1641 Rebellion based on hearsay.

T runner · 18-02-2011 4:40pm #1

A report in todays Irish Times shows that many of the 19,000 depositions of the 1641 rebellion were 2nd or third hand and very little were based on witness accounts. In particular "atrocities against women and children are a central image of the rebellion as reported in London newspapers and other propaganda texts of the period". The rebellion was used as justification for Cromwells pillage of the country. It was also used for justification of the enforcement of the quasi apartheid sectraian zero sum game in Ulster for the past 3-400 years. Remember 1641!! has been used as a slogan for Protestant diligence against the rise of Catholics for centuries.

It was used when a forged document indicated a Catholic plot to murder Protestants in their beds in Armagh in teh 18th century. Catholics were burned out by Protestant gangs, and the fact that those homes had their looms either smashed or stolen indicates the true purpose of the attack perhaps.

This slogan can still be seen on walls in Belfast.

Have the sectarian elements of our history been deliberately exaggerated by the British in line with the goals of the Ulster plantation, and by the Protestant elite subsequently as a means to mobilise and justify Protestant suppression of Catholic social and economic advancement.

Perhaps the 1641 rising was more about Gael Vs invader and less about Gael v's planter as the then invader would have us believe?

Is it relevant that the roots of segmentation and political division in NI today
were based on propaganda? Or are the tribal divisions so entrenched as to make this pertinant fact largely mute?

(I dont subscribe to IT so dont cant quote the article. If someone could add it for people to read id be grateful. Thanks)

KeithAFC · 18-02-2011 4:53pm

Protestants were taken over bridges and thrown over and shot and if they survived that, they drowned in the water below. A lot of it is well documented about 1641. Although, the Protestant people got their own back in 1690.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 18-02-2011 4:55pm

Perhaps the 1641 rising was more about Gael Vs invader and less about Gael v's planter as the then invader would have us believe?

Isn't that the same thing anyway? Never quite understand how people find it surprising the natives would attack those who stole their homes.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 18-02-2011 5:01pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Protestants were taken over bridges and thrown over and shot and if they survived that, they drowned in the water below. A lot of it is well documented about 1641. Although, the Protestant people got their own back in 1690.

Surely you mean they got their own back in 1650 or so? Once Cromwell arrived they began slaughtering the Catholic Irish.

Anyway should this thread not be in History and Heritage? And also its been known for years that most of the reports from the Ulster rebellion were nonsense.

RandomName2 · 18-02-2011 5:11pm

T runner wrote: »

A report in todays Irish Times shows that many of the 19,000 depositions of the 1641 rebellion were 2nd or third hand and very little were based on witness accounts. In particular "atrocities against women and children are a central image of the rebellion as reported in London newspapers and other propaganda texts of the period". The rebellion was used as justification for Cromwells pillage of the country. It was also used for justification of the enforcement of the quasi apartheid sectraian zero sum game in Ulster for the past 3-400 years. Remember 1641!! has been used as a slogan for Protestant diligence against the rise of Catholics for centuries.

It was used when a forged document indicated a Catholic plot to murder Protestants in their beds in Armagh in teh 18th century. Catholics were burned out by Protestant gangs, and the fact that those homes had their looms either smashed or stolen indicates the true purpose of the attack perhaps.

This slogan can still be seen on walls in Belfast.

Have the sectarian elements of our history been deliberately exaggerated by the British in line with the goals of the Ulster plantation, and by the Protestant elite subsequently as a means to mobilise and justify Protestant suppression of Catholic social and economic advancement.

Perhaps the 1641 rising was more about Gael Vs invader and less about Gael v's planter as the then invader would have us believe?

Is it relevant that the roots of segmentation and political division in NI today
were based on propaganda? Or are the tribal divisions so entrenched as to make this pertinant fact largely mute?

(I dont subscribe to IT so dont cant quote the article. If someone could add it for people to read id be grateful. Thanks)

YAWN.

PM me if you want definite information relating to it.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 18-02-2011 5:17pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

YAWN.

PM me if you want definite information relating to it.

Post it up!

Robus · 18-02-2011 5:21pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

YAWN. .

I found it an interesting and thought provoking post

junder · 18-02-2011 6:18pm

Here we go again another of t runners 'it's all the prods fault' threads, this is an old theory, I am surprised you have only come across it recently

dlofnep · 18-02-2011 6:43pm

junder wrote: »

Here we go again another of t runners 'it's all the prods fault' threads, this is an old theory, I am surprised you have only come across it recently

I don't remember Catholics coming over to Ireland, removing the indigenous population from it's own land, and creating penal laws - which saw them as second class citizens.

Who's fault is it, if it wasn't the invading population? What sort of history books have you been reading? Did they tell you that you came over here, at the behest of the Irish people - where we willfully gave you land, and were happy to be treated as subservient to the British planters?

loldog · 18-02-2011 7:03pm

You can look through the records here http://1641.tcd.ie/

.

KeithAFC · 18-02-2011 7:09pm

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't remember Catholics coming over to Ireland, removing the indigenous population from it's own land, and creating penal laws - which saw them as second class citizens.

Who's fault is it, if it wasn't the invading population? What sort of history books have you been reading? Did they tell you that you came over here, at the behest of the Irish people - where we willfully gave you land, and were happy to be treated as subservient to the British planters?

What has that got to do with 1641 and this thread? Which is about the slaughter of Protestants?

junder · 18-02-2011 7:11pm

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't remember Catholics coming over to Ireland, removing the indigenous population from it's own land, and creating penal laws - which saw them as second class citizens.

Who's fault is it, if it wasn't the invading population? What sort of history books have you been reading? Did they tell you that you came over here, at the behest of the Irish people - where we willfully gave you land, and were happy to be treated as subservient to the British planters?

Do me a favour and save that crap for the yanks, what ever interpretation of history you want to believe I am not responsible for what happened 400 hundred years ago

Amhran Nua · 18-02-2011 7:14pm

Seriously, this was around the time when the whole of Europe was butchering one another with great gusto and fervour. You could hardly turn a corner without stepping over the charred body of someone who got burned at the stake for witchcraft, plagues and massacres were the order of the day. In one year, the fashion ran to crucifying family pets as well as the family. National armies in the many wars were to a great extent made up of mercenaries paid in loot and rapine.

Whether or not the events went one way or the other, it is absolutely stunning that anyone today could use them as a justification for anything, if indeed they are.

I cannot imagine anything more backward.

dlofnep · 18-02-2011 7:20pm

junder wrote: »

Do me a favour and save that crap for the yanks, what ever interpretation of history you want to believe I am not responsible for what happened 400 hundred years ago

It's not an interpretation of history. It is historical fact. And I never once asserted that you were responsible, so save the hyperbole.

KeithAFC · 18-02-2011 7:20pm

dlofnep wrote: »

It's not an interpretation of history. It is historical fact. And I never once asserted that you were responsible, so save the hyperbole.

As is 1641. Boring argument and rather pointless. Don't see your point.

dlofnep · 18-02-2011 7:22pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

As is 1641. Boring argument and rather pointless. Don't see your point.

It wasn't an argument. It was thread-commentary. I'm not here to entertain you - I don't care what you consider boring or entertaining.

KeithAFC · 18-02-2011 7:24pm

dlofnep wrote: »

It wasn't an argument. It was thread-commentary. I'm not here to entertain you - I don't care what you consider boring or entertaining.

Really? Then discuss 1641.

dlofnep · 18-02-2011 7:32pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Really? Then discuss 1641.

Don't tell me what to discuss. I am discussing the context for 1641. The indigenous population wanted to control their own affairs - and a foreign population which had seized control of land, without consent were trying to assimilate the native population into their own collective.

The plantations is a core part of the 1641 rebellion, and the penal laws were instrumental in creating discontent within the indigenous population.

KeithAFC · 18-02-2011 7:36pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Don't tell me what to discuss. I am discussing the context for 1641. The indigenous population wanted to control their own affairs - and a foreign population which had seized control of land, without consent were trying to assimilate the native population into their own collective.

The plantations is a core part of the 1641 rebellion, and the penal laws were instrumental in creating discontent within the indigenous population.

Did you read the post? He is making a discussion about if 1641 can be disputed which it can't. Not about Irish people being thrown out of their homes. We all get that.

The thread is about the slaugther of Protestant people.

dlofnep · 18-02-2011 7:42pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

The thread is about the slaugther of Protestant people.

I'll let you to it so.

junder · 18-02-2011 7:58pm

dlofnep wrote: »

It's not an interpretation of history. It is historical fact. And I never once asserted that you were responsible, so save the hyperbole.

Unless you were physically there and witnessed things first hand then it's an interpretation since you are relying on secondary accounts

dlofnep · 18-02-2011 8:04pm

junder wrote: »

Unless you were physically there and witnessed things first hand then it's an interpretation since you are relying on secondary accounts

I was making reference to the plantations, and the penal laws. They are historical fact.

T runner · 18-02-2011 10:39pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Protestants were taken over bridges and thrown over and shot and if they survived that, they drowned in the water below. A lot of it is well documented about 1641. Although, the Protestant people got their own back in 1690.

The documentation is in trinity and it has proven to be hearsay, that is the point. ie a friend of a friend said that he saw a Catholic kill a Protestant woman. Looks like Cromwell used propaganda to pursue his ambitions for Ireland.

T runner · 18-02-2011 10:42pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

YAWN.

PM me if you want definite information relating to it.

Thanks but i will take the scholarly study by the University of Aberdeen to be more definitive than anything you can provide. Unless you yourself also have access to these 19,000 deposits and can attest that it is not hearsay?

T runner · 18-02-2011 10:46pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Did you read the post? He is making a discussion about if 1641 can be disputed which it can't. The thread is about the slaugther of Protestant people.

And the evidence for teh slaughter of protestant people has proven to be hearsay. It is myth, propaganda to turn Irish peopel against eachother for the benefit of British interests in Ireland. I would be angry if I was you.

These deposits are the only historical reference to this alleged slaughter and they are proven to be bogus. Cromwell needed an excuse to attack Ireland for the powers in London and he invented one.

Nodin · 18-02-2011 10:51pm

Guardian has something on it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/18/1641-irish-rebellion-anti-catholic-propaganda

T runner · 18-02-2011 10:52pm

junder wrote: »

Here we go again another of t runners 'it's all the prods fault' threads, this is an old theory, I am surprised you have only come across it recently

I didnt say it was "all the prods fault" i said it was hearsay probably propaganda to allow Cromwell to attack Ireland. It effectively means that Ulster Protestants have been manipulated bythe British.

This is not some conspiracy theory. The actual deposits from Trinity have been demonstrated to be hearsay. If you have no other evidence beside myth that this slaughter took place then it means that youthe British have manipulated Catholics and Protestants in Ireland for their own political ends.

This was the motivation for the plantation to begin with therefore it makes sense that sectarian animosity would be stoked at every oppurtunity by the British.

Fratton Fred · 18-02-2011 10:53pm

T runner wrote: »

The documentation is in trinity and it has proven to be hearsay, that is the point. ie a friend of a friend said that he saw a Catholic kill a Protestant woman. Looks like Cromwell used propaganda to pursue his ambitions for Ireland.

Cromwell came to Ireland because the Irish confederate and loyalists were believed to be planning an invasion of England to restore the monarchy.

Cromwell wad asked by parliament to come to Ireland to prevent an invasion. He had no plans for Ireland, he just wanted to prevent Any further uprisings.1641 had very little to do with it other than justifying his brutal tactics.

Most if those killed in 1641 would probably have been Presbytarians and they were affected by the penal laws as much, if not more than Catholics. The penal laws were not there to opress the Irish, they were there to reduce Catholic influence in England and therefore the risk of further civil war. It is a mere coincidence that so many Irish were catholic and therefore oppressed.

T runner · 18-02-2011 11:04pm

Nodin wrote: »

Guardian has something on it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/18/1641-irish-rebellion-anti-catholic-propaganda

Interesting:

Described as a prototype "dodgy dossier" featuring allegations of cannibalism, the 17th-century accounts of atrocities committed against Protestant settlers have been put online for the first time.

Historians, linguists, software specialists and the public have been invited to trawl through newly transcribed versions of the original documents held in Trinity College, Dublin.

"One of the iconic narratives that comes up in hearsay evidence is reports of atrocities against pregnant women who were said to have been ripped open, had their babies pulled out and beaten against rocks," said Dr Mark Sweetnam, who has been working on the texts.

"That image is drawing on biblical prophecy ... and contemporary accounts of European massacres.

"It's very striking that it crops up regularly in hearsay accounts but I never came across an example of it in eyewitness evidence.

"While these depositions were being taken, they were being leaked and published in London with the clear intention that they would elicit the sympathy of English Protestants."

The rebellion, which broke out in October 1641, was a significant moment in the formation of identity in Ireland.

It poisoned Anglo-Irish relations for centuries, focusing attention on attacks by dispossessed Irish Catholic rebels on Anglo-Scottish, Protestant settlers.

The conference is being held at Aberdeen University, where several of the project's researchers are based.

"We can now corroborate some of the more intuitive analysis made by historians and back up those assumptions," said Dr Barbara Fennell, a senior lecturer in language and linguistics at Aberdeen.

"The more lurid and appalling the 'atrocity' was, the less reliable is the evidence.

"These 'atrocities' were used by Cromwell to show how cruel, barbarous and alien the Irish were ... but it's based on highly unreliable evidence."

Some of the atrocities, however, such as the drowning of as many as 100 Protestants at Portadown, were corroborated by eyewitness accounts. That barbarity is still depicted on Orange Order banners and loyalist murals in Northern Ireland.

T runner · 18-02-2011 11:17pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Cromwell came to Ireland because the Irish confederate and loyalists were believed to be planning an invasion of England to restore the monarchy.

Cromwell wad asked by parliament to come to Ireland to prevent an invasion. He had no plans for Ireland, he just wanted to prevent Any further uprisings.1641 had very little to do with it other than justifying his brutal tactics.

Most if those killed in 1641 would probably have been Presbytarians and they were affected by the penal laws as much, if not more than Catholics. The penal laws were not there to opress the Irish, they were there to reduce Catholic influence in England and therefore the risk of further civil war. It is a mere coincidence that so many Irish were catholic and therefore oppressed.

So the demonisation, slaughter and degradation of almost the entire population of Ireland to landless peasanst was just an unfortunate side affect to an otherwise noble quest to prevent a civil war in England?

Have you ever considered that your rationalising a noble motive for all Englands acts in Ireland is merely because you are English? This is the mentality of those who penned the propaganda in the first place.

Does the fact that presbytarians by and large owned the land they lived on compared to their Catholic neighbours not reduce your assertion to the ridiculous?

It seemed that the guardian directly contests your assertions about Cromwells intentions for Ireland. His intentions for Ireland and subsequect actions portray signs of psycopathical racism even notable for that time.

Fratton Fred · 18-02-2011 11:43pm

T runner wrote: »

So the demonisation, slaughter and degradation of almost the entire population of Ireland to landless peasanst was just an unfortunate side affect to an otherwise noble quest to prevent a civil war in England?

Have you ever considered that your rationalising a noble motive for all Englands acts in Ireland is merely because you are English? This is the mentality of those who penned the propaganda in the first place.

Does the fact that presbytarians by and large owned the land they lived on compared to their Catholic neighbours not reduce your assertion to the ridiculous?

It seemed that the guardian directly contests your assertions about Cromwells intentions for Ireland. His intentions for Ireland and subsequect actions portray signs of psycopathical racism even notable for that time.

How the hell do you get that from the article?

In fact, how do you get that the massacre was hearsay, the article merely mentions the atrocities that took place, not the overall massacre.

RandomName2 · 19-02-2011 1:07am

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Post it up!

We'd be here for a while!!!

If someone wants to ask me a specific question about it - go ahead. I have written about 20,000 words on the subject.

RandomName2 · 19-02-2011 1:12am

T runner wrote: »

Thanks but i will take the scholarly study by the University of Aberdeen to be more definitive than anything you can provide. Unless you yourself also have access to these 19,000 deposits and can attest that it is not hearsay?

Well there's the Depositions

And there's Temple's dissection of the Depositions.

Neither of which are great sources - you're right. However, that's nothing earth-shattering in any of that.

Actually Temple is more important than the Depositions themselves because he was the main publicist and editor of them in the immediate aftermath.

However if you are looking for historical merit you should be discerning - but the Depositions at least exist, which is more than can be said for a lot of history of the time where no sources exist at all.

However, I feel that all this will be discussed without taking circumstances in England and Dublin into account.

PatsytheNazi · 20-02-2011 5:32pm

junder wrote: »

Unless you were physically there and witnessed things first hand then it's an interpretation since you are relying on secondary accounts

So what are you doing on a history forum. Indeed if that was the case a person couldn't comment on say on politics or sport or whatever if they weren't " physically there and witnessed things first hand " :rolleyes:

PatsytheNazi · 20-02-2011 5:50pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Cromwell came to Ireland because the Irish confederate and loyalists were believed to be planning an invasion of England to restore the monarchy.

Cromwell wad asked by parliament to come to Ireland to prevent an invasion. He had no plans for Ireland, he just wanted to prevent Any further uprisings.1641 had very little to do with it other than justifying his brutal tactics.

Most if those killed in 1641 would probably have been Presbytarians and they were affected by the penal laws as much, if not more than Catholics. The penal laws were not there to opress the Irish, they were there to reduce Catholic influence in England and therefore the risk of further civil war. It is a mere coincidence that so many Irish were catholic and therefore oppressed.

Since 80 - 85% of the population were Catholic, therefore they effected Irish society much more severally than Britain.

Also, Ireland's economy was under the control of Westminster and English economic interests and suffered as a result. The various Wool Acts of the seventeenth and eighteen centuries seriously curtailed the production of Irish wool and the Cattle Acts did the same. These Acts were passed for the precise purpose of protecting English economic interests - at the expense of Ireland. There were laws put in place that prevented Ireland from exporting and thereby possibly posing fair competition to English goods in foreign markets.

We suffered political and economic oppresion for the benefit of the British economy. Our political, religious and economic wishes were always a subservient consideration.

PatsytheNazi · 20-02-2011 5:53pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

We'd be here for a while!!!

If someone wants to ask me a specific question about it - go ahead. I have written about 20,000 words on the subject.

So really your just talking bollox and have no answers.

Fratton Fred · 21-02-2011 12:17pm

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Since 80 - 85% of the population were Catholic, therefore they effected Irish society much more severally than Britain.

Also, Ireland's economy was under the control of Westminster and English economic interests and suffered as a result. The various Wool Acts of the seventeenth and eighteen centuries seriously curtailed the production of Irish wool and the Cattle Acts did the same. These Acts were passed for the precise purpose of protecting English economic interests - at the expense of Ireland. There were laws put in place that prevented Ireland from exporting and thereby possibly posing fair competition to English goods in foreign markets.

We suffered political and economic oppresion for the benefit of the British economy. Our political, religious and economic wishes were always a subservient consideration.

Absolutely, but the 1641 rebellion and the penal laws were unrelated. The Penal laws were not brought in to oppress the Irish, they were brought in mainly because the power struggle between the established church and the RC church was causing havoc.

PatsytheNazi · 21-02-2011 12:34pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Absolutely, but the 1641 rebellion and the penal laws were unrelated. The Penal laws were not brought in to oppress the Irish, they were brought in mainly because the power struggle between the established church and the RC church was causing havoc.

Agreed. Where Jewish people labeled as "dissenters" and affected also by the Penal Laws anyone ?

T runner · 23-02-2011 2:32pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How the hell do you get that from the article?

In fact, how do you get that the massacre was hearsay, the article merely mentions the atrocities that took place, not the overall massacre.

The report only identifies one atrocity the drowning of 100 protestants. No other massacres of note. All of the other atrocities/ mass killings (massacres) are based on second or third person accounts. i.e they probably didnt occur.

Your weak attempt to pretend a massacre is somehow not counted as an atrocity in this comrehensive report is a little lacking in integrity.

You are twisting the facts to suit your argument. Perhaps it doesnt suiot your worldview that teh british might have deliberately lied and exagerrated to cause sectarian tensions and allow for the complete subjugation of the Catholic population. Naw!!! The British would never do taht would they???

brianthebard · 23-02-2011 2:35pm

Take a chill pill people, if this can't be discussed in a civil manner then it won't be discussed at all.

T runner · 23-02-2011 2:36pm

junder wrote: »

Unless you were physically there and witnessed things first hand then it's an interpretation since you are relying on secondary accounts

And taht is what shows the depositions to be lies. There are little first hand accounts, it was all, "Johnny heard that a load of protestant women were slaughtered, and the catholics spat on them and cut the babies out of their pregnant bellies etc stc."

The vast majority was nonsense and lies.

PatsytheNazi · 23-02-2011 3:35pm

T runner wrote: »

And taht is what shows the depositions to be lies. There are little first hand accounts, it was all, "Johnny heard that a load of protestant women were slaughtered, and the catholics spat on them and cut the babies out of their pregnant bellies etc stc."

The vast majority was nonsense and lies.

The whole thing was a fabrication. For example the so called Portadown massacre when allegedly 100+ Protestants where force marched to the river and were drowned had supposedly only one surviving witness, a guy called William Clark.

Fratton Fred · 23-02-2011 4:55pm

T runner wrote: »

The report only identifies one atrocity the drowning of 100 protestants. No other massacres of note. All of the other atrocities/ mass killings (massacres) are based on second or third person accounts. i.e they probably didnt occur.

Your weak attempt to pretend a massacre is somehow not counted as an atrocity in this comrehensive report is a little lacking in integrity.

You are twisting the facts to suit your argument. Perhaps it doesnt suiot your worldview that teh british might have deliberately lied and exagerrated to cause sectarian tensions and allow for the complete subjugation of the Catholic population. Naw!!! The British would never do taht would they???

it doesn't say that at all. For starters it says "some of the atrocities, such as.......".

The report does not say the massacre did not happen, only that a lot of the individual acts were second hand accounts.

And again, the penal laws and cromwell coming to Ireland had nothing to do with the 1641 rebellion.

1641 Rebellion based on hearsay.

Comments