[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by odyssey06

Do you realise you have just quoted two different posters?

God, you're right. My apologies.

Originally Posted by odyssey06

And I'm not talking exclusively about the 19th century.

Fair enough. Though I think the "more Irish" claim (which we are both sceptical of) refers to what went on in the nineteenth century, and it is in the nineteenth century that the bulk of Indiand dispossession occurs.

[Tinytemper]

Irish people did horrible things as members of the British armed forces. That's not a secret. It's why they were rightfully ostracised by many upon return and by our government when we had the chance. It's also why revisionists trying to commemorate the black and tans etc are receiving strong opposition. These people are Ireland's shame, we shouldn't forget them, they should be remembered so others are discouraged from repeating the same mistakes.


Mod note:
Please keep on topic and avoid generalistation/inflamatory statements. You are invited to read the History forum charter,

[Yellow_Fern]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

No. I think you are conflating two very different periods of history.

The plague of epidemics followed first contact/exploration; it was rapid and severe. But "rapid" is the key word here; from about a century after first contact the population was recovering again - i.e. from the early 1600s. And the repopulation of the land with new, changed societies - e.g. the plains Indian culture - was extensive. As well as acquiring smallpox from Europeans, Native Americans acquired domesticated horses, and this completely changed their way of life, enabling different, and very successful, patterns of land use, settlement and migration.

It was another two hundred years or more before European settlers on the Eastern seaboard began their aggressive westward expansion and settlement program. They were not settling in depopulated lands, but in repopulated lands, of which the well-established indigenous people had to be disposessed.

Nope. It's you are confused. The thread is about the entire history of New World colonisation. There were massacres towards the end of the 19th century but they were also massacres in the 16th century and Irish present from very early on. There is evidence of plagues hitting far later the early 1600s, even in the second half of the 19th cen but even if there was wasn't, it wouldn't disprove my point. The populations never recovered their numbers, despite substantial cultural change and evolution like the adoption of horse use. There was probably a few areas like on the Plains where horses allowed a net increase exlcuing the impact of plagues but that is an exception.

[Yellow_Fern]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

I’m not particularly interested in defending the “more Irish” claim. For what it’s worth, I think it’s a very dodgy claim. I was more responding to your claim that “no ethnic cleansing was needed” to facilitate the settlement of Indian territories by white settlers. It certainly was.

Boards.ie brings out the worse in people. No one said this. My point was that even if there was no massacres that the end result would be the same.

[Padre_Pio]

Originally Posted by odyssey06

The 90% figure seems to be a widely accepted estimate for losses after contact through disease.

When you look at the battles between native Americans and European settlers, the numbers involved are minuscule.

Most have less than 2,000 participants total, compared to a Napoleonic battle which could have 100 times more combatants.

The population was either ridiculously small to begin with, or so absolutely devastated that the settlers could easily raise an army larger than the indigenous peoples.

[Thelonious Monk]

People have this view that the Irish are saintly and never got involved in any atrocities, and it's the Brits who are the devils of the world.
Irish were involved with mistreatment of Australian Aboriginals, Native Americans, and committed many atrocities while being part of the British army. That O'Dwyer guy was responsible for the massacre in India that inspired Ghandi to protest for independence.
There were also plenty of Irish slave owners.
We're just like any other humans, will kill/pillage for food/money/power when necessary.

[IAMAMORON]

I initially thought about the Duke of Welly when I saw the title.

Massacred thousands in India.

[StevieHardesty]

Originally Posted by Thelonious Monk

We're just like any other humans, will kill/pillage for food/money/power when necessary.

Nothing more to say ...[/thread]

[Thelonious Monk]

Also that old joker Lord Haw Haw, Nazi cheerleader, was Irish. We're no different to anyone else.

[RandomViewer]

Blunt instrument of whatever flag they served,

[Tinytemper]

And those Irish people who committed these crimes were rightly vilified and ostracised upon return. We don't celebrate these people.

[Thelonious Monk]

Isn't the very fact there are so many Irish names in Australia/North America proof that we were colonisers?

[whisky_galore]

Originally Posted by Tinytemper

And those Irish people who committed these crimes were rightly vilified and ostracised upon return.

Were they??

[Granadino]

Originally Posted by Tinytemper

And those Irish people who committed these crimes were rightly vilified and ostracised upon return. We don't celebrate these people.

Like John Mitchell and Fr Kenyon?

[Tinytemper]

Originally Posted by whisky_galore

Were they??

Yes.