The British Empire Thread

PDN · 14-02-2008 12:07pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You get one extreme Protestant like Paisley who is a Presbytarian minister and all "Proddies" are suddenly anti Catholic which simply isn't true. Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans etc are all very different.

Actually Paisley is a minister, member (and founder and much else) of the Free Presbyterian Church. He has not been a member of the Presbyterian Church for over 50 years.

I am not, and never have been, a Presbyterian (Free or otherwise), but I just wanted to keep us accurate.

Fratton Fred · 14-02-2008 12:12pm

PDN wrote: »

Actually Paisley is a minister, member (and founder and much else) of the Free Presbyterian Church. He has not been a member of the Presbyterian Church for over 50 years.

I am not, and never have been, a Presbyterian (Free or otherwise), but I just wanted to keep us accurate.

I stand corrected, thank you for pointing that out.

purple'n'gold · 14-02-2008 1:49pm

csk wrote: »

:D Dude are you serious?

I don't know what dude means, and of course I am serious. What part of my post is untrue?

Erin Go Brath · 14-02-2008 3:21pm

purplengold wrote: »

Fact: Ireland was part of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1922; Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom.
Fact: A disproportionate number of Irishmen did go off to fight for king and country.
Fact: if they had a problem with It they wouldn’t have joined up, there was no conscription.

I fail to see how the last one is a fact. You have to remember Ireland was a piss poor country in these days. People joined up largely out of economic necessity, certainly not out of any loyalty to the King. It's ludicrous to imply such a thing.

Fratton Fred · 14-02-2008 3:32pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I fail to see how the last one is a fact. You have to remember Ireland was a piss poor country in these days. People joined up largely out of economic necessity, certainly not out of any loyalty to the King. It's ludicrous to imply such a thing.

I would imagine 90% of people who joined up did so for the same reason they join up today, a sense of adventure, to see the world, to earn a few quid. Whilst it may not have been out of any great loyalty to the King, I think to say it was to put food in their families mouths is patronising in the extreme.

All accross europe young men were joining armies and inflicting wrongs on those their paymasters were trying to conquer, what makes you think the Irish young men were any different?

purple'n'gold · 14-02-2008 3:40pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I fail to see how the last one is a fact. You have to remember Ireland was a piss poor country in these days. People joined up largely out of economic necessity, certainly not out of any loyalty to the King. It's ludicrous to imply such a thing.

It is most certainly not ludicrous to imply such a thing. The young men who joined up could have emigrated to the united states if they so wanted to. They didn’t, they choose to join the military. And getting the fare to America would not have been an insurmountable problem. Very poor entire families were able to do that so I am sure a fit young man would have managed it.

brianthebard · 14-02-2008 4:04pm

csk wrote: »

Actually most of them did have a problem with it. Even the ones who joined the British Army. The above statement is pure lies on your part.

Are there figures that go with this claim? I know that Daniel O'Connell's family agreed with the Act of Union, and I'm sure they weren't alone. Do you really think that everyone in Ireland in 1800 enjoyed the 1798 rebellion?

McArmalite · 14-02-2008 4:08pm

The plank is still at it :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
" As for the IRA the defenders of Democarcy in spain - fighting the nazis all over the world..dont make me laugh - you are contradicting yourself now, if nobody knew about concentration camps until well into the war where does this fit in " Where did I say anything about " fighting the nazis all over the world ".

"it's was conviently brushed under the carpet by the 'allies' that 1/2 a million German socialists, trade unionists, etc were taken and thrown into concentration camps before the war to die ( such policy's were secretly very populiar with the ruling class of in many countries across Europe"
It was all part of demonising the German citizenry for the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi's. I'm not saying for a second that the Nazi's were just a tiny bunch of zealots, millions of Germans were invovled in one way or another in the Nazi death machine, but as I've pointed out - " I wonder if you, or indeed any one of us were present witnessing such events, would we have shouted stop ?? I'm sure the few who did found themselves been beaten to pulp and off to you know where. "

So you are saying the allies didnt know about the camps till well into the war now ? " - YES ya thick plank. Jayus, do you have a clue at all. In fact their was a recent documentary on the History channell where Jewish people pleaded with the britian and America to bomb the railways etc leading to Auschwitz, and the 'allies' didn't as tehy didn't consider them to be a high enough priority.

" As for Enniskillen, Birmingham, Warrington sure jasus lads tem brits blew themselves up - we have photos of Paisley with his hand on the plunger behind the wall in Enniskillen - Warrington sure we plated a bomb but we didnt mean for it to go off - and birmingham sure again we planted a bomb but we didnt think it would explode ! - who is posting rubbish now ? " Ah Gawd, but your just sooo funny, your a hoot, what a funny guy.....:rolleyes:. And then your the fella who goes on to state " the death rate in these camps had been reduced to acceptable levels ". Notice how our concerned humanitarian still calls them "camps" and not their proper title - concentration camps. But that's because the british perpetrated them in the Boer War. But that's always the way with the gross hypocrites who shout loudest in their condemnation of the 'baddie' IRA ( 1922- ). They ignore the crimes of britian, even make excuses for them - " acceptable levels " and then Bono style beat their chests about the IRA !!!!!!!!! " who is posting rubbish now ? ". Your posting hypocritical bollox pal.

" me wonders...and as for slavery the only people who bring it up are rabid british hating types who forget to mention the abolishment as well - the british i think dont dwell on it ." The british empire was the LARGEST slave trader of African slaves, it's a thread about The British Empire, ofcourse anyone is right to bring the subject of britain's invovlement in slavery - it's only apologists like you who don't want it mentioned.

as for the boer war - educate yourself with facts not biased opinions - towards the end of the war the death rate in these camps had been reduced to acceptable levels and indeed women and children were sent back to the boers and caused them no end of hassle as they had a guerilla war to fight - all because of the backlash caused by the conditions in the camps being discoverd back in the uk - the fawcett commission set up by the Gov was expected to toe the line and report that the camps were ok - but did the exact opposite - you also neglected to mention that the gov was kicke out of office in 1906 as a result of all the cover-ups and scandals
"...." educate yourself with facts not biased opinions....the death rate in these camps had been reduced to acceptable levels [/I]" Need I say anymore.

" also another thing nice about britain is its democracy - who ever voted for the IRA ? oh thats right, they use force to impose their will . ". Well what a load of complete, contradictory bollox. And since when did Ireland - or any colony for that matter, give britian a mandate to annex and occupy them ?? Well, done Einstein, well done. And indeed, does any clandestine, resistance army go around asking people " Will we have a revoulotion to get rid of our occupiers ". Plank. Not ofcourse the 'goodie' IRA ( 1961- 1921 ) used " force to impose their will ". Plank.

" Also the Americans and the British did smuggle nazis out aided some for various reasons - but who defeated the feckin murdering so and sos in the first place ?" . Mainly the Soviet Union.

" Most of the nazis were involved in rocket development or counter soviet involvment so they served a purpose " And that includes nazi thugs of the highest order. But since britian done it - that's excuseable for fellas like yourself, it always is excuseable for hypocrites like your self :rolleyes:

" Dont remember Ireland doing anything to help in the war effort - oh thats right we signed the book of condolenses - for Hitler, oh well every little helps " Dev and the govt. determined we stay out, I cann't see anything wrong with that. I don't see why some people have a guilt complex about it.* As for the condolenses, Dev was a stickler for protocol, as we were neutral it is customary for teh head of state to offer their condolenses. I reckon he could have forgot about it for the failed Austrian painter. But that was Dev, it's not like we were a fascist sympathiser or a state like Spain or something.

Ok plank, as I said above - gross hypocrites who shout loudest in their condemnation of the 'baddie' IRA ( 1922- ). They ignore the crimes of britian, even make excuses for them.

* ( Jayus, don't lets start an arguement over neutrality in WW2, it's been flogged to death before )

Fratton Fred · 14-02-2008 4:19pm

I wish you would take a leaf out of your fellow republican's book and not only learn to quote properly, but avoid the ranting.

It is much easier to take Erin Go Brath and CSK seriously because they don;t resort to personal insults and mindless ranting. I actually enjoy reading their point of view which, whilst quite often differing from mine, is generally well mannered and carefully constructed. Your posts are hardwork and not just because of the crap you write.

Erin Go Brath · 14-02-2008 4:23pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would imagine 90% of people who joined up did so for the same reason they join up today, a sense of adventure, to see the world, to earn a few quid. Whilst it may not have been out of any great loyalty to the King, I think to say it was to put food in their families mouths is patronising in the extreme.

All accross europe young men were joining armies and inflicting wrongs on those their paymasters were trying to conquer, what makes you think the Irish young men were any different?

I disagree. Theres loads of jobs around the country for young people today. Back then there was little jobs. If you had no job, no food, no prospects you'll quickly turn to things that previously you'd never consider. Just take this war in Iraq as an example. Who wants to go out and risk life and limb, when theres plenty of jobs going that you don't need to risk your life as part of your job, and can be with your family. Its well known that recruitment for such wars in America was centred in deprived, often african-american areas. Same as that the Irish were cannon-fodder for the Empire. Deliberately kept poor, so that they'd mostly do what needs must.

McArmalite · 14-02-2008 4:42pm

The plank is still at it :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
" As for the IRA the defenders of Democarcy in spain - fighting the nazis all over the world..dont make me laugh - you are contradicting yourself now, if nobody knew about concentration camps until well into the war where does this fit in " Where did I say anything about " fighting the nazis all over the world ".

"it's was conviently brushed under the carpet by the 'allies' that 1/2 a million German socialists, trade unionists, etc were taken and thrown into concentration camps before the war to die ( such policy's were secretly very populiar with the ruling class of in many countries across Europe"
It was all part of demonising the German citizenry for the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazi's. I'm not saying for a second that the Nazi's were just a tiny bunch of zealots, millions of Germans were invovled in one way or another in the Nazi death machine, but as I've pointed out - " I wonder if you, or indeed any one of us were present witnessing such events, would we have shouted stop ?? I'm sure the few who did found themselves been beaten to pulp and off to you know where. "

So you are saying the allies didnt know about the camps till well into the war now ? " - YES ya thick plank. Jayus, do you have a clue at all. In fact their was a recent documentary on the History channell where Jewish people pleaded with the britian and America to bomb the railways etc leading to Auschwitz, and the 'allies' didn't as tehy didn't consider them to be a high enough priority.

" As for Enniskillen, Birmingham, Warrington sure jasus lads tem brits blew themselves up - we have photos of Paisley with his hand on the plunger behind the wall in Enniskillen - Warrington sure we plated a bomb but we didnt mean for it to go off - and birmingham sure again we planted a bomb but we didnt think it would explode ! - who is posting rubbish now ? "

Ah Gawd, but your just sooo funny, your a hoot, what a funny guy.....:rolleyes:. And then your the fella who goes on to state " the death rate in these camps had been reduced to acceptable levels ". Notice how our concerned humanitarian still calls them "camps" and not their proper title - concentration camps. But that's because the british perpetrated them in the Boer War. But that's always the way with the gross hypocrites who shout loudest in their condemnation of the 'baddie' IRA ( 1922- ). They ignore the crimes of britian, even make excuses for them - " acceptable levels " and then Bono style beat their chests about the IRA !!!!!!!!! " who is posting rubbish now ? ". Your posting hypocritical crap pal.

" me wonders...and as for slavery the only people who bring it up are rabid british hating types who forget to mention the abolishment as well - the british i think dont dwell on it ." The british empire was the LARGEST slave trader of African slaves, it's a thread about The British Empire, ofcourse anyone is right to bring the subject of britain's invovlement in slavery - it's only apologists like you who don't want it mentioned.

"as for the boer war - educate yourself with facts not biased opinions - towards the end of the war the death rate in these camps had been reduced to acceptable levels and indeed women and children were sent back to the boers and caused them no end of hassle as they had a guerilla war to fight - all because of the backlash caused by the conditions in the camps being discoverd back in the uk - the fawcett commission set up by the Gov was expected to toe the line and report that the camps were ok - but did the exact opposite - you also neglected to mention that the gov was kicke out of office in 1906 as a result of all the cover-ups and scandals " Very commendable the reaction of the british public was on hearing of the suffering and death of the Boer population, it was not " the backlash lead directly to the end of the war. " as you previously stated. The Boer war did not end something like the Vietnam war i.e. the Americans having to pull out hoping the puppet regime would hold out, it's not like the Boer army had Johannesburg surrounded and the last british soldiers rushing to a ship or something, as stated - It was the Boer men "who clamoured for the war to be stopped", it was they who accepted the terms dictated by britain, it was the boers who laid down their arms, not the british ya plank. And as for not mentioning the 1906 election, where commendably the british people kicked the govt. out of office due to it's policies in the Boer war, well, sorry about that, I suppose I should also have posted the proportion of seats, the number of votes, which Tory's failed to regain their seats etc, etc. Sorry for forgetting to post all the relevant information.

" also another thing nice about britain is its democracy - who ever voted for the IRA ? oh thats right, they use force to impose their will . ". Well what a load of complete, contradictory bollox. And since when did Ireland - or any colony for that matter, give britian a mandate to annex and occupy them ?? Well, done Einstein, well done. And indeed, does any clandestine, resistance army go around asking people " Will we have a revoulotion to get rid of our occupiers ". Not that ofcourse the 'goodie' IRA ( 1961- 1921 ) used " force to impose their will ".

" Also the Americans and the British did smuggle nazis out aided some for various reasons - but who defeated the feckin murdering so and sos in the first place ?" . Mainly the Soviet Union.

" Most of the nazis were involved in rocket development or counter soviet involvment so they served a purpose " And that includes nazi thugs of the highest order. For the IRA to accept arms from Germany before the knowledge of the concentration camps is inexcuseable, for britian to accept nazi criminals with the knowledge of the concentration camps is excuseable :rolleyes:

" Dont remember Ireland doing anything to help in the war effort - oh thats right we signed the book of condolenses - for Hitler, oh well every little helps " Dev and the govt. determined we stay out, I cann't see anything wrong with that. I don't see why some people have a guilt complex about it.* As for the condolenses, Dev was a stickler for protocol, as we were neutral it is customary for teh head of state to offer their condolenses. I reckon he could have forgot about it for the failed Austrian painter. But that was Dev, it's not like we were a fascist sympathiser or a state like Spain or something.

Ok plank, as I said above - gross hypocrites who shout loudest in their condemnation of the 'baddie' IRA ( 1922- ). They ignore the crimes of britian, even make excuses for them.

* ( Jayus, don't lets start an arguement over neutrality in WW2, it's been flogged to death before )

McArmalite · 14-02-2008 4:49pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wish you would take a leaf out of your fellow republican's book and not only learn to quote properly, but avoid the ranting.

It is much easier to take Erin Go Brath and CSK seriously because they don;t resort to personal insults and mindless ranting. I actually enjoy reading their point of view which, whilst quite often differing from mine, is generally well mannered and carefully constructed. Your posts are hardwork and not just because of the crap you write.

Oh Gawd, I'm so worried :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred · 14-02-2008 4:51pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I disagree. Theres loads of jobs around the country for young people today. Back then there was little jobs. If you had no job, no food, no prospects you'll quickly turn to things that previously you'd never consider. Just take this war in Iraq as an example. Who wants to go out and risk life and limb, when theres plenty of jobs going that you don't need to risk your life as part of your job, and can be with your family. Its well known that recruitment for such wars in America was centred in deprived, often african-american areas. Same as that the Irish were cannon-fodder for the Empire. Deliberately kept poor, so that they'd mostly do what needs must.

What makes the Irish so special? the poor were kept poor to serve the wealthy, if that was cannon fodder then all well and good. It had nothing to do with the fact they were Irish. That sort of thinking is just the republican's spinning a social economic situation into a national one.

ejmaztec · 14-02-2008 5:33pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I disagree. Theres loads of jobs around the country for young people today. Back then there was little jobs. If you had no job, no food, no prospects you'll quickly turn to things that previously you'd never consider. Just take this war in Iraq as an example. Who wants to go out and risk life and limb, when theres plenty of jobs going that you don't need to risk your life as part of your job, and can be with your family. Its well known that recruitment for such wars in America was centred in deprived, often african-american areas. Same as that the Irish were cannon-fodder for the Empire. Deliberately kept poor, so that they'd mostly do what needs must.

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of poor illiterate peasants from England, Scotland and Wales who joined up for the same reason. I don't think the vast majority of them saw it as an adventure and a chance to travel. They were also controlled in the same way as they were back at home, by the high-ranking uniformed relatives of the landlords who had been working them to death in the fields. The more the Empire expanded, the more peasants there were available to do the dirty work. It was easy to brainwash the uneducated.

As you pointed out, vulnerable people in the US are even now being coerced into joining up to fight in Iraq.

csk · 14-02-2008 5:39pm

purplengold wrote: »

I don't know what dude means, and of course I am serious. What part of my post is untrue?

dude /dud, dyud/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dood, dyood] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, dud·ed, dud·ing.
–noun
1. a man excessively concerned with his clothes, grooming, and manners.
2. Slang. fellow; chap.
3. a person reared in a large city.
4. Western U.S. an urban Easterner who vacations on a ranch.
—Verb phrase
5. dude up, Informal. to dress in one's fanciest, best, or most stylish clothes; dress up: He got all duded up to go to the dance.

dictionary.com Glad I can be of help, dude.

csk · 14-02-2008 5:42pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I wish you would take a leaf out of your fellow republican's book and not only learn to quote properly, but avoid the ranting.

It is much easier to take Erin Go Brath and CSK seriously because they don;t resort to personal insults and mindless ranting. I actually enjoy reading their point of view which, whilst quite often differing from mine, is generally well mannered and carefully constructed. Your posts are hardwork and not just because of the crap you write.

I am not a "fellow republican" of McArmalite or indeed Erin Go brath. I wonder given your other posts who is exactly spinning? Is that to be the level of your argument? Lies and spin?

Fratton Fred · 14-02-2008 6:25pm

csk wrote: »

I am not a "fellow republican" of McArmalite or indeed Erin Go brath. I wonder given your other posts who is exactly spinning? Is that to be the level of your argument? Lies and spin?

apologies for making an eroneous assumption:D

I'm not spinning, I'm merely putting my perspective forward for the purpose of discussion.

csk · 14-02-2008 6:41pm

brianthebard wrote: »

Are there figures that go with this claim? I know that Daniel O'Connell's family agreed with the Act of Union, and I'm sure they weren't alone. Do you really think that everyone in Ireland in 1800 enjoyed the 1798 rebellion?

Of course I do think that everyone in Ireland enjoyed the 1798 Rebellion. All the blood and mayhem, the chaos and the fighting, not to mention the glorious killing. What's not to enjoy? Shurely it goes without saying that everyone was lovin' it? Shure all that killing comes naturally to the Irish. If they weren't killing the British; they were killing for the British. And what's more they were lovin' it.

Shure Fighting was our national sport before them pesky republican's came along and invented Gaa and hynotised us with their fake history. Shure if you don't believe the Irish didn't like killingl(and consequently wouldn't enjoy 1798 Rebellion) why do you think they joined up in droves to the British Army. As Paddy O'Boggeragh put it in a letter home to his mother from a far flung African Colony, "I'm lovin' it".

Wolff · 14-02-2008 6:42pm

Ignoring McArmalites ravings for a second and getting back to the thread

He seems to think im an Pro UK for some strange reason but his comments are childish to say the least

Since the IRA ceasefire / surrender - Sinn Fein have been knuckling down to work as part of the Empire - how does he feel about that..

I personally dont care a toss about the north - as I think a lot of southern irish people feel as well - its an interesting area the complete apathy I and most of the people I know feel towards the six counties.

I certainly dont want them back - the Brits are welcome to them

I hope they remain part of the empire for a long time to come

The thread started off by asking did the British Empire benefit a lot of the counteries it governed - and the simple answer is yes it did.

Did it terrorise and enslave and murder and destroy - again the answer is yes but when taken in context of the time they were simply follwoing the trend at the time.

As with everything - the victor gets to write the history book not the vanquished and this is what really stick in a lot of Republicans throats

I really love the oul chesnut of the concentration camps though this one is always dragged out to prove how callous the british were

But the truth is it worked - sure the conditions were appalling and women and children died - but they died from neglect and bad administration - they were not murdered as part of offical policy.

The germans had concentration camps too - and again many died from neglect and bad administration especially towards the end of the war - but they also died from brutality and from being worked and starved to death - also from medical and other experiments being carried out - and these were only the concetration camps. Already a big difference from the ones in the boer war

Then we had the extermination camps where the whole purpose was the mass murder of people - so these camps were set up directly from a conserted policy formulated by the government of germany to murder people

The Boer camps were not - they were badly run neglected interment camps

csk · 14-02-2008 6:44pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

apologies for making an eroneous assumption:D

I'm not spinning, I'm merely putting my perspective forward for the purpose of discussion.

To be sure, to be sure, dude. Pray tell, what perspective would that be?

csk · 14-02-2008 6:47pm

Wolff wrote: »

Ignoring McArmalites ravings for a second and getting back to the thread

He seems to think im an Pro UK for some strange reason but his comments are childish to say the least

Since the IRA ceasefire / surrender - Sinn Fein have been knuckling down to work as part of the Empire - how does he feel about that..

I personally dont care a toss about the north - as I think a lot of southern irish people feel as well - its an interesting area the complete apathy I and most of the people I know feel towards the six counties.

I certainly dont want them back - the Brits are welcome to them

I hope they remain part of the empire for a long time to come

The thread started off by asking did the British Empire benefit a lot of the counteries it governed - and the simple answer is yes it did.

Did it terrorise and enslave and murder and destroy - again the answer is yes but when taken in context of the time they were simply follwoing the trend at the time.

As with everything - the victor gets to write the history book not the vanquished and this is what really stick in a lot of Republicans throats

I really love the oul chesnut of the concentration camps though this one is always dragged out to prove how callous the british were

But the truth is it worked - sure the conditions were appalling and women and children died - but they died from neglect and bad administration - they were not murdered as part of offical policy.

The germans had concentration camps too - and again many died from neglect and bad administration especially towards the end of the war - but they also died from brutality and from being worked and starved to death - also from medical and other experiments being carried out - and these were only the concetration camps. Already a big difference from the ones in the boer war

Then we had the extermination camps where the whole purpose was the mass murder of people - so these camps were set up directly from a conserted policy formulated by the government of germany to murder people

The Boer camps were not - they were badly run neglected interment camps

Dude; the British Empire ceased to exist a long time ago. You might want to edit your post. It lends credence to Macarmalite rantings.:)

PHB · 14-02-2008 7:05pm

McArmalite banned for a week for personal insults.

PDN · 14-02-2008 8:58pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of poor illiterate peasants from England, Scotland and Wales who joined up for the same reason. I don't think the vast majority of them saw it as an adventure and a chance to travel. They were also controlled in the same way as they were back at home, by the high-ranking uniformed relatives of the landlords who had been working them to death in the fields. The more the Empire expanded, the more peasants there were available to do the dirty work. It was easy to brainwash the uneducated.

As you pointed out, vulnerable people in the US are even now being coerced into joining up to fight in Iraq.

No, that is not acceptable on this board. How dare you suggest that the working classes have suffered at the hands of the landed gentry in other countries?

Don't you understand that debates here operate on the premise that no-one has suffered as much as the Irish, and that the actions of the British are so evil that they cannot bear comparison with any other nation? Anyone who suggests otherwise is a West Brit or a closet unionist.

csk · 14-02-2008 9:14pm

PDN wrote: »

No, that is not acceptable on this board. How dare you suggest that the working classes have suffered at the hands of the landed gentry in other countries?

Don't you understand that debates here operate on the premise that no-one has suffered as much as the Irish, and that the actions of the British are so evil that they cannot bear comparison with any other nation? Anyone who suggests otherwise is a West Brit or a closet unionist.

Do you believe that marxism is a viable theory then?

ejmaztec · 14-02-2008 9:18pm

PDN wrote: »

No, that is not acceptable on this board. How dare you suggest that the working classes have suffered at the hands of the landed gentry in other countries?

Don't you understand that debates here operate on the premise that no-one has suffered as much as the Irish, and that the actions of the British are so evil that they cannot bear comparison with any other nation? Anyone who suggests otherwise is a West Brit or a closet unionist.

Okay, you caught me telling porkies. There were no poor people in England, Scotland or Wales and still aren't. All of the homelesss were and are members of the Campers Club.:o

ejmaztec · 14-02-2008 9:20pm

csk wrote: »

Do you believe that marxism is a viable theory then?

Karl did his best works in England.

csk · 14-02-2008 9:28pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

Karl did his best works in England.

and your point is...

ejmaztec · 14-02-2008 9:45pm

csk wrote: »

and your point is...

What better place would there be for a socialist theorist to find inspiration, than a society full of uneducated peasants being led by the nose by their oppressive and exploitative masters.

csk · 14-02-2008 10:07pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

What better place would there be for a socialist theorist to find inspiration, than a society full of uneducated peasants being led by the nose by their oppressive and exploitative masters.

Of course such rhetoric is purely ironic I take it? and ultimately you have no point let alone any wish to debate anything that doesn't confirm to your own prejudiced cliche?

ejmaztec · 14-02-2008 11:30pm

csk wrote: »

Of course such rhetoric is purely ironic I take it? and ultimately you have no point let alone any wish to debate anything that doesn't confirm to your own prejudiced cliche?

Are you responding to my post, or someone else's? I can see no connection between my post and your reply.

Fratton Fred · 14-02-2008 11:42pm

csk wrote: »

To be sure, to be sure, dude. Pray tell, what perspective would that be?

That the British Empire was no worse than any other empire, in fact, it was a lot better than some.

I'll also argue the Irish were no more down trodden or victimised than any other part of the empire, in fact, Ireland benefitted in more ways than most especially the "Pale".

kreuzberger · 14-02-2008 11:49pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Well we're hardly going to jump up and down about the fact. Enough people in this country have been hoodwinked by the media, and UK propagandists (Take a bow Fred, you've done your bit) about Britains atrocities in Ireland. I think its important people realise the truth about these monsters who let over a million of our people die during The Great Famine, amongst the countless other atrocities commited throughout the years.

I think it would be more correct to say caused over a million of our people to die during a potato blight . There was no shortage of food in this country , therefore no famine great or otherwise. The vast majority of the country was preoccupied with agriculture save for the few counties of the north east were Britian had sited its industrial base on the island . Landlords continued to make an absolute fortune from agriculture during that period , therefore there was definitely no famine in the country .

csk · 14-02-2008 11:51pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That the British Empire was no worse than any other empire, in fact, it was a lot better than some.

I'll also argue the Irish were no more down trodden or victimised than any other part of the empire, in fact, Ireland benefitted in more ways than most especially the "Pale".

So what would that make you? If according to your logic I'm a republican?

Fratton Fred · 15-02-2008 12:02am

csk wrote: »

So what would that make you? If according to your logic I'm a republican?

No idea.

certainly not a unionist, I am all for people determining their own future and I believe that ultimately Britain will break up. However, people forget how successful the British Empire was at being an Empire and this was only achieved because all four countries that made up the UK were good together.

Times change and Empires are a thing of the past, as Britain breaks up so the finger of blame gets pointed steadily towards England, but the Scots, Irish and Welsh were out there reaping the rewards every bit as much as the English.

Fratton Fred · 15-02-2008 12:04am

kreuzberger wrote: »

I think it would be more correct to say caused over a million of our people to die during a potato blight . There was no shortage of food in this country , therefore no famine great or otherwise. The vast majority of the country was preoccupied with agriculture save for the few counties of the north east were Britian had sited its industrial base on the island . Landlords continued to make an absolute fortune from agriculture during that period , therefore there was definitely no famine in the country .

so Landlords making a fortune during the famine is the fault of the British, not the landlords?

I heard that production of uinness increased durng the famine years, is Guinness another instrument of British oppression, or just another wealthy family crapping on the poor?

csk · 15-02-2008 12:32am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No idea.

certainly not a unionist, I am all for people determining their own future and I believe that ultimately Britain will break up. However, people forget how successful the British Empire was at being an Empire and this was only achieved because all four countries that made up the UK were good together.

Actually most people don't forget anything of the sort. In fact the very reason people bring up the British Empire is, I would imagine, because it was , as you put it such a "success". Most people, however, would not see the British Empire as a "success" in fact the very opposite.

Times change and Empires are a thing of the past, as Britain breaks up so the finger of blame gets pointed steadily towards England, but the Scots, Irish and Welsh were out there reaping the rewards every bit as much as the English.

But those most responsible(perhaps to use your words) those to blame for the Empire saw it as quintessentially "English" they would have been abhorred at the idea that the Irish were getting "credit" for their "success".

The rewards for the Irish seem to be scarce from what I can see. Death, emigration or joining the British Army (to get killed in the backarse of nowhere).Hardly what anyone would regard as rewards.

kreuzberger · 15-02-2008 12:35am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so Landlords making a fortune during the famine is the fault of the British, not the landlords?

I heard that production of uinness increased durng the famine years, is Guinness another instrument of British oppression, or just another wealthy family crapping on the poor?

The British system was geared towards to the landlords who were the political elite of the period . You cannot seperate British rule from the landlords or the landlords from the system of British rule . They were one in the same thing . The poor in Ireland were the Irish , making up the vast base of the population . A french traveller to the country recorded in his diaries that all nations have paupers but untill hed been in Ireland hed never actually witnessed an entire nation of paupers . The rich in Ireland were the British establishment and a smaller contingent of castle catholics with aspirations to be part of the British establishment . If the rich crapped on the poor it was the British crapping on the Irish , simple as .
The guinness family were always very much part of the British establishment in Ireland. Their beer tastes like liquidized snot and for the life of me I cant understand why people drink it .
Guinness production did indeed increase , as did the whiskey distillery industry which made vast profits . This distillation required wheat , barley , hops , grain - no shortage of it whatsoever , therefore no famine .

Fratton Fred · 15-02-2008 2:55pm

kreuzberger wrote: »

Their beer tastes like liquidized snot and for the life of me I cant understand why people drink it .
Guinness production did indeed increase , as did the whiskey distillery industry which made vast profits . This distillation required wheat , barley , hops , grain - no shortage of it whatsoever , therefore no famine .

You must surely be a west brit to have such strong views about Guinness:D

the breweries and distillaries also provided jobs to people, as did the landlords who presumably employed people to harvest all these crops being exported. The theory behing the Laissez Faire policy was that by keeping free trade going, it would create employment, wealth and people could afford to feed their families.

It obviously didn;t work, because like most theories, it depends on people playing fair which the Landlords obviously didn't do.

It's one of the arguements with Africa at the moment, European farmers are being paid subsidies which allow european crops to be sold at a loss, this prevents cheap imports from Africa entering the european market, so African farmers can't sell their crops, can't feed their families and therefore end up receiving charity from the same europeans who are preventing them earning a living.

Erin Go Brath · 15-02-2008 3:10pm

kreuzberger wrote: »

I think it would be more correct to say caused over a million of our people to die during a potato blight . There was no shortage of food in this country , therefore no famine great or otherwise. The vast majority of the country was preoccupied with agriculture save for the few counties of the north east were Britian had sited its industrial base on the island . Landlords continued to make an absolute fortune from agriculture during that period , therefore there was definitely no famine in the country .

Right you are kb! Be careful now don't you know the glorious empire is sacrosanct around here. We don't want to upset the revisionist theories of the Brits and WBrits. Fred is telling us they weren't as bad as other empires. I guess by that logic, other empires would have succesfully completed a total genocide of the Island. Oh how greatful we should be that such a kindly benevolent ruler controled our lands. :rolleyes:

Jack300 · 15-02-2008 3:54pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ireland was not a colony, the act of Union incorporated it into the UK. Many of your forefathers had no problem with that, in fact a disproportionate number went off to fight for King and Country all over the world.

This is not true. The social, economic and political reality experienced by Irish People in their day to day lives was colonial. This did not change with the passing of the Act of Union. All the Act of Union did was get rid of the Parliament in Dublin. The overwhelming majority of Irish people were excluded from that parliament anyway so it made little difference to them.

Also in Britain they continued to treat Ireland as a colony and continued to see Ireland and the Irish as the stereotypical “other”. Seeing the Irish as “other” also cut across class lines and was not just confined to the upper classes of British society. This attitude remained prevalent in British society(especially it’s political class) right up to and after the outbreak of the Troubles in the 1960’s. In fact the contradiction in this attitude of seeing Ireland at once the colonial “other” and supposed integral part of the British State was a contributing factor to the worsening of the Troubles.

As for the Irish people in the British Army, it is a standard motif of Imperial discourse to see war as glorious and adventurous. It is not surprising therefore to see adventure being trotted out here as the fundamental reason for Irish people joining the British Army.

eroo · 15-02-2008 4:00pm

This thread and in fact,this forum,is becoming ridiculous lads.Just look at the regular posters.Nearly EVERY thread in here is Sinn Feiner's vs Brit's!There is NO open discussion because the SF's wont have it.Any slight criticism of Irish history and they go off(btw,im a proud Irishman,proud of our freedom).Even worse is the fact that they cannot move on...even when everyone else either has or is currently trying to.Most threads now descend into ''oohh ye raped and pillaged our country for centuries''.This isn't an open forum discussing history,imo, because it is just the same crap,different thread...this one being the best example.Lads move on and ALLOW discussion please!I know I am not the only one who has stopped posting here because it is being dominated by Republican's vs British..

The only solution is for everyone to just re-examine the point of this forum..it wasn't created so we could kick and spit at the British/English etc..it was created to examine events and,hopefully like all discussions on history,come to an impartial unbiased conclusion!Obviously we all have views and opinions,but there seems to be an element here who don't respect that.

I'm not moderating or telling the mods how to do there job..merely bringing the issues to their attention..and to the users attention.These narrow-minded tit-for-tat arguments have been causing me concern for quite sometime and I just wanted to address it with you!I also personally believe that as a result of pontless bickering,many potential posters have been scared off!I love history so it is with great displeasure that I will not be posting in this forum again until this mindless/petty squabbling ends.

eroo

purple'n'gold · 15-02-2008 4:11pm

Jack300 wrote: »

This is not true. The social, economic and political reality experienced by Irish People in their day to day lives was colonial. This did not change with the passing of the Act of Union. All the Act of Union did was get rid of the Parliament in Dublin. The overwhelming majority of Irish people were excluded from that parliament anyway so it made little difference to them.

Also in Britain they continued to treat Ireland as a colony and continued to see Ireland and the Irish as the stereotypical “other”. Seeing the Irish as “other” also cut across class lines and was not just confined to the upper classes of British society. This attitude remained prevalent in British society(especially it’s political class) right up to and after the outbreak of the Troubles in the 1960’s. In fact the contradiction in this attitude of seeing Ireland at once the colonial “other” and supposed integral part of the British State was a contributing factor to the worsening of the Troubles.

As for the Irish people in the British Army, it is a standard motif of Imperial discourse to see war as glorious and adventurous. It is not surprising therefore to see adventure being trotted out here as the fundamental reason for Irish people joining the British Army.

Ireland was not a colony; it was part of the United Kingdom just as Northern Ireland still is to this day. And it would be ridiculous to describe Northern Ireland as a colony, by that definition Scotland and Wales are also colonies. It really doesn’t matter what you choose to believe or what spin you put on it. The fact is Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Get over it.

m1ke · 15-02-2008 4:14pm

A lot of political science research shows that former British colonies are much much more likely to be democratic than French, German, Portguese etc... (for reasons that I won't go into). So British political culture, values and institutions must have had some positive effect. Even in Ireland! Sure there were a lot of negative aspects to the British empire but it can claim to have done some good too.

My understanding of Ireland's role in the Empire was that we were officially part of the United Kingdom, with representation in Westminster. This was not the case for other colonies/countries. Ireland had a more active role than a lot of the posters on this thread acknowledge.

Jack300 · 15-02-2008 4:22pm

purplengold wrote: »

Ireland was not a colony; it was part of the United Kingdom just as Northern Ireland still is to this day. And it would be ridiculous to describe Northern Ireland as a colony, by that definition Scotland and Wales are also colonies. It really doesn’t matter what you choose to believe or what spin you put on it. The fact is Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Get over it.

Before the Act of Union was passed Ireland was a colony and ruled as such. The act of Union incorporated the island into the British State. It did not change the colonial attitudes that governed the relationship between the two islands. All it did was move Irish representation to Westminister, this in reality means little.

As I outlined the relationship between northern Ireland and the British mainland was complicated, however, the attitudes that governened that relationship remained essentially colonial. The British political elite includeing the Conservatives saw the Northern Irish State as not really British. As such they tended to ignore it. An example of this would be the fact that you could not raise issues related solely to Northern Ireland in Westminister because they had their own parliament.

However despite this it would not be right to see northern Ireland experience as purely colonial. There were complexities, however, to completley dismiss the colonial attitudes as you do is I would suggest is very stupid and completely politically motivated and not as another poster points out conducive to good debate.

Jack300 · 15-02-2008 4:27pm

m1ke wrote: »

A lot of political science research shows that former British colonies are much much more likely to be democratic than French, German, Portguese etc... (for reasons that I won't go into). So British political culture, values and institutions must have had some positive effect. Even in Ireland! Sure there were a lot of negative aspects to the British empire but it can claim to have done some good too.

This is a good point.

My understanding of Ireland's role in the Empire was that we were officially part of the United Kingdom, with representation in Westminster. This was not the case for other colonies/countries. Ireland had a more active role than a lot of the posters on this thread acknowledge.

However this is ahistorical and points to the contradiction I highlighted earlier. Officially Ireland was apart of the British State from 1800 however in relaity little changed and the Irish continued to be treated as colonial. If anything the Famine proves this.

AS for Irish people helping the empire of course this is true however, this is also complex. Some did so because they had a genuine affinity with Imperialism some did not. It is complicated.

Fratton Fred · 15-02-2008 4:32pm

Jack300 wrote: »

This is not true. The social, economic and political reality experienced by Irish People in their day to day lives was colonial. This did not change with the passing of the Act of Union. All the Act of Union did was get rid of the Parliament in Dublin. The overwhelming majority of Irish people were excluded from that parliament anyway so it made little difference to them.

Also in Britain they continued to treat Ireland as a colony and continued to see Ireland and the Irish as the stereotypical “other”. Seeing the Irish as “other” also cut across class lines and was not just confined to the upper classes of British society. This attitude remained prevalent in British society(especially it’s political class) right up to and after the outbreak of the Troubles in the 1960’s. In fact the contradiction in this attitude of seeing Ireland at once the colonial “other” and supposed integral part of the British State was a contributing factor to the worsening of the Troubles.

As for the Irish people in the British Army, it is a standard motif of Imperial discourse to see war as glorious and adventurous. It is not surprising therefore to see adventure being trotted out here as the fundamental reason for Irish people joining the British Army.

I guess it would be easy to consider the Irish as "Others" when pretty much every time Britain had an enemy, people from Ireland were siding with them.

I think at some point Irish "Rebels " have called on the help of Rome, France, Spain, Germany even Nazi Germany. The Irish have been carrying out terrorists attacks in England of one sort or another for most of the 20th Century, any wonder they were considered a seperate group?

Politically though, Ireland was not a colony, it was a troublesome part of the UK.

Jack300 · 15-02-2008 4:41pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess it would be easy to consider the Irish as "Others" when pretty much every time Britain had an enemy, people from Ireland were siding with them.

I think at some point Irish "Rebels " have called on the help of Rome, France, Spain, Germany even Nazi Germany. The Irish have been carrying out terrorists attacks in England of one sort or another for most of the 20th Century, any wonder they were considered a seperate group?

Politically though, Ireland was not a colony, it was a troublesome part of the UK.

But that is just playing up imperial sterotypes and is purely politically motivated.btw I don't care what you think, your prejudices are irrelevant to a discussion on history. I have to agree with the other poster eroo this forum is shocking.

purple'n'gold · 15-02-2008 5:27pm

Jack300 wrote: »

Before the Act of Union was passed Ireland was a colony and ruled as such. The act of Union incorporated the island into the British State. It did not change the colonial attitudes that governed the relationship between the two islands. All it did was move Irish representation to Westminister, this in reality means little.

As I outlined the relationship between northern Ireland and the British mainland was complicated, however, the attitudes that governened that relationship remained essentially colonial. The British political elite includeing the Conservatives saw the Northern Irish State as not really British. As such they tended to ignore it. An example of this would be the fact that you could not raise issues related solely to Northern Ireland in Westminister because they had their own parliament.

However despite this it would not be right to see northern Ireland experience as purely colonial. There were complexities, however, to completley dismiss the colonial attitudes as you do is I would suggest is very stupid and completely politically motivated and not as another poster points out conducive to good debate.

I am not dismissing colonial attitudes and I can assure you I am far from stupid. An attitude is far from being an historical fact. And the fact is after the act of union Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Or as you prefer to call it the “British state”. You seem to have a difficulty with the term united kingdom.

Fratton Fred · 15-02-2008 6:13pm

Jack300 wrote: »

But that is just playing up imperial sterotypes and is purely politically motivated.btw I don't care what you think, your prejudices are irrelevant to a discussion on history. I have to agree with the other poster eroo this forum is shocking.

If you don't care what i think, then don't quote me. If you don;t like the thread, ignore it. It's not difficult.

This thread was set up to allow the Brit bashers bash the British empire, but as usual it ends as a "Look what those nasty Brits did to us poor Irish" type thread.

Apologies if I appear to have prejudices, please help me by explaining what they are.

Fratton Fred · 15-02-2008 6:18pm

Jack300 wrote: »

AS for Irish people helping the empire of course this is true however, this is also complex. Some did so because they had a genuine affinity with Imperialism some did not. It is complicated.

Yes, this is complicated, but to say young Irishmen joined the army out of a need to feed their families is not true, that is my point. Young Irishmen would have, I am presuming, joined the British army for the same reason young men joined the army all over europe.

The British Empire Thread

Comments