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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Religious persecution in Ireland

245678

Comments

  • #32
    R.Dub.Fusilier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 588 ✭✭✭R.Dub.Fusilier


    owenc wrote: »
    And you have to remember if it wasn't for him then the towns in northern ireland would not exist nor would the people so it is worth honouring him. I don't believe this whole nonsense however that he moved all the catholics to galway i think thats a pile of **** there are still tons of catholics in derry and if he moved them all they wouldn't be there people have to remember there was no one barely in northern ireland before the plantation its just that alot of protestants converted to be catholics and thats why most catholics have planters names! I know loads of protestants who converted to be catholic for land, i would never convert for land!

    you are right he didnt move them all to Galway, he had countless thousands murdered and many thousands more shipped into slavery to the West Indies and America as slave labour and sex slaves for protestant land owners.

    you should leave religion and politics to the grown ups little boy! you havent a clue what you are talking about


  • #33
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Cromwell's statue isn't there so much to honour the man, more to serve as a constant reminder who is has the real power.

    I find it odd that Patsy isn't a fan of Cromwell, he was after all a blood thirsty murdering republican.
    Oh here we go, the IRA ate baby's time while the benign, benevolent Tommy's said their payers every night and were only trying to keep the peace and helping old ladies across the road etc !!!!!!!


  • #34
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    owenc wrote: »
    He didn't like the church of england either since they are not true protestants. And you have to remember if it wasn't for him then the towns in northern ireland would not exist nor would the people so it is worth honouring him. I don't believe this whole nonsense however that he moved all the catholics to galway i think thats a pile of **** there are still tons of catholics in derry and if he moved them all they wouldn't be there people have to remember there was no one barely in northern ireland before the plantation its just that alot of protestants converted to be catholics and thats why most catholics have planters names! I know loads of protestants who converted to be catholic for land, i would never convert for land!
    R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »
    you are right he didnt move them all to Galway, he had countless thousands murdered and many thousands more shipped into slavery to the West Indies and America as slave labour and sex slaves for protestant land owners.

    you should leave religion and politics to the grown ups little boy! you havent a clue what you are talking about
    He's only a wannabe funny guy RDF ......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


  • #35
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    The past is great place to live in, is it not?

    Keep the ancient feuding and grudges alive. Ah dear Ireland, how I miss thee :D


  • #36
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    old hippy wrote: »
    The past is great place to live in, is it not?

    Ahem - haven't you noticed? this is the HISTORY forum.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 23,974 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Ahem - haven't you noticed? this is the HISTORY forum.

    But not the History Re-enactment Forum:eek:


  • #38
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    But not the History Re-enactment Forum:eek:


    Well "revisionists" have been yapping at the heels of informed Irish historiography for years. It's no surprise that there is much confusion.


  • #39
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    It's odd that a country with a monarchy would be honouring a man who did away with one of that country's monarchs for a time.

    Actually no so odd historically - in Britain Cromwell is credited with the evolution of the modern British state i.e. a benign Monarchy and a powerful parliament. Cromwell essentially was responsible for the shift of power from the monarch to parliament. When the Restoration of the monarchy occurred in 1660 it did so under a much more powerful parliament, especially Commons.

    The decline in the power of the monarchy is usually dated to the Commonwealth of Cromwell. By 1688, for example, parliament removed James II from the throne because of his Catholicism. A far cry from the power a king like Henry VIII wielded who murdered all who opposed him.


  • #40
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    By 1688, for example, parliament removed James II from the throne because of his Catholicism.

    Ah yes, his reign was described as excreable by many in Ireland (6.1.4)


  • #41
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Well "revisionists" have been yapping at the heels of informed Irish historiography for years. It's no surprise that there is much confusion.


    I had to look this up and i still am none the wiser.

    What is "informed Irish historiography" and "revisionists".

    I got turned off history for years because I was tired of picking my way thru political and social histories by theory men who don't let the facts get in the way of their analysis. * has bookburning fantasy*


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    I had to look this up and i still am none the wiser.

    What is "informed Irish historiography" and "revisionists".

    I got turned off history for years because I was tired of picking my way thru political and social histories by theory men who don't let the facts get in the way of their analysis. * has bookburning fantasy*

    I would think 'informed historiography' would be more pertinent than 'informed irish historiography', which would suggest an immediate bias towards the irish side of the story? It is also interesting to consider what the purpose of a historiographical study (or thread) is, if as a pretext we must agree not to revise the authors personal judgement on events.


  • #43
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I would think 'informed historiography' would be more pertinent than 'informed irish historiography', which would suggest an immediate bias towards the irish side of the story?

    but what is historiography
    It is also interesting to consider what the purpose of a historiographical study (or thread) is, if as a pretext we must agree not to revise the authors personal judgement on events.

    just take RDE on Pearse -did she omit facts to prove a theory

    or parnell - didnt he have a kid in the US too and almost presidential ambitions . we get a very neat analysis

    so its not just bias its whoppers.


  • #44
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    but what is historiography
    .

    My understanding which is open to correction; it is the way history is written.

    In other words when I want to learn about the 1916 rising I will read a written account of it. I take what I can from the written account and form my own opinion on the event based on as much information as possible. The potential of the author being biased or simply wrong must also be considered. For example if the written account I read is part of a biography of a participant in the event it would have an obvious potential to contain bias as your examples indicate. At the end of the day the authors target audience may also effect how they write.


  • #45
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Diarmuid McMurrough and the Queen of Breffni, Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn , Charles Stewart Parnell and Kitty O'Shea.

    I am begining to see a pattern emerging ;)


  • #46
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    owenc wrote: »
    I don't believe this whole nonsense however that he moved all the catholics to galway i think thats a pile of **** there are still tons of catholics in derry and if he moved them all they wouldn't be there

    It's an error to think that Cromwell "moved all Catholics" to the west of Ireland. The "To hell or Connaught" policy only referred to Catholic landlords. Catholic tenants or labourers were not involved. Cromwell seized the land of many Catholic landlords and distributed their land to some of his own soldiers as payment for the Irish campaign.

    As someone pointed out many of the tenants and farm labourers he rounded up he sent as slaves to Barbados but many remained on the seized land to work for new overlords. Much of this information is contained in his correspondence from Ireland to the parliament in London.


  • #47
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    CDfm wrote: »
    Diarmuid McMurrough and the Queen of Breffni, Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn , Charles Stewart Parnell and Kitty O'Shea.

    I am begining to see a pattern emerging ;)
    Yeah and I'm beginning to see a pattern emerging - you must be a gay woman hater ;)


  • #48
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Yeah and I'm beginning to see a pattern emerging - you must be a gay woman hater ;)

    Why gay bash? :confused: - many more straights are misogynists IMO.


  • #49
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Why gay bash? :confused: - many more straights are misogynists IMO.

    Don't forget the misandrists -credit where credit is due here.


  • #50
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    Don't forget the misandrists -credit where credit is due here.


    Those too...:pac:


  • #51
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I would think 'informed historiography' would be more pertinent than 'informed irish historiography', which would suggest an immediate bias towards the irish side of the story? .



    Not so , Irish historiography refers to the study of Irish history as separate from say English historiography - the study of English history - or US historiography - the study of American history. That's all. It's a perfectly valid classification within historical studies. It has nothing at all to do with a particular bias - just a research emphasis or specialty.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Not so , Irish historiography refers to the study of Irish history as separate from say English historiography - the study of English history - or US historiography - the study of American history. That's all. It's a perfectly valid classification within historical studies. It has nothing at all to do with a particular bias - just a research emphasis or specialty.

    I can see what it is meant to do as a classification..

    I often do not see what it does as an area of specialisation where say womens history may take a marxist social theory approach and exclude class from the mix.

    If you look at the Womens Land League and Anna & Fanny Parnell -it is often portrayed as men closing it down when a more accurate portrayal might be that Parnell himself was an upper class autocrat of his class and who treated his political party the same way.

    Charlotte Despard or Constance Markievicz could be looked at in the same light as sisters of wealthy or powerful brothers whose view of the world was one with themselves in charge. Both opposed the Anglo Irish Treaty.

    So while there are specialities -it does not always follow that they are not biased either in a nationalist, political or ideological way.

    I am using gender & class here because it is obvious and the specialities do little justice to the subjects and the ideological arguments sometimes get in the way of the facts.


  • #53
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    I can see what it is meant to do as a classification..

    I often do not see what it does as an area of specialisation where say womens history may take a marxist social theory approach and exclude class from the mix.

    If you look at the Womens Land League and Anna & Fanny Parnell -it is often portrayed as men closing it down when a more accurate portrayal might be that Parnell himself was an upper class autocrat of his class and who treated his political party the same way.

    Charlotte Despard or Constance Markievicz could be looked at in the same light as sisters of wealthy or powerful brothers whose view of the world was one with themselves in charge. Both opposed the Anglo Irish Treaty.

    So while there are specialities -it does not always follow that they are not biased either in a nationalist, political or ideological way.

    I am using gender & class here because it is obvious and the specialities do little justice to the subjects and the ideological arguments sometimes get in the way of the facts.


    THB with you I think you are confusing the labelling or naming of 'subjects' and what an academic specialty or emphasis is and reading way too much into this. I once studied English history at a UK university - there was no implied intention that this was therefore a bias plucked out of a greater history of the world. It was how history departments work - they must classify each specialty or subject otherwise there would be total confusion as what area of study was being covered. Like any academic subject - a student will study French or Italian in the Foreign Languages Department with a specialty in one particular language. The naming of subject does not at all imply bias.

    Bias is a separate issue - it can of course grow out of anything, anywhere but is not ipso facto implied because a subject is named.


  • #54
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Maybe I am a bit of a purist. I took economics and am very sceptical of political economics.I like my theories to come from the facts rather than vice versa.

    So historiography is history arranged by topic or era.

    edit

    My gripe is that it is fine to theorise but you can only theorise if you have the basic facts correct. AJP Taylor who was popular some years back often let his theories dictate the history and his bias invaded his history.


  • #55
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »

    edit

    My gripe is that it is fine to theorise but you can only theorise if you have the basic facts correct. AJP Taylor who was popular some years back often let his theories dictate the history and his bias invaded his history.

    That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing here. You are running off on a tangent.

    Actually right or wrong, Taylor was controversial from the get go.


  • #56
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Not so , Irish historiography refers to the study of Irish history as separate from say English historiography - the study of English history - or US historiography - the study of American history. That's all. It's a perfectly valid classification within historical studies. It has nothing at all to do with a particular bias - just a research emphasis or specialty.

    I understand your classification but the point was regarding how you interpret a bias. For example if all the written history of the 1916 rising is from one perspective it will lack balance. I would query this so is it simply up to the reader to decide if the book is properly balanced? I guess that would make sense.


  • #57
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing here. You are running off on a tangent.

    Actually right or wrong, Taylor was controversial from the get go.

    I just can't get this historiography concept as it seems to be applied nowadays.

    Military history - yup- no problem as a classification or genre.

    But take Women's Irish history and I am lost when big chunks get left out of the mainstream of 1916 & independence despite real input and on the other side nationality, class & religion get set aside or not given the prominence they deserve.

    I wouldn't mind seeing the Rise & Fall of Nuns in Ireland in Healthcare & Education.

    AJP I used as an example but we seem to have a whole generation of AJP's.


  • #58
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I understand your classification but the point was regarding how you interpret a bias. For example if all the written history of the 1916 rising is from one perspective it will lack balance. I would query this so is it simply up to the reader to decide if the book is properly balanced? I guess that would make sense.

    Historians do not study books on history - they study the original sources. I was talking about the scholarly STUDY of history not the reading of history books.

    The discussion was not about how to see a bias - that is a whole other issue - the discussion began over the classification or terminology "Irish History" as if that classification ipso facto indicated a bias. Not so.

    There are documents coded "Irish Historical Documents" and "English Historical Documents" etc etc this does not indicate that these documents are biased documents just that they pertain to the study of those areas.


  • #59
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Historians do not study books on history - they study the original sources. I was talking about the scholarly STUDY of history not the reading of history books.
    MarchDub wrote: »
    Not so , Irish historiography refers to the study of Irish history as separate from say English historiography - the study of English history - or US historiography - the study of American history. That's all. It's a perfectly valid classification within historical studies.

    Fair enough- historiography was mentioned previously which is what I was referring to the possibility of bias (in terms of written history).

    I am interested in what the difference between original sources and history books. Alot of information about historical events is recorded only in book format. So if this is not included in a 'scholary study' then the scholar is missing out on alot of information.


  • #60
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Fair enough- historiography was mentioned previously which is what I was referring to the possibility of bias.

    I am interested in what the difference between original sources and history books. Alot of information about historical events is recorded only in book format. So if this is not included in a 'scholary study' then the scholar is missing out on alot of information.

    Well I am talking about degree of source material. If a book is a secondary source then it's a secondary source [or even tertiary] - original primary source material has its own definition no matter where it is found. And any student of history ought to know the difference.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Historians do not study books on history - they study the original sources. I was talking about the scholarly STUDY of history .......... not indicate that these documents are biased documents just that they pertain to the study of those areas.

    I have been trying to work out how modern historians work and the study of original documents seems to have gone as part of methodoligy.

    Thanks for your precise definintions MD.


Advertisement