[IAMAMORON]

John Mitchel gets more divisive the more you read about him. A Presbyterian Irish nationalist who also was pro slavery. He just does not suit the stereotype of a united Irishman, even though he was one.



His opinion on the great famine will prick your ears. He was convinced it was a genocidal conspiracy dreamt up by Sir Robert Peel and associates.

I often think that the real power in America are happier for virtue signallers to bitch about slavery and racial segregation because it deflects from the real crime of genocide which occurred during the inception of the US and the frontiers. Millions died then, not just shot on the spot either, disease killed them also. A common European flu would annihilate a tribe from the Chesapeake Bay. It happened the same in Australia too. I don't believe for a second that Aboriginals lived only in the desert, they were forced out there for sure.

[Kintarō Hattori]

Originally Posted by Gruffalox

General Philip Sheridan. Parents went from Co. Cavan to Ohio. He was renowned for his total war tactics against native Americans. Starved them in winter, slaughtered men, women and children with no remorse, drove them onto the reservations. A stain on his ancestors and ancestral roots.

https://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/peo...z/sheridan.htm

He's American, not Irish. He may have had parents who originally came from Ireland but he was born and raised in the US. There's nothing for anyone here to be ashamed of in his actions.

[growleaves]

Originally Posted by IAMAMORON

John Mitchel gets more divisive the more you read about him. A Presbyterian Irish nationalist who also was pro slavery. He just does not suit the stereotype of a united Irishman, even though he was one.

His opinion on the great famine will prick your ears. He was convinced it was a genocidal conspiracy dreamt up by Sir Robert Peel and associates.

Many United Irishmen were Presbyterian or Calvinistic belonging to one sect or another. I didn't know he was pro-slavery until recently. I have his memoir Jail Journal which I haven't read yet.

The United Irishmen were conspirators (!) so nothing unsual about them holding conspiracy theories. They knew first-hand that conspiracies were real.

Niccolo Machavelli tried to educate Florentines about the reality of conspiracies in his writings, which Leo Strauss said were aimed at the young who had "been brought up in teachings which, in the light of Machiavelli’s wholly new teaching, reveal themselves to be much too confident of human goodness".

[whisky_galore]

Originally Posted by Tinytemper

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

Repeating yourself is not expanding on your point.

[tylercheribini]

"Irish emigrants ruined native cultures, professor says."


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/iris...09918?mode=amp

[Errashareesh]

Originally Posted by odyssey06

The Sioux probably had their hands full figuring out the differences between Anglo Americans, Irish Americans, German Americans.
I think it might be a bit much expecting them to break it down into Irish Irish, Scots Irish, Anglo Irish...

Absolutely.

[Aegir]

Originally Posted by odyssey06

The Sioux probably had their hands full figuring out the differences between Anglo Americans, Irish Americans, German Americans.
I think it might be a bit much expecting them to break it down into Irish Irish, Scots Irish, Anglo Irish...

The Sioux were probably somewhat concerned with the Spanish and/or the French as well.

If I'm not mistaken, their homeland was under either French or Spanish control until the US government bought it under the Louisiana Purchase in 1803.

[tabbey]

Originally Posted by Thelonious Monk

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

He was a complex nationality, born in the USA to a father from Mayo and a mother whose family were anything but nationalist Irish. He did grow up in Ireland, but wherever he went, he was probably seen as an outsider.

[tylercheribini]

Originally Posted by anamcheasta

So, this entire thread is predicated upon a mere claim? Would it be too much to ask for evidence to substantiate this specific claim?

At any rate, it's quite an odd notion that Irish-born people would not be involved in crimes. Every society on earth has prisons, which acknowledges every society has bad people. Most of us know that Irish-born British soldiers served in the causes of the British Empire. We all know that it was predicated upon subjugating peoples and enriching the colonial power. 2 plus 2 = 4. However, we also know that the vast majority of Irish people do not seek to commemorate those people. Where they are commemorated - e.g. Tom Barry or Roger Casement - it is for their contribution to Irish independence/against British imperialism not for their contribution to British imperialism. They have "redeemed" themselves.

The only people in this society who try to humanise the participation in colonial barbarism by Irish-born British/American/Australian/Spanish/French/Russian soldiers are those who seek to honour these people - most obviously the RBL/John Bruton etc campaign to commemorate Irish-born British soldiers. I personally know of no Irish person who seeks to whitewash the crimes of any of these people. I also know of no Irish person who believes all Irish people are good. So, yes, this thread is built on quite the strawman. Anyway, evidence for your initial claim? None, of course.

I think thread is challenging a popular, well-recycled myth that the Irish abroad were as downtrodden and oppressed as any other minority eg. "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish" etc etc

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by tylercheribini

I think thread is challenging a popular, well-recycled myth that the Irish abroad were as downtrodden and oppressed as any other minority eg. "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish" etc etc

Not reqlly. I think the basis for the "more Irish killed more Indians etc" claim and similar claims is precisely that the Irish were at the bottom of the heap, socially and economically, and so had to compete viciously with other similar outgroups, notably the native Americans and Black Americans. In the particular instance part of the argument is that an awful lot of the enlisted men in the US army forces that fought the Indian wars were Irish, who were in this low-status role precisely because they had few other options.

So there's no inconsistency at all in suggesting that the irish were downtrodden and oppressed and that they did more than their share of ghastly things.
It's precisely the people who are downtrodden and oppressed who are most likely to do more than their share of ghastly things.

[Hello 2D Person Below]

Originally Posted by tylercheribini

I think thread is challenging a popular, well-recycled myth that the Irish abroad were as downtrodden and oppressed as any other minority eg. "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish" etc etc

Poor argument.

Even in the modern world it's usually those from the poorest backgrounds that are sent off to war.

[tylercheribini]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus

Not reqlly. I think the basis for the "more Irish killed more Indians etc" claim and similar claims is precisely that the Irish were at the bottom of the heap, socially and economically, and so had to compete viciously with other similar outgroups, notably the native Americans and Black Americans. In the particular instance part of the argument is that an awful lot of the enlisted men in the US army forces that fought the Indian wars were Irish, who were in this low-status role precisely because they had few other options.

So there's no inconsistency at all in suggesting that the irish were downtrodden and oppressed and that they did more than their share of ghastly things.
It's precisely the people who are downtrodden and oppressed who are most likely to do more than their share of ghastly things.

You'll note I said "as" downtrodden, it was still far more advantageous to be poor, white and crucially English speaking than to be poor, non-vernacular and black/brown. Even the bottom-of-the-barrel Irish indentured of Montserrat ended up being slave owners relatively quickly.

[Yellow_Fern]

Originally Posted by tylercheribini

You'll note I said "as" downtrodden, it was still far more advantageous to be poor, white and crucially English speaking than to be poor, non-vernacular and black/brown. Even the bottom-of-the-barrel Irish indentured of Montserrat ended up being slave owners relatively quickly.

It is worth bearing in mind native Americans and indeed blacks owned slaves too. In the middle of the 19th cen about 1/4 of slaves in Jamaica were owned by blacks.

Originally Posted by Hello 2D Person Below

Poor argument.

Even in the modern world it's usually those from the poorest backgrounds that are sent off to war.

Maybe so but the low ranked officers always have higher death rates than the grunts.

[tylercheribini]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Fern

It is worth bearing in mind native Americans and indeed blacks owned slaves too. In the middle of the 19th cen about 1/4 of slaves in Jamaica were owned by blacks.

Maybe so but the low ranked officers always have higher death rates than the grunts.

I was aware of black children,often with white slaver father's, being brought back to Britain and growing up to inherit Jamaican plantations alright, this was obviously not by choice in these instances.

[Yellow_Fern]

Originally Posted by tylercheribini

I was aware of black children,often with white slaver father's, being brought back to Britain and growing up to inherit Jamaican plantations alright, this was obviously not by choice in these instances.

It clearly was by choice in many cases. There is a lot of evidence of adult black women inheriting slaves by being a partner of wealthy white slave owners. Others gained them as payment. I would make the point that for all we know that there could have been more social mobility in black freeman communities than Irish and one would hardly know.