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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The British Empire Thread

12467…18

Comments

  • #152
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Erin Go Brath wrote: »
    He does, you know! Next thing he'll be proposing a statue of Queen Victoria be erected somewhere in Ireland to acknowledge the paltry few bob sent. The British propaganda machine is relentless on good old boards.

    The Irish people are hugely indebted to the generosity of the Choctaw tribe during this period, a people who themselves suffered famine a few years previous who managed to give $710, a relatively huge amount for such poor people to offer. Anyone who suggests we are even remotely indebted to the British Empire at this time is a liar, a fraud and a fake.

    No I don't stop being so rediculously sensitive. who is suggesting gratitude to the British empire? I was talking about the people of Britain not the Empire.


  • #153
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    I guess it is like the massacres of 1641, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of all the propaganda and spin.


  • #154
    PHB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    two different points, please explain what you mean.

    You attempted to claim that the government policy was not a genocide of sorts (I don't like the use of the phrase, as it has a very very specific meaning. I'd rather describe it through mass-killings through a combination of neglect and choosing not to act)

    You've said that this was just how these people thought about government in general, it was as you said I think, a laissez faire approach to economics, let charity handle these things etc.

    At the same time, you've admitted that this would never have happened in Britain.

    If that was the case, then maybe the government policy of laissez faire wasn't exactly a dead set policy, as to intervene in Britain would have been to change its policy. As such, those two views are contradictory.


  • #155
    PHB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    Cromwell post moved into this thread


  • #156
    Pathfinder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 292 ✭✭Pathfinder


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I guess it is like the massacres of 1641, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of all the propaganda and spin.


    Catholic schools don't teach 1641, wonder why. Just about evil Cromwell.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Pathfinder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 292 ✭✭Pathfinder


    kreuzberger wrote: »
    Fratton Fred wrote: »



    . The policy was implemented by the people who controlled Ireland on the ground , the landlords and the administrators . if you were evicted from your home you and your family either starved to death or died of exposure , whichever got you first . If your own relatives tried to shelter you , they were evicted also . This was British policy in Ireland in the midst of mass starvation . This ensured death or exile . Britain engaged in mass evictions from the land while simultaneously removing the food during mass starvation .That was genocide .

    The man charged with administering relief wrote at the height of the crisis that the potato failure was a
    ‘mechanism for reducing surplus population’.
    and that
    ‘The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated. …The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people’.


    i thought you preferred to ignore quotes , and youd be as well ignoring that one . Indian corn was brought to Ireland and sold at vastly inflated prices . Poor people couldnt afford to buy it . So they died , but not before the rich had made a serious profit from them after theyd sold what few belongings they had to pay for it . The corn soon ran out , but food exports from Ireland continued in abundance . The many thousands of troops protecting the landlords and the exports whilst also carrying out mass evictions were hoowever well provsioned . They didnt go hungry .
    Eventually ships carrying supplies to Ireland were turned back on the orders of the man , Trevelyan , who viewed starvation as a means of reducing surplus population



    Private charities , US and Canadian citizens were not the people responsible for policy in Ireland . Therefore dont try and credit the British regime in Ireland with their activities . The regime itself began refusing entry to ships carrying aid to Ireland , during the height of the holocaust in 1847 . .



    you believe Irish people should actually be thankful to Britian for the 1840s and express some gratitude ?

    my my , what an ungrateful lot we are . Must be our inveterate evil and perverse moral characters or something

    The fact is many English people were appaled at what their country men were doing in Ireland . One such person was Benjamin Jowett, Master of Balliol college of Oxford . He once wrote "I have always felt a certain horror of political economists, since I heard one of them say that he feared that the famine of 1848 in Ireland would not kill more than one million people, and that would scarcely be enough to do much good." The person he was referring to was Nassau Senior , the senior British governemnt advisor during the potato blight





    There is no evidence of any mass extermination plan, post evidence not political propaganda.


    The famine was caused simply by blight and lassie fare economics.

    Presbyterians in East Antrim had smaller plots of land but survived it due to having less mouths to feed and being better organised.



    "The limited food in the depots was intended to be SOLD at market prices plus 5% to the pauperised, starving Irish, not distributed free, but Trevelyan was afraid government entry into food distribution might upset his precious "free" markets.
    "We attach the highest public importance to the strict observance of our pledge not to send orders (for food) abroad, which would come into competition with our merchants and upset all their calculations".
    Trevelyan, 1846.


    In 1846 food shortages were widespread across Europe, and many governments entered the markets to buy food for their people. So by the time (September) Trevelyan eventually gave permission for more food to be bought there was little to be had. Worse, the 1846 US corn crop would not be fit to move until December 1846, by which time US rivers would be ice-bound, and winter Atlantic gales raging."


  • #158
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    PHB wrote: »
    You attempted to claim that the government policy was not a genocide of sorts (I don't like the use of the phrase, as it has a very very specific meaning. I'd rather describe it through mass-killings through a combination of neglect and choosing not to act)
    as would I.
    PHB wrote: »
    You've said that this was just how these people thought about government in general, it was as you said I think, a laissez faire approach to economics, let charity handle these things etc.

    At the same time, you've admitted that this would never have happened in Britain.

    If that was the case, then maybe the government policy of laissez faire wasn't exactly a dead set policy, as to intervene in Britain would have been to change its policy. As such, those two views are contradictory.

    I don't think the government would have reacted any differently initially to a famine in England than they would here, lets face it, the victorian ruling classes wouldn't have gone out of their way to help any of the poor, they considered their positions in life confirmation of their superiority.

    The difference is, I believe, that the absent landlords of Ireland would be shocked into doing something if starving people turned up in Kensington or Mayfair. Also, the factory owners needed to keep people alive so they could operate their mills and machinery. A family who owned a couple of acres that they lived off were not profitable to anyone, someone who operates a mill is.


  • #159
    Erin Go Brath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,708 ✭✭✭Erin Go Brath


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    No I don't stop being so rediculously sensitive. who is suggesting gratitude to the British empire? I was talking about the people of Britain not the Empire.

    Who are you kiddding? You've been the Empires biggest cheerleader on this forum from day 1. In the face of facts that have been presented to you on this and countless other threads, you should at the very least condemn your countrys actions during this period, and put an end to this incessant, dishonest waffling about how Britain did everything it could to help Ireland in its time of need. Its really annoying to see you so much wedded to a mindset that you can't even acknowledge what actually happened. Propaganda, propaganda, and more propaganda, a bit of honesty for a change wouldn't go amiss.


  • #160
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Speaking as one who has both English & Irish ancestory, I am both angry and embarrased about the famine.

    BUT I don't believe in blaming British people of the sins of their fathers!
    I have no problem in condemning the establishment of the day for allowing it to cause as much death as was caused, but more than likely even if things were different, thousands (rather than hundreds of thousands) may have still died.
    Famines were common in Europe right up until quite recently (late 19th century) excepting those created by WWI & WWII.


  • #161
    Pathfinder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 292 ✭✭Pathfinder


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Speaking as one who has both English & Irish ancestory, I am both angry and embarrased about the famine.

    BUT I don't believe in blaming British people of the sins of their fathers!
    I have no problem in condemning the establishment of the day for allowing it to cause as much death as was caused, but more than likely even if things were different, thousands (rather than hundreds of thousands) may have still died.
    Famines were common in Europe right up until quite recently (late 19th century) excepting those created by WWI & WWII.



    I am actually more embarrassed that nearly 160 years on republicans still use it and the British empire as an excuse of their own inadequacy/failure. Notice how in the outside would these people are usually total failures (a bit like fascists going on about Jews).

    I am an ex-soldier who did four tours in the north, some of the people we had to deal with and houses we searched were unreal.Deranged women, faeces and used tampons thrown under beds,

    A week later later a paper from Sinn Fein would appear in the local paper saying soldiers had pissed on their kids toys and assaulted them etc.

    If you went back and confronted them and said no such thing happened, they would say, "its all part of the war".

    Sinn Fein/IRA would also anonymously tip of the security services about decent Catholic families having arms in their houses, when searched none were found, it was to done to turn ordinary decent Catholics against the security forces.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Erin Go Brath wrote: »
    Who are you kiddding? You've been the Empires biggest cheerleader on this forum from day 1. In the face of facts that have been presented to you on this and countless other threads, you should at the very least condemn your countrys actions during this period, and put an end to this incessant, dishonest waffling about how Britain did everything it could to help Ireland in its time of need. Its really annoying to see you so much wedded to a mindset that you can't even acknowledge what actually happened. Propaganda, propaganda, and more propaganda, a bit of honesty for a change wouldn't go amiss.

    ying and yang my friend.

    Because I refuse to put up with your's and Mcarm's constant propaganda fuelled slating of everything and everyone British that makes me an apologist? it is very clear that I think the British regime was lacking in Ireland, I have never said they did all they can. I just don't accept the view it was genocide or even deliberate. like most of irish history, (The winners write the history books remember) the famine has been used as propaganda so the reality is hidden.

    Much has been said about Trevelyans percieved relief that the famine was reducing the numbers of Irish people, but lets face, a great many republicans seem to love it the way they use it as a constant stick to beat the British with.


  • #163
    Erin Go Brath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,708 ✭✭✭Erin Go Brath


    Hiding behind the winners write the history chestnut eh.
    If the glorious empires official position was that the earth was flat, is that the version you'd be still believing today :confused:


  • #164
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Erin Go Brath wrote: »
    Hiding behind the winners write the history chestnut eh.
    If the glorious empires official position was that the earth was flat, is that the version you'd be still believing today :confused:

    no, but if they said it was round there would be plenty of people denying it and claiming the reason it is not flat is because of the British:D


  • #165
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Pathfinder wrote: »
    I am actually more embarrassed that nearly 160 years on republicans still use it and the British empire as an excuse of their own inadequacy/failure. Notice how in the outside would these people are usually total failures (a bit like fascists going on about Jews).

    I am an ex-soldier who did four tours in the north, some of the people we had to deal with and houses we searched were unreal.Deranged women, faeces and used tampons thrown under beds,

    A week later later a paper from Sinn Fein would appear in the local paper saying soldiers had pissed on their kids toys and assaulted them etc.

    If you went back and confronted them and said no such thing happened, they would say, "its all part of the war".

    Sinn Fein/IRA would also anonymously tip of the security services about decent Catholic families having arms in their houses, when searched none were found, it was to done to turn ordinary decent Catholics against the security forces.

    Your a complete fantasist pal, completely, totally :rolleyes:
    Erin Go Brath wrote: »
    Hiding behind the winners write the history chestnut eh.
    If the glorious empires official position was that the earth was flat, is that the version you'd be still believing today :confused:
    Agree completely Erin, he's just typical of a unionist* - NO, NO, NOOOOO.

    * ( though in all fairness, very, very few English people are unionists or want anything to do with them )


  • #166
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Agree completely Erin, he's just typical of a unionist* - NO, NO, NOOOOO.

    * ( though in all fairness, very, very few English people are unionists or want anything to do with them )

    and I am no exception to the rule. what gives you the impression I am a unionist, if I were Scottish, Welsh or from NI I would want to determine my own future. It's a shame the English aren't given the same right.


  • #167
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    what gives you the impression I am a unionist,

    Almost any posting to do with british history :rolleyes:
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I would want to determine my own future. It's a shame the English aren't given the same right.

    It's a shame the Irish aren't given the same right as our country was partitioned under the threat of force from a much larger state and the secterian gerrymander called 'northern' Ireland created.


  • #168
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Almost any posting to do with british history :rolleyes:
    then I suggest you read my posts and don't judge me by your own standards.
    McArmalite wrote: »
    It's a shame the Irish aren't given the same right as our country was partitioned under the threat of force from a much larger state and the secterian gerrymander called 'northern' Ireland created.
    yes it is, but that is something that can now be addressed. the people of Northern Ireland have the same right to leave the union as the people of Scotland, what they don't have is the willingness.


  • #169
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    micmclo wrote: »
    Gotta be honest. It drives me mad when posters quote a massive post and then just add a few lines.
    Making it harder for everyone to read :mad:


    it drives me mad when someone just cuts and pastes a massive post praising a discredited revisionist historian . it doesnt deserve more than a few lines dismissing it in my opinion


  • #170
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    Pathfinder wrote: »
    I am actually more embarrassed that nearly 160 years on republicans still use it and the British empire as an excuse of their own inadequacy/failure. Notice how in the outside would these people are usually total failures (a bit like fascists going on about Jews).

    I am an ex-soldier who did four tours in the north, some of the people we had to deal with and houses we searched were unreal.Deranged women, faeces and used tampons thrown under beds,

    A week later later a paper from Sinn Fein would appear in the local paper saying soldiers had pissed on their kids toys and assaulted them etc.

    If you went back and confronted them and said no such thing happened, they would say, "its all part of the war".

    Sinn Fein/IRA would also anonymously tip of the security services about decent Catholic families having arms in their houses, when searched none were found, it was to done to turn ordinary decent Catholics against the security forces.


    this is just racist fantasy and disturbed offensive rubbish , and id advise anyone else to simply ignore it and not be drawn into a situation where they could be deliberately provoked and then banned . Its a hate post


  • #171
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    quote=PHB;55262129]You attempted to claim that the government policy was not a genocide of sorts (I don't like the use of the phrase, as it has a very very specific meaning. I'd rather describe it through mass-killings through a combination of neglect and choosing not to act)

    Indeed it does and Britians behaviour in its Irish colony more than fulfilled the definition of genocide . You seem to be hiniting that genocide however only occured in world war 2 and anything that falls below the behaviour of the nazis cant be described as such . If that is the case you are very very wrong

    The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, in 1943, firstly from the Greek root génos (γένος) (family, tribe or race - gene); secondly from Latin -cide (occido—to massacre, kill).

    In his study commisioned by the Carnegie institute Lemkin made the following proposal which was accepted into international law and formed the legal basis for the prosecution of Nazi war criminals in the Nuremberg trials . According to the man who invented the word and formulated the legal basis for its prosecution

    Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.[5]

    Englands behaviour in Ireland more than qualifies as genocide , and genocide occured for a much more sustained period than during the potato blight of the 1840s . The bulk of Britains occupation of Ireland has seen them engaged in the persuit of genocidal policies in persuit of conquest . So , there is the very very precise meaning by the man who invented the phrase and the legal concept for prosecution . One could therefore ask why you prefer not to use the term in light of its definition .


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    kreuzberger wrote: »
    this is just racist fantasy and disturbed offensive rubbish , and id advise anyone else to simply ignore it and not be drawn into a situation where they could be deliberately provoked and then banned . Its a hate post

    I agree " disturbed offensive rubbish ". But that's nothing, read his posting from the Politics discussion about Mairead Farrell -
    Pathfinder wrote: »
    Her boyfriend was an SAS member, theres even pics of them together. Apparently she was abit of a girl.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Violent-Delights-Scott-Graham/dp/1857821963


    Synopsis
    The true stoy of a tragic love affair between an heroic SAS operative and an IRA terrorist. Scott Graham was decorated for hereoism in Northern Ireland and the Falklands, and he fought battles in which more than a dozen IRA terrorists were killed. Mairead Farrell was petite, young and darkly beautiful and she planted bombs for the IRA. Together the two shared a deadly and terrible secret. They loved one another, against the taboos of both their armies, for 14 years. The clandestine love affair reached its crescendo with one of the most controversial incidents in the history of the SAS.

    I know he referencing from a book, but well, I agree totally when you say "disturbed".


  • #173
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    kreuzberger wrote: »
    quote=PHB;55262129]You attempted to claim that the government policy was not a genocide of sorts (I don't like the use of the phrase, as it has a very very specific meaning. I'd rather describe it through mass-killings through a combination of neglect and choosing not to act)

    Indeed it does and Britians behaviour in its Irish colony more than fulfilled the definition of genocide . You seem to be hiniting that genocide however only occured in world war 2 and anything that falls below the behaviour of the nazis cant be described as such . If that is the case you are very very wrong

    The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, in 1943, firstly from the Greek root génos (γένος) (family, tribe or race - gene); secondly from Latin -cide (occido—to massacre, kill).

    In his study commisioned by the Carnegie institute Lemkin made the following proposal which was accepted into international law and formed the legal basis for the prosecution of Nazi war criminals in the Nuremberg trials . According to the man who invented the word and formulated the legal basis for its prosecution

    Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.[5]

    Englands behaviour in Ireland more than qualifies as genocide , and genocide occured for a much more sustained period than during the potato blight of the 1840s . The bulk of Britains occupation of Ireland has seen them engaged in the persuit of genocidal policies in persuit of conquest . So , there is the very very precise meaning by the man who invented the phrase and the legal concept for prosecution . One could therefore ask why you prefer not to use the term in light of its definition .

    Please learn how to "quote" :mad:


  • #174
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Please learn how to "quote" :mad:

    either address the issue raised or dont . the issue is not punctuation .


  • #175
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    ying and yang my friend.
    it is very clear that I think the British regime was lacking in Ireland, I have never said they did all they can.

    did all they could to do what ? Civilise the Irish ? Help them ?
    The fact is they did all they could to grind our people into the ground , and pretty much succeeded .
    I just don't accept the view it was genocide or even deliberate. like most of irish history, (The winners write the history books remember) the famine has been used as propaganda so the reality is hidden.

    the Irish people did not win , they were slaughtered
    Much has been said about Trevelyans percieved relief that the famine was reducing the numbers of Irish people, but lets face, a great many republicans seem to love it the way they use it as a constant stick to beat the British with.

    I see . Have you considered the possibility that Irish people may have deliberately reduced themselves to vagrant-esque poverty and starved themselves to death in order to make Britian look bad , therefore providing propaganda opportunites to nationally minded Irish people in future generations ?

    I must confess as an Irish citizen Im quite proud of the fact my country was reduced to a nation of dispossessed illiterate beggars who forgot how to speak their own language in the course of single generation and became so numerically and militarily weak and mentally and culturally damaged they could never hope to do away with colonialism in this country .
    Im happy our population is around 5 million people in a partitioned country who mostly cant speak their own language as opposed to an estimate of 15 million today who might be capable of asserting themselves in a more dignfied manner , as citizens of a fully independent sovereign united Irish republic . An actual nation as opposed to the 2 sectarian Bantustans Britian created for our people within our nation.


  • #176
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Please learn how to "quote"

    kreuzberger wrote: »
    either address the issue raised or dont . the issue is not punctuation .
    It makes your posts easier to follow, readers then know who said what!

    I see you've followed my advice, a bit ;)


  • #177
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It makes your posts easier to follow, readers then know who said what!

    I see you've followed my advice, a bit ;)

    i see you are still incapable of addressing the issue and persuing an irrelevance instead , a lot


  • #178
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    kreuzberger wrote: »
    i see you are still incapable of addressing the issue and persuing an irrelevance instead , a lot
    I have already addressed the issue, see post #160


  • #179
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I have already addressed the issue, see post #160


    ive no idea where post 160 is nor any intention of looking for it

    I see one post though were youve referred to the fact Britain eventually annexed Ireland after colonising it as a claim that it was part of Britain and not a colony of the empire .
    I see nothing though addressing the issue of genocide in Ireland


  • #180
    Stev_o
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,249 ✭✭✭Stev_o


    kreuzberger wrote: »
    ive no idea where post 160 is nor any intention of looking for it

    I see one post though were youve referred to the fact Britain eventually annexed Ireland after colonising it as a claim that it was part of Britain and not a colony of the empire .
    I see nothing though addressing the issue of genocide in Ireland

    A genocide seems a bit extreme in the context of British occupation. Did it occur? Yes! Did Irish people on both sides do it? Of course they did.

    Give examples of such genocide that your aware of in Ireland then


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    Stev_o wrote: »
    A genocide seems a bit extreme in the context of British occupation. Did it occur? Yes! Did Irish people on both sides do it? Of course they did.

    Give examples of such genocide that your aware of in Ireland then

    Im unaware of the Irish commiting genocide against the British . Im startled to hear an accusation that this occured . Seriously..Id like to see some evidence of your claim this happened .

    Ill refer you to the definition of genocide
    The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.[5]

    Over a prolonged period Irelands political , social and legal instituions were abloished and firmly criminalised by the occupation forces as policy , to the point where the law of the land took the open opinion that as far as the law was no concerned no such person as an Irish roman catholic existed . That is no different to the policies persued by the nazis which saw European Jews stripped of their rights under the law , the seizure of their property , the outlawing of their religion and places of worship , their disbarment from all professions and commerce and employment . Those policies by the nazis were genocidal . British policies were no different , but lasted almost 2 centuries .

    As far back as 1641 it was estimated by the British governemnts own commisioned survey that around 40% of the Irish population had been eliminated during the Cromwellian conquest .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Petty . This involved not only the physical destruction of the islands inhabitants by troops but by the deliberate destruction of their foodstocks in order to cause mass suffering and csualties among the civilian population . The remaining civilian population were stripped of their possessions . That in itself was an act of genocide .
    The surviving remainder of the national population were then subject to almost 2 centuries of penal laws which outlawed their religion ,outlawed their language , forbid them from engaging in commerce , education , owning property , or taking part in the national life of their own nation . Commerce and manufacturing was forbidden . Their churches destroyed . Their very language , their religion their economy were criminalised and penalised ,and in effect their nation was criminalised . This was done in order to destroy their very existence as a nation. Those policies were aimed at the destruction of the Irish people . They were genocidal policies . They were most definitely intended to bring about the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups , as the definition of genocide describes.


    By the 1840s the effects of centuries of this regime upon the national population were very clear and marked . Prominent English writer of that period William Makepeace Thackeray insisted that "...It is a frightful document against ourselves...one of the most melancholy stories in the whole world of insolence, rapine, brutal, endless slaughter and persecution on the part of the English master...There is no crime ever invented by eastern or western barbarians, no torture or Roman persecution or Spanish Inquisition, no tyranny of Nero or Alva but can be matched in the history of England in Ireland." (Metress, 2)

    There was clearly no shortage of food in Ireland during the 1840s either
    As the The Pictorial Times, October 10, 1846, pointed out :"Around them is plenty; rickyards, in full contempt, stand under their snug thatch, calculating the chances of advancing prices; or, the thrashed grain safely stored awaits only the opportunity of conveyance to be taken far away to feed strangers...But a strong arm interposes to hold the maddened infuriates away. Property laws supersede those of Nature. Grain is of more value than blood. And if they attempt to take of the fatness of the land that belongs to their lords, death by musketry, is a cheap government measure to provide for the wants of a starving and incensed people."

    British policies in Ireland , genocidal policies aggressively persued for centuries had left an illiterate , defenceless and leaderless population in a position of extreme poverty and wholly dependent upon one single food item , the potato . National culture was replaced with a potato culture of dispossessed , defencelss ,leaderless remedyless subservience . No recourse to law or politics was open to the Irish people . No call for mercy was listened to . When that food item failed military , political and legal policies were persued to remove all other foodstuffs from the island . Policies were also persued to remove the islands population from the island through mass eviction from their homes and the physcial destruction of their homes , along with further laws to forbid other Irish people from offering them shelter . Policies were persued to ensure harbours , fisheries , land reclamation and attempts to provide food , a necessity of life , would not take place . The persuance of these policies led to the near physical destruction of all what remained of the Irish nation , its people .


    It was genocide .


  • #182
    Stev_o
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,249 ✭✭✭Stev_o


    kreuzberger wrote: »
    Im unaware of the Irish commiting genocide against the British . Im startled to hear an accusation that this occured . Seriously..Id like to see some evidence of your claim this happened .
    .

    No i meant genocide of Irish people by Irish people


  • #183
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    kreuzberger wrote: »
    ive no idea where post 160 is nor any intention of looking for it
    Still wearing Shergar's blinkers I see!
    kreuzberger wrote: »
    I see one post though were youve referred to the fact Britain eventually annexed Ireland after colonising it as a claim that it was part of Britain and not a colony of the empire .

    Yes for a long time Irish MP's were sitting in the House of Commons, part of Great Britain.
    Colonies didn't have MP's.
    Unfortunately Ireland was seen as "Britains backyard" by many.

    As for the Famine, been discussed here before, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=1156721 my comments are in post #160.


  • #184
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    Stev_o wrote: »
    No i meant genocide of Irish people by Irish people


    well , many jews assisted in the genocide of Europes jewish population , as ghetto police , ghetto administrators , black marketers and profiteers , capos in the camps etc and even as spies who sought out jewish families in hiding . All profited from the misery of their own people . But it would be wrong to term that jews committing genocide against jews . The nazi system and policies were responsible .
    The same thing goes for the nazi systems depradations in Byelorussia and the Balkans which was undoubtedly genocidal , but assisted by many locals who stood to gain from collaboration .
    Similarly in Ireland you had many Irish who collaborated and profited from the genocidal policies directed against their own people . As Gombeen men , policemen , soldiers , spies and informers and even a few landlords . But it was the British system itself , the occupation and British policy responsible for the genocide . The Catholic church remained silent towards the destruction of the people , as did the emerging small catholic middle class personified by Daniel OConnell . This silence could most certainly be viewed as collaboration in the face of genocide in return for a postion of influence within society . longside this one could make a justified argument that the catholic churches able assistance in eliminating the Irish language from everyday use alongside the destruction of the national population was direct complicity in genocide in an attempt to sterilise from the Irish character its last defining vestige , its language . To deliberately set out to eliminate a nations language , something central to its very existance as a nation in the first place is a racist and genocidal policy and both Britain and the catholic church in Ireland were complicit in what can only be described as a most heinous genocidal crime in this regard .


  • #185
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The Anti-Irish language laws were more to do with an attempt to eliminate catholicism by banning Catholics from using Irish, if they had changed religion they could have continued speaking Irish.

    edit: a google produced this;
    http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish/unit_1.html
    PENAL LAWS
    "Professor Lecky, a Protestant of British blood and ardent British sympathy, says in his History of Ireland in the 18th Century that the object of the Penal Laws was threefold:

    1. To deprive the Catholics of all civil life
    2. To reduce them to a condition of most extreme and brutal ignorance

    3. To dissociate them from the soil He might, with absolute justice, substituted Irish for Catholics-and added, (4) to expirate (cause to expire) the Race.

    The Irish Catholic was forbidden the exercise of his religion.
    He was forbidden to receive education,
    He was forbidden to enter a profession.
    He was forbidden to hold public office.
    He was forbidden to engage in trade or commerce.
    He was forbidden to live in a corporate town or within five miles thereof.
    He was forbidden to own a horse of greater value than five pounds.
    He was forbidden to purchase land.
    He was forbidden to lease land.
    He was forbidden to accept a mortgage on land in security for a loan.
    He was forbidden to vote.
    He was forbidden to keep any arms for his protection.
    He was forbidden to hold a life annuity.
    He was forbidden to buy land from a Protestant.
    He was forbidden to receive a gift of land from a Protestant.
    He was forbidden to inherit land from a Protestant.
    He was forbidden to inherit anything from a Protestant.
    He was forbidden to rent any land that was worth more than thirty shillings a year.
    He was forbidden to reap from his land any profit exceeding a third of the rent.
    He could not be guardian to a child.
    He could not, when dying, leave his infant children under Catholic guardianship.
    He could not attend Catholic worship.
    He was compelled by law to attend Protestant worship.
    He could not himself educate his child.
    He could not send his child to a Catholic teacher.
    He could not employ a Catholic teacher to come to his child.
    He could not send his child abroad to receive education.
    Quote:
    Irish Penal Laws 1695 (Sec. 9)
    ..and of their neglecting to conform themselves to the laws of this realm, and of their not using the English habit and language, no person of the popish religion shall publicly teach school or instruct youth, or in private houses teach youth, upon pain of twenty pounds, and prison for three months for every such offence.


    [Personal opinion]

    Given the choice between Faith & Language, faith won out along with a dissassociation from the language that as seen as being "the old way", the church killed the language far more effectivly than the Brits, if anything it was seen as a sign of resistance to speak Irish.
    [/personal opinion]


  • #186
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Still wearing Shergar's blinkers I see!

    no , i just couldnt be arsed trawling this site looking for your posts

    Yes for a long time Irish MP's were sitting in the House of Commons, part of Great Britain.
    Colonies didn't have MP's.
    Unfortunately Ireland was seen as "Britains backyard" by many.
    for hiow long , a few decades after many centuries of constitutionally acknowleged colonialism ?
    Ireland was British colony for centuries until they took the decision to fully annexe it a few years before the period your talking about . By pointing to its full annexation you seem to be claiming it wasnt a colony . The fact that this was done without the consent of the Irish people and amidst successive rebellions against colonialism and could only be done after eliminating the vast majority of the nations population from its national life for centuries and reducing them to the most miserable and wretched social and economic status is an absolute mockery of any democratic notions .
    Your attempt to portray Irish MPs sitting in the house of commons as some sort of democratic assent to Ireland being in the UK is absurd .
    Ireland was held withinin the UK against the will of its people , forcably annexed which culminated in the destruction and exile of the countrys population . The vast majority of the land was owned by foreigners , the vast majority of the native population dispossessed ,all political power was weilded by foreigners and enforced at the point of a foreigners bayonet . Regardless of the constitutional basis the British themselves afforded to their colonial activities at different periods it was still an exercise in colonialism .


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The Anti-Irish language laws were more to do with an attempt to eliminate catholicism by banning Catholics from using Irish, if they had changed religion they could have continued speaking Irish.

    [Personal opinion]

    Given the choice between Faith & Language, faith won out along with a dissassociation from the language that as seen as being "the old way", the church killed the language far more effectivly than the Brits, if anything it was seen as a sign of resistance to speak Irish.
    [/personal opinion]


    you seem to be making some of these opinions up off the top of your head . Even if they were true eliminating either a nations language or its relaigion are both genocidal policies . English legal hostility towards the Irish language also predates the reformation .


  • #188
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No, these are beliefs I've had for a long time...


  • #189
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No, these are beliefs I've had for a long time...

    the fact you made them up off the top of your head a long time ago doesnt make them any more true


    and of their neglecting to conform themselves to the laws of this realm, and of their not using the English habit and language,

    Even from the link youve posted its clear it was Irish refusal to accept the occupation which was central to the genocidal policies directed against them as a nation . The option given to them was not simply about changing religion , but to become fully anglicised . To adopt a foreign language , religion ,culture and laws as their own . The destruction of their own nation . Therefore the point of the laws was to destroy the nation itself and reinforce the occupation of the nation , genocide .
    Penal laws were also directed against some protestant sects also , cheifly the presbyterians . Scottish covenantors had also fought against the Cromwellian conquest . The issue was conquest , not a belief in transubstantiation .


  • #190
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Had it not been for the religious persecution, Ireland would more than likely have been treated like Wales.

    All a bit OT as the OP was referring to the British Empire, which Ireland was part of but not a colony of, Dublin being the second city of the Empire.


  • #191
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    really ? so all that continuous war and rebellion had nothing to do with it ? Irish refusal to submit to British occupation had nothing to do with Britains persecution of the Irish ? It was just about religion ?


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    kreuzberger wrote: »
    really ? so all that continuous war and rebellion had nothing to do with it ? Irish refusal to submit to British occupation had nothing to do with Britains persecution of the Irish ? It was just about religion ?

    A big chunk yes. Why are the Irish so obsessed with being unique?

    The Irish were a culmination of factors that meant the British came down heavily on them, a catalogue of bad choices if you like.

    Siding with the royalists, bad decision, in hindsight. Then getting assistance from Rome in the fight against Cromwell, talk about pouring oil on the flames.

    Siding with the French in 1798, not good considering England has been at war with France for 1000 years.

    Siding with Germany in 1916, bad choice, but one which ultimately worked more through Brish imcompetance than good judgement.

    Add to that the Victorian dislike for all things Catholic and anyone not educated at Eton or Harrow and you kind of get the perfect storm.

    Why would the Scots or the Welsh not be treated the same way as the Irish, maybe because they decided their destiny lay alongside the English rather than opposing them who knows, but none of the factors I mentioned above really applied to them.


  • #193
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    kreuzberger wrote: »
    really ? so all that continuous war and rebellion had nothing to do with it ? Irish refusal to submit to British occupation had nothing to do with Britains persecution of the Irish ? It was just about religion ?

    The penal laws were more anti catholic than anti Irish, Cromwell hated the Irish but he hated catholics even more. If the Irish had changed religion the laws would more than likely have been repealed (in his lifetime, not hundreds of years later) fairly quickly.

    You shouldn't forget that the boundaries between all european nations were quite fluid up until quite recently. The English invaded Ireland but so did the french and the vikings, the Irish invaded western scotland. The borders between England and Wales (and England & Scotland) moved several times as countries claimed territory from each other.

    Cromwell was of course hated in England as well, he had to fight and win a civil war after all, deposed the royal family & almost wiped out the catholic church. Most of the damage he done in England was undone after his death, except for Ireland where no one cared what happened there. Those running the country (Ireland) were quite to leave things as they were (penal laws etc) the legacy of which, indirectly caused the famine in the 1840's.

    Another one of his legacies was an irrational hatred of all things English in some sectors of the population, right through to this day!


  • #194
    kreuzberger
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭kreuzberger


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    A big chunk yes. Why are the Irish so obsessed with being unique?

    The Irish were a culmination of factors that meant the British came down heavily on them, a catalogue of bad choices if you like.

    Siding with the royalists, bad decision, in hindsight. Then getting assistance from Rome in the fight against Cromwell, talk about pouring oil on the flames.

    Siding with the French in 1798, not good considering England has been at war with France for 1000 years.

    Siding with Germany in 1916, bad choice, but one which ultimately worked more through Brish imcompetance than good judgement.

    Add to that the Victorian dislike for all things Catholic and anyone not educated at Eton or Harrow and you kind of get the perfect storm.

    Why would the Scots or the Welsh not be treated the same way as the Irish, maybe because they decided their destiny lay alongside the English rather than opposing them who knows, but none of the factors I mentioned above really applied to them.


    thers nothing unique about being Roman Catholic , it was all the rage in Europe at the time and most Irish people preferred to follow that faith and quite rightly took umbrage to a bunch of foreigners coming over here telling them to do otherwise . Bad enough the foreigners took their lands and massacred them but to then have to accept the dude responsible was actually Gods representative on earth also was probably a bit much .

    Siding with people who were fighting against your enemy , aiding you in your struggle for independence etc was perfectly sane and logical .

    Youve only ended up agreeing with my point that the Irish were destroyed because for centuries they refused to submit to British conquest . Unlike the scottish and welsh who submitted , no offence to them .


  • #195
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    kreuzberger wrote: »

    Siding with people who were fighting against your enemy , aiding you in your struggle for independence etc was perfectly sane and logical .

    Yes, that tactic is still being played out today in Afghanistan & Iraq(to name but two) America chose then as friends against their enemies (Soviet union & Iran).

    Unfortunately being friendly with your enemy's enemy can often backfire (as proven).


  • #196
    Pathfinder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 292 ✭✭Pathfinder


    kreuzberger wrote: »
    Im unaware of the Irish commiting genocide against the British . Im startled to hear an accusation that this occured . Seriously..Id like to see some evidence of your claim this happened .

    Ill refer you to the definition of genocide



    Over a prolonged period Irelands political , social and legal instituions were abloished and firmly criminalised by the occupation forces as policy , to the point where the law of the land took the open opinion that as far as the law was no concerned no such person as an Irish roman catholic existed . That is no different to the policies persued by the nazis which saw European Jews stripped of their rights under the law , the seizure of their property , the outlawing of their religion and places of worship , their disbarment from all professions and commerce and employment . Those policies by the nazis were genocidal . British policies were no different , but lasted almost 2 centuries .

    As far back as 1641 it was estimated by the British governemnts own commisioned survey that around 40% of the Irish population had been eliminated during the Cromwellian conquest .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Petty . This involved not only the physical destruction of the islands inhabitants by troops but by the deliberate destruction of their foodstocks in order to cause mass suffering and csualties among the civilian population . The remaining civilian population were stripped of their possessions . That in itself was an act of genocide .
    The surviving remainder of the national population were then subject to almost 2 centuries of penal laws which outlawed their religion ,outlawed their language , forbid them from engaging in commerce , education , owning property , or taking part in the national life of their own nation . Commerce and manufacturing was forbidden . Their churches destroyed . Their very language , their religion their economy were criminalised and penalised ,and in effect their nation was criminalised . This was done in order to destroy their very existence as a nation. Those policies were aimed at the destruction of the Irish people . They were genocidal policies . They were most definitely intended to bring about the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups , as the definition of genocide describes.


    By the 1840s the effects of centuries of this regime upon the national population were very clear and marked . Prominent English writer of that period William Makepeace Thackeray insisted that "...It is a frightful document against ourselves...one of the most melancholy stories in the whole world of insolence, rapine, brutal, endless slaughter and persecution on the part of the English master...There is no crime ever invented by eastern or western barbarians, no torture or Roman persecution or Spanish Inquisition, no tyranny of Nero or Alva but can be matched in the history of England in Ireland." (Metress, 2)

    There was clearly no shortage of food in Ireland during the 1840s either
    As the The Pictorial Times, October 10, 1846, pointed out :"Around them is plenty; rickyards, in full contempt, stand under their snug thatch, calculating the chances of advancing prices; or, the thrashed grain safely stored awaits only the opportunity of conveyance to be taken far away to feed strangers...But a strong arm interposes to hold the maddened infuriates away. Property laws supersede those of Nature. Grain is of more value than blood. And if they attempt to take of the fatness of the land that belongs to their lords, death by musketry, is a cheap government measure to provide for the wants of a starving and incensed people."

    British policies in Ireland , genocidal policies aggressively persued for centuries had left an illiterate , defenceless and leaderless population in a position of extreme poverty and wholly dependent upon one single food item , the potato . National culture was replaced with a potato culture of dispossessed , defencelss ,leaderless remedyless subservience . No recourse to law or politics was open to the Irish people . No call for mercy was listened to . When that food item failed military , political and legal policies were persued to remove all other foodstuffs from the island . Policies were also persued to remove the islands population from the island through mass eviction from their homes and the physcial destruction of their homes , along with further laws to forbid other Irish people from offering them shelter . Policies were persued to ensure harbours , fisheries , land reclamation and attempts to provide food , a necessity of life , would not take place . The persuance of these policies led to the near physical destruction of all what remained of the Irish nation , its people .


    It was genocide .



    Well considering Cromwells campign was in1649-50 and your claim is he wiped out 40% of the Irish population before this in 1641, he must have had a time machine.

    There is no evidence Cromwell committed any genocide he was only in Ireland 9 months and died soon after.

    Nor was he responsible for the penal laws in Ireland.


    Nor did ordinary Catholics have land seized, they never owned any, most were feudal serfs of the old Norman English, it was they whos land was seized for supporting the crown, as well as some land of the Gaelic artistocracy.


  • #197
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Pathfinder wrote: »
    Well considering Cromwells campign was in1649-50 and your claim is he wiped out 40% of the Irish population before this in 1641, he must have had a time machine.

    There is no evidence Cromwell committed any genocide he was only in Ireland 9 months and died soon after.

    Nor was he responsible for the penal laws in Ireland.


    Nor did ordinary Catholics have land seized, they never owned any, most were feudal serfs of the old Norman English, it was they whos land was seized for supporting the crown, as well as some land of the Gaelic artistocracy.

    Weren't the same people who had land seized, promised land in England if they supported the Royalists?

    They lost the war and lost their land, simple as that.


  • #198
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    kreuzberger wrote: »
    thers nothing unique about being Roman Catholic , it was all the rage in Europe at the time and most Irish people preferred to follow that faith and quite rightly took umbrage to a bunch of foreigners coming over here telling them to do otherwise . Bad enough the foreigners took their lands and massacred them but to then have to accept the dude responsible was actually Gods representative on earth also was probably a bit much .

    Siding with people who were fighting against your enemy , aiding you in your struggle for independence etc was perfectly sane and logical .

    Youve only ended up agreeing with my point that the Irish were destroyed because for centuries they refused to submit to British conquest . Unlike the scottish and welsh who submitted , no offence to them .

    It was also all the rage in Europe for Roman Catholics to massacre Protestants.

    Why did Ireland accept Catholicism, brought by the Normans (Or English if you want to follow th whole 800 years things) but reject Protestantism?

    Yes siding with your enemy's enemy is logical, but so is coming down hard on those who did.


  • #199
    Pathfinder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 292 ✭✭Pathfinder


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    It was also all the rage in Europe for Roman Catholics to massacre Protestants.

    Why did Ireland accept Catholicism, brought by the Normans (Or English if you want to follow th whole 800 years things) but reject Protestantism?

    Yes siding with your enemy's enemy is logical, but so is coming down hard on those who did.


    Good point the Normans destroyed Ireland traditional Celtic church and replaced it with Roman outside control.

    But because the RC church has controlled the teaching of history in the republic is will always be heavily pro Norman and anti Cromwellian.


    As I stated Cromwell abided by the rules of warfare at that time, most he killed were English and Irish Royalist forces, there is no evidence he committed any genocide at all.

    Yet, most Irish people are taught he did.


  • #200
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    kreuzberger wrote: »
    aiding the germans was only an act of treason if you considered yourself British . For irishmen they were allies . Ireland and Germany had no history of nor reason for hostility . Britian was Irelands only enemy .Casement owed his allegiance to the Irish governemnt which later openly proclaimed itself as the Provisional governemnt of a sovereign independent republic during the rebellion , not the governemnt of an illegitimate foreign occupier .

    Im not having a go at you but you often seem to forget you are speaking to Irish people , foreigners who view their nation as their nation , and you tend to present your opinions from a purely anglo centric point of view .

    Meanwhile our unionist friends lead by Dublin's Edward Carson, along with James Craig and future british Prime minister Bonar Law invovled, commited treason with the Larne gun running escapade - but ofcourse they weren't even arrested nor a single bullet or firearm recovered or any attempt to do so. Sort of an ulster workers strike 1914 style where 1 and 1/2% of the population ( the unionists ) of the british state could openly arm and defy the rule of law, and britian with all it's might couldn't do anything, even attempt to recover a single bullet. But that's the british even handed sense of fairplay for you, the most rotten and corrupt sense of fairplay in history.


  • #201
    Erin Go Brath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,708 ✭✭✭Erin Go Brath


    Fratton Fred wrote: »

    Why did Ireland accept Catholicism, brought by the Normans (Or English if you want to follow the whole 800 years things) but reject Protestantism?
    St Patrick in 432AD is said to be the person who converted Ireland from a Pagan to a Christian country. However their may well have been Chrisitians even before that, although it is accepted that Ireland was predominantly pagan before St Patricks arrival, and predominantly Christian after his death, so he gets the credit, and as always we use it as an excuse for an almighty pissup on March 17. Typical Irish. :);):rolleyes:

    To a deeply religious Catholic country to accept that the head of the British monarchy is head of the church is blasphemic. Plus we hate been told what to do by other nations and are more prepared to fight for our beliefs than many other nations i believe.

    Interestingly Ireland is the only country in the EU today in which a referendum is needed to pass the various treaties that periodically appear to change the constitution. Because the Irish people demanded it be that way.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement