearly 150 years before the so-called Founder of Irish Republicanism, Wolfe Tone.
Well, as clichéd as it is to credit Cromwell with being the first "republican" talk of republicanism and indeed an "Irish Republic" predates Cromwell, as Tomás Ó Fiaich showed as far back as 1971. Ó Fiaich dated the first proposal for a republican form of government in Ireland to a 1626/27 document which is "the first in our history to put forward a republican form of government as the objective of an Ireland fighting for her freedom—the first document, in fact, which uses the then unfamiliar and unhallowed title of ‘Irish Republic’." (Ó Fiaich)
The 1626/7 proposals, according to Ó Fiaich, "were explicitly republican in the sense of being both separatist and anti-monarchical". They derived not from any English (or French) source but from the Spanish court who were trying to resolve a leadership conflict between the Ó Dónaill and Ó Néill families:-
'The earls should be called Captains General of the said republic and … one could exercise his office on land and the other at sea’. (1627 document)
-
'After the landing, it should be made clear that the expedition has come not to conquer the country for any other prince or for the earls themselves, but for the Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. (The terms kingdom and republic are three times combined in the document; on all other occasions the term used is republic alone - TÓF).' (1627 document)
-
'Consequently it has been thought that all this would be settled by having the enterprise carried out in the name of the liberty of the fatherland and of oppressed religion and by establishing as the government a Republic, which should be so called on its flags and in its commissions … For Ireland to take the name and title of Republic appears to be the best way to carry out this diversion with all possible success and safety … It is simply noted that this insurrection which the natives of that country wish to carry out, should be proclaimed as being for the purpose of establishing the country as a free Republic and in order to make the Catholic religion there free, absolutely … let him (i.e. the pope) send special delegates to all the Catholic kings and princes of Europe, earnestly urging them to help the said Republic of Ireland....' (1627 document)
The full article is now available compliments of the Irish Institute website here: Republicanism and Separatism in the Seventeenth Century (Tomás Ó Fiaich, ‘Léachtaí Cholm Cille’ II Stair, 1971)0 -
re snickers Man
Im quite sure we are largely in agreement on many points and my apologies if i came across as combatative in my response . I do get a bit tunnel visioned at times unfortunately when addressing issues.
just to be clear about it as far as Im concerned theres no such thing as an Ulster scot any more than there is a hiberno viking or hiberno Norman . The descendants of scots settlers have been in Ireland for centuries and are as Irish as the rest of us, whether they like it or not in my view . In my mind to accept the alternative is to accept something absolutely atrocious, a form of politics in this country based upon half baked eugenicism and sectarianism thats utterly backward and divisive .
In my view this entire ulster scots thing is merely a modern sectarian construct with the sole intent of promoting division on the island . If I accept that the descendants of scots settlers in Ulster whove been here for centuries arent Irish by virtue of their genetic origins, logic would dictate that applies to the descendants of the very same settlers in cavan, monaghan and Donegal also . Which would be an absolute affront to those people, or indeed anyone whos genetic origins couldnt be seen as pure enough . I dont think thats a very healthy attitude for a pluralistic society to tolerate and going down that road has many unforseen consequences. Its backward and regressive in my view .
Im also well aware that may well offend the sensibilities of some, but to me the logic of the alternative view is infinitely more offensive to us all as a society .0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »Cromwell was a committed democract, distrustful of Monarchy, contemptuous of the aristocracy and very much in favour of a meritocracy of free men. He also despised the bloated, hierarchical and corrupt church of the day. By which I mean the Church of England, of course. As for the Church of Rome.....
Calling Cromwell a committed democrat is revisionist nonsense........- Pride's Purge (1648) is the only military coup in British parlaimentary history and was undertaken to force through the subsequent trial and execution of Charles I. Cromwell removed the possibility of Parliament negotiaiting with the king, as desired by many of it's members.
- The subsequent Rump Parliament was disbanded at gun point in 1653 for not acceding to Cromwell's demand that it cease debating and abdicate. The council of state was then also disbanded
- The subsequent Bare Bones parliament consisted of 40 members loyal to Cromwell hand picked from the Rump Parliament and the Army. It's sole purpose was to give a veneer of legitimacy to his actions.
- The First Protectorate Parliament (1653-55) was not allowed to implement any of it's 80 odd proposed constitutional and social reforms. Cromwell didn't agree with them so yet again parliament was dismissed.
- Britain and Ireland were then directly administered by military governors answerable only to Cromwell. (The Rule of the Major Generals).
- Later, as Lord Protector he had the power to dismiss Parliament at will, subject to the rather limited provisions of the Instrument of Government.
....contemptuous of the aristocracy and very much in favour of a meritocracy of free men.....
He was all for meritocracy, but only among senior officers in the army.
The Levellers radical 'Agreement of the People' was rejected, the very limited social and constitutional reforms proposed by Henry Ireton's 'Heads of Proposal' were never implemented.
He did next to nothing to change class structure in Britain other than replacing a king with himself as lord protector. Both Cromwell and Ireton were utterly opposed to universal sufferage and wanted to maintain the status quo whereby voting was reserved solely for landowners. His lack of meaningful reform meant that the monarchy was restored in 1660 after his death.
Other than within the army, if you could point to one meaningful action undertaken to undermine the position aristocracy as a whole I would very much appreciate it.
Modern republicanism is not simply about being opposed to monarchy and chopping the heads of kings, it involves an acceptance of the primacy of the rule of law and equality of all citizens. Cromwell was a religous bigot who oppressed both Catholics, quakers and non-puritan protestant. It's also probably worth noting that Cromwell's state known as the commonwealth, it was never referred to as a republic.Far more so than the Catholic sectarian rabble rousers of Wexford. They weren't "republicans" at all, just disenfranchised, disinherited, alienated peasants.
The historical ignorance of this statement is beyond belief.0
Advertisement