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

Religious persecution in Ireland

124

Comments

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


    CDfm wrote: »
    Medieval king wakes up one morning and decides to take on the Pope 'cept it wasn't Henry it was Philop VI of France - kills a Pope and installs his own Pope Clement in Avignon and disolves the Knights Templars a very rich order of monastic knights who had a banking system and Phil being short of a few bob needed the cash.- that was all in the first decade of the 1300's .

    It was all about money -no matter how it was dressed up.

    http://www.medievaltimes.info/military-orders/knights-templar.html

    Henry was the same




    The system was called surrender and regrant



    The Church in Gaelic Ireland was not loyal to Rome.

    The Anglo Norman Church was ,so, the reformation in Ireland was an English construct based on what it created to collect in money for Rome.

    It had nothing to do with the Gaelic Irish Chierftains.

    The Diosecean system was also a way of conducting civil administration etc legitimacy heirs etc under Salic Law - primogeniture etc. It was also a way of establishing a foothold in the country.

    The catholic church in Gaelic Ireland had no such system , lands or authority.



    I disagree fred, because the English Diosecean system was central to their rule and claim on Ireland and I am from an Anglo Norman family.

    Being Irish was a sufficient motive or excuse.



    In Ireland ,being catholic was only significant if you were anglo/norman but being Irish was the deciding factor elsewhere.

    How could the British Crown grant land and estates to people without taking it from the Irish. Not possible .

    I'm posting from a phone, so quoting isn't as easy as I'd like.

    Ok, the spat with Rome was about money, or power, or politics. The point is that it certainly wasn't about some great theological disagreement.

    I'll respond to the rest at a later time, but I think we need to look closer at the nine years war and the flight of the Earls and the role that played.


  • #153
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    The class system treated only those with titles as equal. It didn't matter what your nationality, if you were poor you were there to be exploited.

    Hugh O'Neil (as one example) was treated as an equal.

    I'd question that. Shane O'Neill was laughed out of court due to his unruly appearance (cloak and Glib haircut) when before Elizabeth to plead against primogeniture amongst other policies.


  • #154
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    CDfm wrote: »
    Explain please.
    So the Catholic Church will claim authority over matters of worship and not over civil/political issues.

    The British involvement in Ireland owes itself and derives its legal authority from the Popes.

    So on what matters does/did catholic civil allegience differ from say Presbyterian or Methodist.

    http://www.ncccusa.org/faithandorder/authority.small.htm

    And historical examples would be great.
    I think the question was what did Catholics find more important to them and i put down Rome as you would think the Pope and their faith would be more important to them but perhaps not?


  • #155
    R.Dub.Fusilier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 588 ✭✭✭R.Dub.Fusilier


    owenc wrote: »
    A ya I do sunshine.. No history book will tell me what's wrong and what's right... Those history books are mot based on county Londonderry they are based on the whole of northern Ireland and as you should know was planted differently we are a unique experience.. The best history book is a local one only locals know what truly went on.. Also Irish catholic don't Gimmi that tripe I'm sick of this nonsense there's a such thing as conversions not every Protestant or Catholic is native you know.. Goodday bye

    maybe i am wrong about your views. i have just realised that its everybody else that is wrong and its you who is right. we bow to you and tug our forelocks.

    Catholics were never persecuited or starved or murdered or thrown off their own land. we just have to ask your 400 year old neighbours to find that out.


  • #156
    getz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    CDfm wrote: »
    +1

    I dont think in Ireland that you had an anti-semetic culture.The conditions were not there for it.

    The Limerick even was a local issue.
    must disagree with you there,jewish doctors found it impossible to get beds for their sick in catholic run hospitals,one member of the irish goverment who later became mayor of dublin twice,urged the republicans to burn down the shops of jewish money lenders in dublin,jewish refugee children were first refused asylum in ireland,yet wanted catholic war criminals were welcomed,on the earlier post that quakers were anti catholic is very strange although it is a protestant sect their worship stresses meditation and the freedom of all to take a active part in the service,they have no priests or ministers,and members consists of christians,muslims budists and hindo.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    getz wrote: »
    must disagree with you there,jewish doctors found it impossible to get beds for their sick in catholic run hospitals,one member of the irish goverment who later became mayor of dublin twice,urged the republicans to burn down the shops of jewish money lenders in dublin,jewish refugee children were first refused asylum in ireland,yet wanted catholic war criminals were welcomed,on the earlier post that quakers were anti catholic is very strange although it is a protestant sect their worship stresses meditation and the freedom of all to take a active part in the service,they have no priests or ministers,and members consists of christians,muslims budists and hindo.
    And we had the great Oliver Flanagan in the Dail.
    He used his maiden speech in the Dáil to urge the government to "rout the Jews out of this country":
    "How is it that we do not see any of these [Emergency Powers] Acts directed against the Jews, who crucified Our Saviour nineteen hundred years ago, and who are crucifying us every day in the week? How is it that we do not see them directed against the Masonic Order? How is it that the I.R.A. is considered an illegal organisation while the Masonic Order is not considered an illegal organisation? [...] There is one thing that Germany did, and that was to rout the Jews out of their country. Until we rout the Jews out of this country it does not matter a hair's breadth what orders you make. Where the bees are there is the honey, and where the Jews are there is the money.”


  • #158
    getz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    26 jan 2005,justice minister micheal mcdowell openly apoligized for irish wartime policy that was inspired by;a culture of muted antisemitism in ireland which discouraged immergration by europes shattered jews,he said at an official level the irish state was at best coldly polite,and behind closed doors antipathic hostile and unfeeling towards jews. oliver j flanigan in the dail,in 1943 said ;i doubt that very much they are human. j j walsh TD described jews as a gang of parasites. do i need to go on ?


  • #159
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    getz wrote: »
    26 jan 2005,justice minister micheal mcdowell openly apoligized for irish wartime policy that was inspired by;a culture of muted antisemitism in ireland which discouraged immergration by europes shattered jews,he said at an official level the irish state was at best coldly polite,and behind closed doors antipathic hostile and unfeeling towards jews. oliver j flanigan in the dail,in 1943 said ;i doubt that very much they are human. j j walsh TD described jews as a gang of parasites. do i need to go on ?

    anecdotaly, my dad will often speak about the hostility faced by some of dublins Jews. My his account it was mainly due to the Jewish moneylenders who would charge extorshonate rates of interest on what was an extremely poor populace. Of course many in inner city Dublin were employed by Jews who comparitively speaking had a tendency to offer favourable working conditions.

    Also, you have to laugh at a politician accusing Jews of being parasites.


  • #160
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    getz wrote: »
    must disagree with you there,jewish doctors found it impossible to get beds for their sick in catholic run hospitals,one member of the irish goverment who later became mayor of dublin twice,urged the republicans to burn down the shops of jewish money lenders in dublin,jewish refugee children were first refused asylum in ireland
    Some of this is actually true. Jewish refugees, not just refugee children were prohibited from disembarking onto Irish soil during the early 40s.
    Yes, there were movements seeking a prohibition on Jewish immigrants behind the corridors of government buildings also. 66 refugees were officially let in to the country despite what certain officials thought of their worth to the country.

    Nobody has researched better Ireland's treatment of its own and other Jews than Prof. Dermot Keogh. If you're interested in the subject, he has two books published in particular. One on the general subject of Jews in Ireland and the other, specifically about the Creagh pogrom/burnout and how far it spread.


  • #161
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    sensibleken wrote: »
    Also, you have to laugh at a politician accusing Jews of being parasites.
    Indeed. And there's heavy irony here...
    "Where the bees are there is the honey, and where the Jews are there is the money."
    What this moronic rhyme misses is that the honey is there because it's created by the bees, much like the wealth that Jewish entrepreneurs had was created by their own work and ingenuity.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    HellsAngel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭HellsAngel


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    The class system treated only those with titles as equal. It didn't matter what your nationality, if you were poor you were there to be exploited.

    Hugh O'Neil (as one example) was treated as an equal.
    Nationality did very much count when it came to persecution and mistreatment as we Irish are far too aware -

    5830199010_0401d21618_b.jpg


  • #163
    HellsAngel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭HellsAngel


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Some of this is actually true. Jewish refugees, not just refugee children were prohibited from disembarking onto Irish soil during the early 40s.
    Yes, there were movements seeking a prohibition on Jewish immigrants behind the corridors of government buildings also. 66 refugees were officially let in to the country despite what certain officials thought of their worth to the country.

    Nobody has researched better Ireland's treatment of its own and other Jews than Prof. Dermot Keogh. If you're interested in the subject, he has two books published in particular. One on the general subject of Jews in Ireland and the other, specifically about the Creagh pogrom/burnout and how far it spread.
    I don't think it was neccessarily Jewish immigrants who got hassle. For example some of the Germans who were POW's in the Curragh and who wanted to stay on in Ireland after the war got the same. Backwardness I'm afraid rather than institutionalised bigotry.


  • #164
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Being Irish wasn't a reason to persecute someone though.

    Even during the plantations the Irish that had demonstrated loyalty to the crown were allowed to keep their land. Even Irish Catholics.

    Well actually the record shows us something different. The issue was Irish culture, customs, law and language. And the Irish or Gaelic way of life was for centuries the target of the English authorities. This idea was there from the initial invasion in the twelfth century and didn't materialise with the Reformation. Ultimately what the Westminster Parliament and Crown wanted was to stamp out any sense of separateness, of Irish 'identity' and create in Ireland another loyal population that would faithfully serve the crown. Long before the Reformation they pursued this by outlawing any aspect of Irish culture that they thought would give a sense of separateness or national identity.

    If you trace the laws passed from the start you can see this - the most obvious of course are the Statutes of Kilkenny in 1366 which directly attacked and outlawed all aspects of the Irish way of life. This was some 200 years prior to the Reformation.

    It was all about power, control and money flowing to the crown.

    That's what the dissolution of the monasteries was about in Tudor times. Cromwell [Thomas not Oliver] showed Henry VIII the money that could be had from dissolving the monasteries in England and breaking with Rome. The break with Rome had a lot to do with revenue that would now flow to the Crown. Henry was always broke - and he needed a son. A perfect storm.

    As regards Hugh Ui Neill in the 1590s - his published "Articles Intended to be stood upon by Ui Neill/Tyrone" spelled out the cultural aspirations that he and the other Gaelic Lords held - the desire to remain Gaelic and Catholic and explained his reasons for going to war with the crown. Catholicism by then had got into the mix of separation - anglicism was seen as just another attempt at reigning in the Irish to an Anglo culture. Ui Neill and other Gaelic Lords of the Kinsale Battle openly expressed their hostility to being vassals of the crown. They went to war on that issue.


  • #165
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Some of this is actually true. Jewish refugees, not just refugee children were prohibited from disembarking onto Irish soil during the early 40s.
    Yes, there were movements seeking a prohibition on Jewish immigrants behind the corridors of government buildings also. 66 refugees were officially let in to the country despite what certain officials thought of their worth to the country.


    This has to be seen in its historic context. Hardly any nation did the Jews a favour prior to and during WWII. Even the United States - which probably has the best record on the Jewish experience and still is the strongest supporter of Israel refused many Jews entry during WWII. A good source for this is:

    David S. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945

    According to Wyman, who places all the allies in the same boat - says, "The United States and its Allies were willing to attempt almost nothing to save the Jews."

    The US for example admitted far fewer Jews than Switzerland during WWII and Britain did little in that regard also. From 1939 the British blockaded Palestine to fleeing Jews.

    The Evian Conference of 1938 did nothing for Jews under the Nazis. Both the US and Britain refused to increase their immigration quotas/policy as regard Jews. Ultimately the conference was a failure from the Jewish perspective. Ronnie Landau who wrote about the conference that it was "an exercise in Anglo-American collaborative hypocrisy".


  • #166
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    HellsAngel wrote: »
    I don't think it was neccessarily Jewish immigrants who got hassle. For example some of the Germans who were POW's in the Curragh and who wanted to stay on in Ireland after the war got the same. Backwardness I'm afraid rather than institutionalised bigotry.

    It was Jewish immigrants. They were not considered to be suitable to a Roman Catholic Ireland. Call it what you like but the minister who was quoted by historian Brian Girvin as saying this on party memos was not alone.
    Hence a paltry shameful number of refugees allowed in to the country.


  • #167
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    MarchDub wrote: »
    This has to be seen in its historic context. Hardly any nation did the Jews a favour prior to and during WWII. Even the United States - which probably has the best record on the Jewish experience and still is the strongest supporter of Israel refused many Jews entry during WWII. A good source for this is:

    David S. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945

    According to Wyman, who places all the allies in the same boat - says, "The United States and its Allies were willing to attempt almost nothing to save the Jews."

    The US for example admitted far fewer Jews than Switzerland during WWII and Britain did little in that regard also. From 1939 the British blockaded Palestine to fleeing Jews.

    The Evian Conference of 1938 did nothing for Jews under the Nazis. Both the US and Britain refused to increase their immigration quotas/policy as regard Jews. Ultimately the conference was a failure from the Jewish perspective. Ronnie Landau who wrote about the conference that it was "an exercise in Anglo-American collaborative hypocrisy".

    The above reads like a wikipedia chop-up. With the benefit of hindsight, its all very easy nowadays to pick something that happened before the war in Europe broke out to illustrate a point.
    For example, when the two German fronts were broken and the actual presence of Allied troops and personnel was possible on the camp system, for example, the refugee numbers increased and were permitted accordingly.
    The reason why the British govt restricted the number of Jews fleeing to the British Mandate in Palestine was not because of an apparent bigotry or antisemitism. It was because of the Jewish/Arab ratio in the region being in danger of an irreversible tilt.
    There is a substantial difference between that and the restriction of Jewish refugees to Ireland.

    More than an historical context required.


  • #168
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    JustinDee wrote: »
    its all very easy nowadays to pick something that happened before the war in Europe broke out to illustrate a point.
    For example, when the two German fronts were broken and the actual presence of Allied troops and personnel was possible on the camp system, for example, the refugee numbers increased and were permitted accordingly.
    The reason why the British govt restricted the number of Jews fleeing to the British Mandate in Palestine was not because of an apparent bigotry or antisemitism. It was because of the Jewish/Arab ratio in the region being in danger of an irreversible tilt.
    There is a substantial difference between that and the restriction of Jewish refugees to Ireland.

    More than an historical context required.

    I actually lived in the States for some years and a Jewish friend used to point out the inadequacies of the American response during that period in spite of the usual record that the US has. She had some relatives who were refused entry - or had go on a waiting list for visas- during the war and gave me a copy of the Wyman book for Christmas of all occasions!

    The British blockade is well known - you must realise that. I worked with a Jewish historian once who specialised in that period - and he blamed antisemitism on the decision. So it's not an uncommon response.

    BTW another interesting book just published is "The Colors of Zion, Blacks Jews and Irish 1845-1945 " by George Bornstein. I haven't yet read it but have read some of his papers on the same comparative subject.


    I do think that context is important.


  • #169
    paddyandy
    Site Banned Posts: 2,037 ✭✭✭paddyandy


    R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »
    it was hardly a "pogrom" , it was a boycott of Jewish businesses and very little , if any , violence was used.

    Was it not a very serious matter that they were driven from their homes and likelihoods and did they not fear that bloodshed was imminent.You treat the matter very lightly.They were very vulnerable and it's a story that will forever come back to haunt us.The Catholic Church which i was brought up in has a lot of guilt and a lot of blood on it's hands and there are many stories around the world with similar marks.The fILM INDUSTRY will have loads of material to draw from.The Present Pope has some answering to do.


  • #170
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    I think the question was what did Catholics find more important to them and i put down Rome as you would think the Pope and their faith would be more important to them but perhaps not?

    But it wasn't -the Home Rule/Rome Rule was a relatively modern concept as post famine emigration and education went hand in hand.

    Shane O'Neill could have taught Henry VIII a thing or two about disolving marriages and ignoring the roman catholic church.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71405982

    I would really like to know the history of presbyterians ,quakers, methodists and other non-conformist churches in Ireland during the penal laws and pre disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1871.

    http://dublin.anglican.org/dioceses/a_brief_history_disestablishment_1871__modern_times.php

    A bit off topic here

    Did Northern Irish protestants look more to Scotland or England , what was their famine and emigration experience , education. etc .

    And did the experience of the different denomination's differ. Who were their leaders.

    The rebellions in Ireland had been led by members of the Ascendency but these guys were not from the ascendency.


  • #171
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    HellsAngel wrote: »
    Nationality did very much count when it came to persecution and mistreatment as we Irish are far too aware -

    5830199010_0401d21618_b.jpg

    People get ridiculed on here for using Wikipedia to prove their point, so using a 19th century version of the news of the world isn't exactly a great idea.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Well actually the record shows us something different. The issue was Irish culture, customs, law and language. And the Irish or Gaelic way of life was for centuries the target of the English authorities. This idea was there from the initial invasion in the twelfth century and didn't materialise with the Reformation. Ultimately what the Westminster Parliament and Crown wanted was to stamp out any sense of separateness, of Irish 'identity' and create in Ireland another loyal population that would faithfully serve the crown. Long before the Reformation they pursued this by outlawing any aspect of Irish culture that they thought would give a sense of separateness or national identity.

    If you trace the laws passed from the start you can see this - the most obvious of course are the Statutes of Kilkenny in 1366 which directly attacked and outlawed all aspects of the Irish way of life. This was some 200 years prior to the Reformation.

    It was all about power, control and money flowing to the crown.

    That's what the dissolution of the monasteries was about in Tudor times. Cromwell [Thomas not Oliver] showed Henry VIII the money that could be had from dissolving the monasteries in England and breaking with Rome. The break with Rome had a lot to do with revenue that would now flow to the Crown. Henry was always broke - and he needed a son. A perfect storm.

    As regards Hugh Ui Neill in the 1590s - his published "Articles Intended to be stood upon by Ui Neill/Tyrone" spelled out the cultural aspirations that he and the other Gaelic Lords held - the desire to remain Gaelic and Catholic and explained his reasons for going to war with the crown. Catholicism by then had got into the mix of separation - anglicism was seen as just another attempt at reigning in the Irish to an Anglo culture. Ui Neill and other Gaelic Lords of the Kinsale Battle openly expressed their hostility to being vassals of the crown. They went to war on that issue.

    history shows us that conquering or colonising nations enforce their laws, religions and language on people. The french, Spanish and Portuguese did the same. Brian Boru did the same thing in Scotland. It was all part of the colonising process. I wonder if people in Brazil moor around beginning the fact they were forced to speak Portuguese and convert to catholicism?

    Putting it down to being persecuted for simply being Irish just smacks of self pity tbh.


  • #173
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    People get ridiculed on here for using Wikipedia to prove their point, so using a 19th century version of the news of the world isn't exactly a great idea.

    A picture tells a thousand words


  • #174
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    history shows us that conquering or colonising nations enforce their laws, religions and language on people. The french, Spanish and Portuguese did the same. Brian Boru did the same thing in Scotland. It was all part of the colonising process. I wonder if people in Brazil moor around beginning the fact they were forced to speak Portuguese and convert to catholicism?

    Putting it down to being persecuted for simply being Irish just smacks of self pity tbh.


    I agree that all the European imperialist countries did similar. No doubt about that. You forgot the Belgiums of 'poor little' WWI fame - what a shower they were in Africa.

    As for "self pity' I disagree entirely on that point and it reads as a way of trying to silence historic fact - not saying from you but generally when it is used. We are taking about history here and the record shows what it shows and there is no shame in referring to that. I showed the record of laws passed to eradicate the Irish culture. This happened.

    The Irish nor anyone else have to find excuses for their own history or be cowed by some charge of "self pity".

    [BRIAN BORU in SCOTLAND ?? What are you talking about?]


  • #175
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    People get ridiculed on here for using Wikipedia to prove their point, so using a 19th century version of the news of the world isn't exactly a great idea.

    Do you think that a recent issue of News of the World would give the historian in 200 years time a useful insight into the prejudices, attitudes and preoccupations of present-day Britain?


  • #176
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    People get ridiculed on here for using Wikipedia to prove their point, so using a 19th century version of the news of the world isn't exactly a great idea.


    Not meaning to pick on you but this type of caricature was fairly mainstream in the British press in the nineteenth century. You should read "Apes and Angels" by L Perry Curtis for the full story of how the Irish were depicted with simian features. The magazine Punch was full of offensive ape-like Irish and so also were 'history' books written for a British readership.


  • #177
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I actually lived in the States for some years and a Jewish friend used to point out the inadequacies of the American response during that period in spite of the usual record that the US has. She had some relatives who were refused entry - or had go on a waiting list for visas- during the war and gave me a copy of the Wyman book for Christmas of all occasions!

    The British blockade is well known - you must realise that. I worked with a Jewish historian once who specialised in that period - and he blamed antisemitism on the decision. So it's not an uncommon response.

    BTW another interesting book just published is "The Colors of Zion, Blacks Jews and Irish 1845-1945 " by George Bornstein. I haven't yet read it but have read some of his papers on the same comparative subject.


    I do think that context is important.
    Like your buddy, I too have an opinion on why the blockade on British Mandate Palestine took place. Its different to what he/she opines. Sånn er livet.

    Edit: Changed mind on divulging my family's story on this internet forum.


  • #178
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    People get ridiculed on here for using Wikipedia to prove their point, so using a 19th century version of the news of the world isn't exactly a great idea.
    One is edited at will by any old duffer in the general public. The other is an example of petty stereotyping on an entire demograph. There's a difference, I would say.


  • #179
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Do you think that a recent issue of News of the World would give the historian in 200 years time a useful insight into the prejudices, attitudes and preoccupations of present-day Britain?

    I hope not.

    If a historian opened boards.ie in 200 years would they be right in thinking Ireland is vehemently anti Nigerian?


  • #180
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    JustinDee wrote: »
    Like your buddy, I too have an opinion on why the blockade on British Mandate Palestine took place. Its different to what he/she opines. Sånn er livet.
    .


    Why not start a thread on the history of the Jewish experience worldwide? I've been thinking about this for awhile and think it would very much add to the knowledge of why Israel is central to all that. I've sort of side studied the issue myself over the years - I am of the generation who actually knew holocaust survivors and attended their lectures any time I had the chance. But I would welcome someone with the background to begin a discussion.

    Edit: I edited out your personal stuff from the quote as I see you had deleted it.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I hope not.

    If a historian opened boards.ie in 200 years would they be right in thinking Ireland is vehemently anti Nigerian?
    That's a disingenous reply IMO. Print publications are an excellent primary source as we all know. You can afford to be wrong once in a while, you know.


  • #182
    HellsAngel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭HellsAngel


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Putting it down to being persecuted for simply being Irish just smacks of self pity tbh.
    Don't feed :pac: Next he'll be on with " What about little Johnathon Ball......What about Uncle Mountbatten.......What about Birmingham " etc, etc :pac:


  • #183
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    HellsAngel wrote: »
    Don't feed :pac: Next he'll be on with " What about little Johnathon Ball......What about Uncle Mountbatten.......What about Birmingham " etc, etc :pac:

    Come on folks, quoted post (or similar) is only going to result in an off topic row- If you think there is a problem with a post you have 2 options,
    1- point out the flaws in said post (using sources if possible) thus disproving/ discrediting it, or
    2- report it.

    If there is anything not clear in this PM me.


  • #184
    HellsAngel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭HellsAngel


    JustinDee wrote: »
    It was Jewish immigrants. They were not considered to be suitable to a Roman Catholic Ireland. Call it what you like but the minister who was quoted by historian Brian Girvin as saying this on party memos was not alone.
    Hence a paltry shameful number of refugees allowed in to the country.
    German POWS, including Catholics, also got hassle and refusal to stay in Ireland after WW2, it was on a program on TG4. To try and make out that those of the Jewish religion were singled out by the backwardness of the time is nonsense. I'm sure if say, Bosnian Muslims or Serbian Orthodox refugees had tried to enter the country the same ignorance would have unfortunately prevailed.


  • #185
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Has it not been suggested somewhere that Paddy Mayne was passed over for a VC and leadership of the SAS for being Irish.

    I read it somewhere.

    Anyway , an article on a campaign to rehabilitate him from the Times

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article6908948.ece

    Some incidents (such as one involving Richard Dimbleby have been proven to be false)

    http://www.sasspecialairservice.com/paddy-mayne.html


  • #186
    R.Dub.Fusilier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 588 ✭✭✭R.Dub.Fusilier


    CDfm wrote: »
    Has it not been suggested somewhere that Paddy Mayne was passed over for a VC and leadership of the SAS for being Irish.

    I read it somewhere.

    in this case i don't think it was because he was Irish. but it is believed that Fr Willie Doyle , who was killed in WW1 ,was passed over for a VC because he was a Jesuit.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »
    in this case i don't think it was because he was Irish. but it is believed that Fr Willie Doyle , who was killed in WW1 ,was passed over for a VC because he was a Jesuit.

    A jesuit wouldn't need the validation :D

    Any more detail on William Doyle or Mayne who was the real deal.


  • #188
    HellsAngel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭HellsAngel


    CDfm wrote: »
    Has it not been suggested somewhere that Paddy Mayne was passed over for a VC and leadership of the SAS for being Irish.

    I read it somewhere.

    Anyway , an article on a campaign to rehabilitate him from the Times

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article6908948.ece

    Some incidents (such as one involving Richard Dimbleby have been proven to be false)

    http://www.sasspecialairservice.com/paddy-mayne.html
    Paddy Mayne is said to have been passed over for a VC etc for punching a senior officer.


  • #189
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    HellsAngel wrote: »
    Paddy Mayne is said to have been passed over for a VC etc for punching a senior officer.
    Well that should get him a lot of support from here :D

    A pretty silly reason during wartime .


  • #190
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MarchDub wrote: »
    Not meaning to pick on you but this type of caricature was fairly mainstream in the British press in the nineteenth century. You should read "Apes and Angels" by L Perry Curtis for the full story of how the Irish were depicted with simian features. The magazine Punch was full of offensive ape-like Irish and so also were 'history' books written for a British readership.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    That's a disingenous reply IMO. Print publications are an excellent primary source as we all know. You can afford to be wrong once in a while, you know.

    you both realise you are referring to punch, a 19th century satirical magazine disprove my post that being Irish wasn't a reason for persecution (in the midst of a conversation about the 17th century).


  • #191
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »

    Any more detail on William Doyle or Mayne who was the real deal.
    The book 'who dares wins' (pg 34) says the reason Mayne missed out on the VC was because the medal is for individual acts of bravery whereas the incident which he was recommended for involved other people. Some of it is here http://books.google.ie/books?id=VhHPcfCSacYC&pg=PA21&dq=paddy+mayne&hl=en&ei=9Zo9TrnBCJO5hAeQ8OTRBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=paddy%20mayne&f=false


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    charlemont
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭charlemont


    enfant terrible wrote: »
    Was this a one off or has Ireland always had a problem with Jewish people.

    Jewish people themselves will tell you that incident is the only blip in an otherwise peaceful co existence between the Jews and Irish, But there has never been a large Jewish community here.
    Majority of Irish people are appalled at the situation regarding Israel/Palestine but thats not to be confused with anti-Semitism.


  • #193
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    The book 'who dares wins' (pg 34) says the reason Mayne missed out on the VC was because the medal is for individual acts of bravery whereas the incident which he was recommended for involved other people. Some of it is here http://books.google.ie/books?id=VhHPcfCSacYC&pg=PA21&dq=paddy+mayne&hl=en&ei=9Zo9TrnBCJO5hAeQ8OTRBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=paddy%20mayne&f=false

    Ah yes, the official version.

    And for those looking for details of William Doyle

    In December, 1916, he was transferred to 8th Battalion of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers. He met his fellow Jesuit Father Frank Browne who was attached to the 2nd and 9th Dublins. His concern for the his men shines through his letters and diaries.
    "I found the dying lad - he was not much more- so tightly jammed into a corner of the trench that it was almost impossible to get him out. Both legs were smashed, one in two or three places, so his chances of life were small, and there were other injuries as well. What a harrowing picture that scene would have made. A splendid young soldier, married only a month they told me, lying there, pale and motionless in the mud and water with the life crushed out of him by a cruel shell. The stretcher bearers hard at work binding up as well as they may, his broken limbs; round about a group of silent Tommies looking on and wondering when will their turn come. Peace for a moment seems to have taken possession of the battlefield, not a sound save the deep boom of some far-off gun and the stifled moans of the dying boy, while as if anxious to hide the scene, nature drops her soft mantle of snow on the living and dead alike."
    He was awarded the Military Cross in January, 1917 though many believed that he deserved the Victoria Cross for his bravery under fire. He took part in the attack on Wytschaete Ridge in June,1917. Fr.Browne was transferred to the Irish Guards at the start of August which left Fr. Doyle to service four battalions by himself.
    He had a number of close calls before he was killed by a shell along with three officers on 17 August, on Frezenberg Ridge. He was recommended for the DSO at Wytschaete and the VC at Frezenberg. His biographer comments: "However the triple disqualification of being an Irishmen, a Catholic and a Jesuit, proved insuperable."

    http://freespace.virgin.net/sh.k/frwdoyle.html

    Rescuing people under fire is a very brave act so I am with the supporters.


  • #194
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    Ah yes, the official version.
    Go on then, what is the unofficial version?


  • #195
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Go on then, what is the unofficial version?

    Did I say there was one .

    He pulled on the Irish Jersey for Rugby and admonished his fellow officers for their simplistic attitudes towards Ireland.

    And he is still listed by the Tony O'Reilly owned Indo as a Rugby great
    2. PADDY MAYNE
    A seriously hard b****rd. Lieutenant Colonel Robert Blair 'Paddy' Mayne (DSO and Three Bars, Legion d'honneur) played six times for Ireland between 1937 and 1939.
    He also played three Tests on the 1938 Lions tour of South Africa when it was said he used to relax by "wrecking hotels and beating up dockers". That propensity for pugilism was reflected by his achievements in the boxing ring, where he became Irish universities heavyweight champion in 1936 and was only beaten on points for the British title.


    http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/hard-as-nails-2497365.html

    I think it is easy to pigeon hole people.


  • #196
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    you both realise you are referring to punch, a 19th century satirical magazine disprove my post that being Irish wasn't a reason for persecution (in the midst of a conversation about the 17th century).

    Fred you ignore the facts that you get wrong when they are pointed out to you and just go on the attack about something else – [what about Brian Boru and Scotland eh?, I didn’t hear back from you on that]. You seem to be surviving here on just picking at things you don’t like without supplying any reference for opinions coming from you. After years of reading bad essays I can spot the dodge. Now you are trying to change the order of the discussion and are making a bogus claim about what was being discussed.

    To put things back on track: There was no 'midst of a conversation about the 17th century' issue here. Nice try. You put a reply to the simian cartoons post and claimed that it was only peripheral yellow journalism that showed such cartoons and I replied that you were wrong in that. It became mainstream and was even to be found in history books. The simian Irish face became central to Victorian popular culture. And popular culture shapes minds. This is the point that Perry Curtis makes in his study of the subject of” Irish Apes” as he calls the cartoon depictions. Now please tell me that you understand what a cartoon is in art – it’s not something from a child’s comic book.


    The best known illustrator of the early nineteenth century George Cruickshank was one of the earlier to depict the Irish as beasts. Others followed. Here is a quote from Curtis:

    The man who did most to change the Irish stereotype in English cartoons from man to beast was John Tenniel, who was born in 1820 knighted in 1893 and died in 1914. Over a fifty year period Tenniel illustrated some of the best known publications in the Victorian period. …Tenniel was kinder with his pencil to those Irishmen who recognised the benefits of British rule, and his ape-like Fenians should be compared with the honest, sturdy, firm-jawed but still slightly prognathous features of those Irishmen who are being sworn in a special constable by John Bull to cope with the Fenian rising in “A Hint to the Loyal Irish”.


  • #197
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    you both realise you are referring to punch, a 19th century satirical magazine disprove my post that being Irish wasn't a reason for persecution (in the midst of a conversation about the 17th century).
    So, somewhere between Geraldis Cambrensis portraying the Irish as ignorant savages, and the popular culture of 19th century England, there was a golden age where the English regarded the Irish as equals?

    Fascinating.


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


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    So, somewhere between Geraldis Cambrensis portraying the Irish as ignorant savages, and the popular culture of 19th century England, there was a golden age where the English regarded the Irish as equals?

    Fascinating.

    Are you going to wheel out the "no dogs, no blacks, no irish" line as well, that's usually how the self pitying threads go.

    George Hook and a guest were talking about how the Irish are treated in England the other day and George said he remembered only too well the anti Irish backlash when Mountbatten was killed. To which his guest replied what backlash? Everyone talked about it, but he'd never experienced it.

    That was Hook's point, a lot of the anti Irishness is talked about, but you'll rarely fund anyone that experienced it.

    It just fits in with the Irish belief that the world is out to get them and they are the most oppressed people on earth.

    A lot of Irish people did very nicely for themselves under British rule and if someone had the background and the money they were treated as equals.


  • #199
    paddyandy
    Site Banned Posts: 2,037 ✭✭✭paddyandy


    I spent 16 years in london and i never experienced it quite the opposite in fact but some nationalists like to use the idea.Some paddies behaved disgracefully with a few drinks.The English it has been said have always had a sneakingly high regard for us....i know that is true.


  • #200
    stanley 2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 130 ✭✭stanley 2


    paddyandy wrote: »
    Was it not a very serious matter that they were driven from their homes and likelihoods and did they not fear that bloodshed was imminent.You treat the matter very lightly.They were very vulnerable and it's a story that will forever come back to haunt us.The Catholic Church which i was brought up in has a lot of guilt and a lot of blood on it's hands and there are many stories around the world with similar marks.The fILM INDUSTRY will have loads of material to draw from.The Present Pope has some answering to do.

    there a lot of blame to share around look how the isralies treat the christians and muslims in there Jewish state i think the people of limrick come out very favorably


  • #201
    stanley 2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 130 ✭✭stanley 2


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I would'nt be a big fan of religion in any form and in Ireland it has been a real source of division despite the fact that there are very little differences between supposed opposite sides. The story of the Limerick Pogrom is just one sad episode representing how these differences manifest into outright bigotry in a nasty way:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_Pogrom#Pogrom

    It is shocking if the jewish community actually had to fully leave the Limerick area as it was an outright victory for narrow mindedness. I believe Arthur Griffith did not cover himself in glory in relation to this either, supporting the pogrom.

    Does anyone have any other examples of this type of religious persecution in Ireland(perhaps not including 1918-1923)? Or further information on the Limerick Pogrom?
    look up the penal laws the famine forced emigration you will get a lot of information on religious persecution


  • Advertisement
Advertisement