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

What defines an 'Irishman' in context of upcoming centenaries

1235»

Comments

  • #202
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    No. I most certainly have not.



    I will cite any opinion without feeling any obligation to give "clear" condemnation.

    If you don't understand irony then I suggest you go to some place where autism is admired.

    (And now I wait for the PC police :rolleyes:)

    This is a ridiculous comment Bill.

    Refer to charter
    You are not allowed directly insult another poster. This will not be tolerated.
    Furthermore commenting about autism in this derogatory way is despicable in my view, neither funny nor clever (whether you think it is PC or not). Because of this I am issuing you with a ban.

    Moderator.


  • #203
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I'm afraid I know very little about Father Matthew - but Douglass remained a friend to Ireland and years after the [1860s] American Civil War when he was a well known and respected social reformer [among other roles] he spoke in support of Home Rule for Ireland and for Parnell. He visited Ireland again in 1886.
    CDfm wrote: »
    From beyond the grave :eek:

    There was something about Matthew's open support for abolition versus his total commitment to the temperance movement. I am going to suggest that he saw a conflict and wanted his movement to be apolitical whatever his personal opinion was.
    It was on a programme about Douglass on TG4 a while ago. The question about Fr Matthew was basically, Fr Matthew made positive overtures towards the Confederacy. Appearently the Catholic church supported the Confederacy, not sure the reasons why (it might be worth a thread of it's own ?)


  • #204
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    It was on a programme about Douglass on TG4 a while ago. ... Appearently the Catholic church supported the Confederacy, not sure the reasons why (it might be worth a thread of it's own ?)

    Pope Pius IX didn't officially issue any formal support for the Confederacy BUT he did write to the southern President Jefferson Davis which essentially recognised his status as president of the southern states - and sent him a picture of himself. :)

    The reasons for this are vague - but the best 'guess' is that the Pope wanted to support the more 'Christian' south against what was seen as the progressive, modernism and liberalism of the northern states. Pius IX was the one who issued the "Syllabus of Errors" against modernism so this position would make sense.

    But just to be accurate many of the Irish Catholics fought and died on the side of the north -

    http://www.hibernians.us/irishcivilwar.htm


  • #205
    dave2pvd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭dave2pvd


    MarchDub wrote: »
    .....the Pope wanted to support the more 'Christian' south against what was seen as the progressive, modernism and liberalism of the northern states.

    Hard for me to concur with that. Most of the population was in the North, and most of the Catholics too.

    Atlanta was one the Southern flashpoints during the Civil War. Like most of the South it was majority protestant. To get an idea of the religious breakdown at the time (hasn't changed much since), the story of Fr. Thomas O'Reilly from County Cavan can give some insight:

    Originally from Georgiabulletin.org
    It was in the fall of 1864 that Father O’Reilly first heard of Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman’s plan to destroy the entire city of Atlanta by fire. Father O’Reilly was outraged and Patrick Lynch drove the priest to speak to Gen. Henry Slocum, a subordinate of Gen. Sherman.

    “In this meeting, Father O’Reilly argued that the order to burn homes and churches was beyond the normal confines of warfare,” Mears said. “Father O’Reilly pleaded for a compromise that would spare Atlanta’s five churches.”

    At first Gen. Sherman rejected the priest’s proposal. But Father O’Reilly would not relent and reminded the general that many of his own troops were Catholics and would create a mutiny if Catholic churches were burned.

    As a result of Father O’Reilly’s heroics, five churches in Atlanta - St. Philip Episcopal Church, Central Presbyterian Church, Trinity Methodist Church and Second Baptist Church, as well as the Catholic Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, were spared. In addition, Atlanta City Hall, the Fulton County Courthouse and a residential area between Mitchell and Peters streets were saved.

    I suspect the Vatican would have sided with

    (a) whomever they perceived the eventual winner would be. Or,
    (b) the side to which victory would improve Vatican fortunes, but they also had a reasonable chance of victory.

    Over the centuries, a or b seems to have been the modus operandi, no?


  • #206
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    dave2pvd wrote: »
    Hard for me to concur with that. Most of the population was in the North, and most of the Catholics too.

    Oh yes - the Catholics were mostly in the north, and after the war with reconstruction and the Jim Crow era the Catholic Church was not at all in favour with the southern ethos.

    I was just putting out there what the best 'guess' was on the Pope's position. Davis was Episcopalian...

    dave2pvd wrote: »
    I suspect the Vatican would have sided with

    (a) whomever they perceived the eventual winner would be. Or,
    (b) the side to which victory would improve Vatican fortunes, but they also had a reasonable chance of victory.

    Over the centuries, a or b seems to have been the modus operandi, no?

    Agree - and there was the wider notion at the time that the US was becoming too powerful economically and would overshadow Europe, used to being the rulers of the world. So any break-up of the US into smaller parts was not entirely unwelcome in Europe anyway.


  • #207
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    It was on a programme about Douglass on TG4 a while ago. The question about Fr Matthew was basically, Fr Matthew made positive overtures towards the Confederacy. Appearently the Catholic church supported the Confederacy, not sure the reasons why (it might be worth a thread of it's own ?)

    it could well be worth doing a douglass in ireland or using it as a springboard for a wider thread .

    i vaguely know bits of the fr matthew thing mostly from contributing to a US history group on mixed race in new orleans post civil war

    actually some say that some groups have difficulty in comming to terms that the irish were slaves too

    http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/1638


  • #208
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I don't give more than the occasional (usually impatient) passing thought to the defence of Irish sovereignty. Does that mean I am not truly Irish?

    So how, then, do you define Irishness? If you really think that Irishness can be protected within the British (i.e. English) state and its ideological basis in anti-Irishness and anti-Catholicism then you have some accounting for the past few centuries to do. Let's start with the ideas of Edmund Spenser

    This Sasana Nua darbh ainm Éire ("New England called Ireland"), in the words of a 17th century poet, is not Irishness except to those people who are so desperate to claim Irishness while acting like English people. Truth. Honesty. Those with only an Irish identity are trying to deny those with an Irish culture as well as an Irish identity a right to be regarded as the true Irish. Politically self-serving ráiméis by the conquered Irish: we took the soup, join us or you're no longer really "Irish"!



    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I absolutely refuse to define myself in terms of opposition to Britain or Britishness (or England and Englishness). That's irrelevant to my sense of being Irish.

    Indeed. Given that the only state which has ever threatened Irish sovereignty is the British state, you can explain this rationally how?
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    The concept of Irishness you seem to advocate is largely an invention of the Gaelic League.

    Lovely cliché. Should get your thanks quotient up on, like, Boards, like a bit. Congratulations. How, precisely, do you rationally - and I do mean rationally - expect British (i.e English) culture to step back and allow Irish culture to flourish in Ireland given the power dynamics which your seemingly apolitical British created here in Ireland?


  • #209
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    Indeed. Given that the only state which has ever threatened Irish sovereignty is the British state, you can explain this rationally how?

    Really?
    The Vikings from Norway and Denmark were not of "the British state", if we are being rational surely they need to be considered. They established settlemants at Dublin, Cork and Waterford for example.
    Rebelheart wrote: »
    Originally Posted by P. Breathnach
    The concept of Irishness you seem to advocate is largely an invention of the Gaelic League.
    Lovely cliché. Should get your thanks quotient up on, like, Boards, like a bit. Congratulations. How, precisely, do you rationally - and I do mean rationally - expect British (i.e English) culture to step back and allow Irish culture to flourish in Ireland given the power dynamics which your seemingly apolitical British created here in Ireland?

    ???
    You have ignored the post you are responding to. There is an excellent description in post no. 73 by Bannasidhe detailing the intertwining of British (Normans) and Irish (Gaelic) people.


  • #210
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Really?
    The Vikings from Norway and Denmark were not of "the British state", if we are being rational surely they need to be considered. They established settlemants at Dublin, Cork and Waterford for example.



    ???
    You have ignored the post you are responding to. There is an excellent description in post no. 73 by Bannasidhe detailing the intertwining of British (Normans) and Irish (Gaelic) people.

    To recap- the traditional teaching of irish history does not acknowledge the actuality..

    Brian Boru's era Ireland 150 tuath/tribes autonomous with their tribal allegience the most important part of their identity.

    Henry VIII era had Ireland as a "unified kingdom".

    Not all Irish Chiefs left -many switched alleigence from the tuath to the king adopting feudal titles and powers.Brian Boru's descendants amongst them. The "Norman" descendants of Silken Thomas "more Irish than the Irish themselves " did the same.

    The Duke of Wellington called all of that class collectively the proprietors of the country in 1832 when he predicted a greater famine than the 1830 to 1834 famine.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    To recap- the traditional teaching of irish history does not acknowledge the actuality..

    Would you link the "traditional teaching of irish history' with the Gaelic league revival?


  • #212
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Would you link the "traditional teaching of irish history' with the Gaelic league revival?

    I wasn't there and don't know what they were smoking.:p

    It dates from that but they didn't have what we have to research.

    The late great F.S.L Lyons footnoted like a mad thing and really inspired me to have a go at a footnote of his on a guy John Jinks.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056064820

    All I can say is that going thru my family history and local & regional histories the traditional teaching does not match what I have sourced in documents etc going way back. So I knew what to look for.

    Other's in other locations write the same. Academics such as Bannasidhe say it.

    So the history as taught to me was very biased and a lot of it was not true and for whatever reason had a spin on it.

    I am not an academic but when I pulled together my Patrick Pearse sources to criticize Ruth Dudley Edwards type material I had to go back to basics and away from the traditional approach. My material was bits and pieces I had come across on church altars, art etc and you couldn't tackle RDE without having the basics right and they were not available in the traditional histories.

    Now if people can't get Pearse right and he is not even 100 years dead there is something wrong.

    That's the challenge in history. Uncover a fact and a source and put it up there.

    Back to Francis Lyons who died in 1983 - he didn't have a pc or the internet when doing "Ireland Since the Famine" and I don't know if he intentionally set out to make people more inquisitive with his anecdotes and footnotes.

    We can always differ on interpretation but you can only do that if you are sure of the facts. Otherwise its just chatter and not history

    http://puesoccurrences.com/tag/f-s-l-lyons/

    Its like James Connolly being Catholic and I am satisfied he was. A political history will airbrush it out but if you don't include it you don't know Connolly and you cross the makey upey line.


  • #213
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    CDfm wrote: »
    To recap- the traditional teaching of irish history does not acknowledge the actuality..

    Brian Boru's era Ireland 150 tuath/tribes autonomous with their tribal allegience the most important part of their identity.


    Questionable. It's like saying that a Kerry or Tipperary person's county allegience is the most important part of their identity in today's world.


  • #214
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    Questionable. It's like saying that a Kerry or Tipperary person's county allegience is the most important part of their identity in today's world.
    Are you suggesting that there was a sense of Irish identity 1,000 years ago, and that it was the primary focus of allegiance?

    I don't buy it.


  • #215
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    Questionable. It's like saying that a Kerry or Tipperary person's county allegience is the most important part of their identity in today's world.
    The thing about loyalty to one place or group, is that it only exists in contrast to loyalty to another place or group.
    A man's parish could be the most important place on earth, if it was competing with another parish.
    On the day of a football final, it's a safe bet that a Kerryman would consider Kerry the most important place on earth.

    Put either man in a fight for the Irish nation, and those petty loyalties would matter not a jot.

    By extension, folks who view Ireland as being in a state of perpetual conflict/competition with Britain, are always going to see Irish identity as being a construct of defiance of the neighbours.
    Those who don't see the neighbours so negatively have, I believe, a much richer view of Irish identity.
    Uniquely Irish qualities can be celebrated - without being constrained by having to select only those qualities which are thought to be defiant.


  • #216
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    Questionable. It's like saying that a Kerry or Tipperary person's county allegience is the most important part of their identity in today's world.

    Its not today we are talking about.

    An understanding of it does allow a better interpretation of the subsequent conquest of Ireland and how some Irish Chieftain's and their heirs managed to hold on to their lands and get titles and stuff.

    The tuath sort of correspond to baronies.

    Take the Young Irelander William Smith O' Brien second son of the Baronet of Dromoland and decendant of Brian Boru. Smith was his mothers name which he took and inherited her estate.

    I don't expect you to believe me but how do you explain families like his or the (Daniel) O'Connell's from Derrynane Co Kerry so ?


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    slowburner wrote: »
    The thing about loyalty to one place or group, is that it only exists in contrast to loyalty to another place or group.
    A man's parish could be the most important place on earth, if it was competing with another parish.
    On the day of a football final, it's a safe bet that a Kerryman would consider Kerry the most important place on earth.

    Put either man in a fight for the Irish nation, and those petty loyalties would matter not a jot.

    By extension, folks who view Ireland as being in a state of perpetual conflict/competition with Britain, are always going to see Irish identity as being a construct of defiance of the neighbours.
    Those who don't see the neighbours so negatively have, I believe, a much richer view of Irish identity.
    Uniquely Irish qualities can be celebrated - without being constrained by having to select only those qualities which are thought to be defiant.
    Didn't exactly see thousands waving union jacks when the queen was here (except maybe 'rebel' Cork where Cork city council handed out wee flags to the school kids and told them to wave them :) ) or a big rush to join the commonwealth.


  • #218
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    thecommietommy wrote: »
    Didn't exactly see thousands waving union jacks when the queen was here (except maybe 'rebel' Cork where Cork city council handed out wee flags to the school kids and told them to wave them :) ) or a big rush to join the commonwealth.

    Picking on Cork again.

    Just in case Bannasidhe missed it I am going to point out how you likened her fellow Corkwomen Anna Haslam and Hannah Sheehy to jedward.

    DeValera thought the Commonwealth might have been a platform for the unification of Ireland.

    And the flags were they waving "Jackeens" ? :eek:


  • #219
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    CDfm wrote: »
    Picking on Cork again.

    Just in case Bannasidhe missed it I am going to point out how you likened her fellow Corkwomen Anna Haslam and Hannah Sheehy to jedward.

    DeValera thought the Commonwealth might have been a platform for the unification of Ireland.

    And the flags were they waving "Jackeens" ? :eek:

    Sure us Cork people are secure enough in our identity that we don't feel threatened by a biteen of flag waving at a foreign head of State when they come visiting. If Sarky came we'd wave the tricoleur at him just as happily.

    It's not our fault that Dublin only became an Irish city for the first time ever in 1922 but can understand if Dubs are a bit sensitive about this fact.
    I mean - Cork wasn't even part of the Lordship of Ireland - unlike Leinster, Dublin and Meath :p.


  • #220
    thecommietommy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    CDfm wrote: »
    Picking on Cork again.

    Just in case Bannasidhe missed it I am going to point out how you likened her fellow Corkwomen Anna Haslam and Hannah Sheehy to jedward.

    DeValera thought the Commonwealth might have been a platform for the unification of Ireland.

    And the flags were they waving "Jackeens" ? eek.gif
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Sure us Cork people are secure enough in our identity that we don't feel threatened by a biteen of flag waving at a foreign head of State when they come visiting. If Sarky came we'd wave the tricoleur at him just as happily.

    It's not our fault that Dublin only became an Irish city for the first time ever in 1922 but can understand if Dubs are a bit sensitive about this fact.
    I mean - Cork wasn't even part of the Lordship of Ireland - unlike Leinster, Dublin and Meath :p.

    :rolleyes: .... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


  • #221
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Bannasidhe wrote: »

    It's not our fault that Dublin only became an Irish city for the first time ever in 1922 but can understand if Dubs are a bit sensitive about this fact.
    I mean - Cork wasn't even part of the Lordship of Ireland - unlike Leinster, Dublin and Meath :p.

    Only one of the 3 places highlighted was chosen by the High Kings of Ireland as their base (please no explanation of this being wrong!).
    Up the Royals.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Only one of the 3 places highlighted was chosen by the High Kings of Ireland as their base (please no explanation of this being wrong!).
    Up the Royals.

    Lets see, Leinster King invites the British in.

    A Corkman got them out :cool:


  • #223
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    CDfm wrote: »
    Lets see, Leinster King invites the British in.

    A Corkman got them out :cool:

    T'wouldn't see to many High kings down there though. I'll bite my lip on the football analogies...., its not my strong point though(biting lip).


  • #224
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Only one of the 3 places highlighted was chosen by the High Kings of Ireland as their base (please no explanation of this being wrong!).
    Up the Royals.
    But you are missing the fact that earlier (225 AD), Maximus, Roman consul of Britain, established Tara as the meeting place of the five warring Irish kings.
    Of course, Maximus arrived in Ireland at Wicklow, through the auspices of the bauld Tuathal Tectmar (the original O'Toole).
    Wicklow therefore, can justifiably claim the honour of establishing Tara.
    Wicklow was far too busy to be bothered with all that Kingship stuff and magnanimously decided to let impoverished Meath take the glory :p

    Up Wicklow!


  • #225
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    slowburner wrote: »
    But you are missing the fact that earlier (225 AD), Maximus, Roman consul of Britain, established Tara as the meeting place of the five warring Irish kings.
    Of course, Maximus arrived in Ireland at Wicklow, through the auspices of the bauld Tuathal Tectmar (the original O'Toole).
    Wicklow therefore, can justifiably claim the honour of establishing Tara.
    Wicklow was far too busy to be bothered with all that Kingship stuff and magnanimously decided to let impoverished Meath take the glory :p

    Up Wicklow!

    Tuathal Teachtmar is of the Connachta though (grandfather of Conn). The Ó Tuathal in comparison are descended from Tuathal, son of Ughaire, King of the Laighin (Leinster) who died in 956. Of course their dynastical name was "Uí Muireadhaigh" and they were actually from what is now Kildare, only been forced into Wicklow with arrival of Cambro-Normans.

    Here's a early genealogy (from the 12th century)
    Tadc m. Dúnlaing mc Augaire m. Donnchada m. Lorccáin m. Augaire m. Thuathail m. Dúnlaing m. Thuathail m. Augaire m. Ailella m. Dúnlaing m. Muiredaig m. Bráen [Ardchenn] m. Muiredaig m. Murchada m. Bráen (d. 693)


  • #226
    slowburner
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Tuathal Teachtmar is of the Connachta though (grandfather of Conn). The Ó Tuathal in comparison are descended from Tuathal, son of Ughaire, King of the Laighin (Leinster) who died in 956. Of course their dynastical name was "Uí Muireadhaigh" and they were actually from what is now Kildare, only been forced into Wicklow with arrival of Cambro-Normans.

    Here's a early genealogy (from the 12th century)
    Tadc m. Dúnlaing mc Augaire m. Donnchada m. Lorccáin m. Augaire m. Thuathail m. Dúnlaing m. Thuathail m. Augaire m. Ailella m. Dúnlaing m. Muiredaig m. Bráen [Ardchenn] m. Muiredaig m. Murchada m. Bráen (d. 693)
    Interesting stuff. Interesting times. Bloody difficult though.
    Even the language seems inapproachable.

    This volume claims a direct link.
    Mind you, this same source refers to him as 'Tuathal the Prosperous' - everywhere else he seems to be 'Tuathal the Illegitimate'.
    Wishful thinking perhaps.
    199638.png

    I happen to have a hard copy which also has the genealogies of the O'Byrnes and more, if anyone is interested.
    The diagrammatic genealogies in the online version are illegible.


  • #227
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    slowburner wrote: »
    Interesting stuff. Interesting times. Bloody difficult though.
    Even the language seems inapproachable.

    Well the genealogy above is written in "Middle Irish" m. is shorthand for mac thus it's a list of first names showing who was son of who.

    eg. Thuathail mac Augaire mac Ailella mac Dúnlaing

    It's kinda like looking at Chaucer and finding "Middle English" inapproachable, it takes a bit of work. That particular text is from a manuscript known as:
    Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson B 502 (it's kept in Bodleian library in University of Oxford). It dates from around 1100-1150AD, some have identified it as been the "Book of Glendalough"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodleian_Library,_MS_Rawlinson_B_502

    Leinster was considerably smaller then the modern province boundaries.

    leinster.gif

    The leinster O'Byrnes (there are others unrelated) are members of the Uí Fáeláin who are closely related to the Uí Muireadhaigh (O'Tooles) as both belong to wider Uí Dúnlainge dynastical grouping among the Laighin (leinstermen). They actually claim descent from Cathair Mór -- who took the "High-Kingship" (in the pseudo-history) after the death of Tuathal Teachtmar son (Fedlimid Rechtmar) and who in turn was killed in battle been succeeded by Conn (of hundred battles).


Advertisement