800 years

Erin Go Brath · 08-02-2007 10:17pm

brianthebard wrote:

The statutes of Kilkenny were an attempt to stop the Old English Norman people fraternising with the Irish and becoming "native" no?

Correct, but theres a number of points in it like this one:

"no Englishman, nor other person, being at peace, do give or sell to any Irishman, in time of peace or war, horses or armour, nor any manner of victuals in time of war; and if any shall do to the contrary, and thereof be attainted, he shall have judgment of life and member, as a traitor to our lord the king."

This statute was oppressive to Irish people, make no mistake.

brianthebard wrote:

If the worst thing the statutes' of Galway did was ban hurley then perhaps it wasn't the most oppressive of statutes. Plus the game still went on, so again, not very well enforced?

Still a major part of our sporting heritage, was faced with being wiped out. The ancient game of hurling predates christianity in our country. Its thought that it was played on this island up to 4,000 years ago. (Of course the first written record of the game is in the 5th Century, at the time of Brehon Laws --- where history was first recorded on this island, i believe). The game did go on, you're right. Why did it though? --- Because of the proud people of this island who refuse to let go of their heritage, and were prepared to die to protect it!

brianthebard · 08-02-2007 10:35pm

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Correct, but theres a number of points in it like this one:

"no Englishman, nor other person, being at peace, do give or sell to any Irishman, in time of peace or war, horses or armour, nor any manner of victuals in time of war; and if any shall do to the contrary, and thereof be attainted, he shall have judgment of life and member, as a traitor to our lord the king."

This statute was oppressive to Irish people, make no mistake.

No, it was designed to prevent fraternising between the different groups, and was specifically designed to oppress ANGLO-IRISH, they are the one's the statutes are directed at. And it didn't work, so I can't really see it as oppressive.

Still a major part of our sporting heritage, was faced with being wiped out. The ancient game of hurling predates christianity in our country. Its thought that it was played on this island up to 4,000 years ago. (Of course the first written record of the game is in the 5th Century, at the time of Brehon Laws --- where history was first recorded on this island, i believe). The game did go on, you're right. Why did it though? --- Because of the proud people of this island who refuse to let go of their heritage, and were prepared to die to protect it!

Can you show me records of people dying to protect hurling? Perhaps, as with the other statutes above, it simply wasn't enforced?

Fratton Fred · 08-02-2007 11:21pm

out of curiosity, do you consider these laws aimed specifically at the Irish, or as part of the ruling classes oppressing the working classes in general?

either way, why do you think Ireland was different to the rst of the union, or even the empire?

brianthebard · 08-02-2007 11:31pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

out of curiosity, do you consider these laws aimed specifically at the Irish, or as part of the ruling classes oppressing the working classes in general?

either way, why do you think Ireland was different to the rst of the union, or even the empire?

Directed at me? We are talking about a feudal system, the working class don't exist really, both as an actual class or in the minds of the rulers. It is unhelpful and inaccurate really to refer to a working class, as if there were a united group who went under this banner, until after the French Revolution.

I don't know what you mean by your second question?

Fratton Fred · 09-02-2007 9:57am

brianthebard wrote:

Directed at me? We are talking about a feudal system, the working class don't exist really, both as an actual class or in the minds of the rulers. It is unhelpful and inaccurate really to refer to a working class, as if there were a united group who went under this banner, until after the French Revolution.

I don't know what you mean by your second question?

Sorry, I wasn’t directing that at you, it was a general question.

When I say Working class, what I mean are peasants. Through out history, pretty much globally, the ruling “Classes” have kept peasants down in order to protect their wealth, what is viewed in Ireland as British oppression, could it not just be the ruling class trying to exploit more of the poor people for their own good, but given some form of spin by those who stood up against it? Creating a nationalist fervour when it was as much a socialist issue.

What I am trying to get at, is pretty much what ArthurF asked, why was Ireland so different? Why did Scotland and Wales accept “Britishness” and not Ireland?

Maybe, what was originally a medieval “Class” struggle evolved into a race/religious one. Also, add in the influence on the Catholic Church in Ireland, which has, for a long time been at logger heads with the British Monarchy and you get this boiling pot which turned out the way it did?

I may be well off the mark, but look forward to debating the above.

Hagar · 09-02-2007 10:21am

Fratton Fred wrote:

the ruling “Classes” have kept peasants down in order to protect their wealth, what is viewed in Ireland as British oppression, could it not just be the ruling class trying to exploit more of the poor people for their own good,

Fair enough comment if the ruling classes were Irish but they weren't, they were foreign. So they were never going to be accepted as our own ruling class. There was always a yearning to be self determined in the Irish psyche which I don't think has been completely fulfilled.

Fratton Fred wrote:

What I am trying to get at, is pretty much what ArthurF asked, why was Ireland so different? Why did Scotland and Wales accept “Britishness” and not Ireland?

Good question, I would say the Irish were different because we are Irish not British. We are not a subject Nation and never accepted it even under force of arms. I somehow don't think that anyone English will ever understand the difference. You are not used to the idea that we are different and can't come to terms with that reality. Why did the Scots and the Welsh allow the English to rule them? Why did they ever stop trying to regain their independence? Personally I think it's shameful that they didin't. I think Britishness is nothing more than a term to indicate subjugation to England.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Maybe, what was originally a medieval “Class” struggle evolved into a race/religious one. Also, add in the influence on the Catholic Church in Ireland, which has, for a long time been at logger heads with the British Monarchy and you get this boiling pot which turned out the way it did?

Bear in mind the strugle between the English Monarchy and the Catholic Church only came about because Henry VIII wanted a son by a wife who couldn't give him one so he invented a new religion for a whole country to let him go through six wives in his quest for an heir.

Fratton Fred · 09-02-2007 12:41pm

Hagar wrote:

Fair enough comment if the ruling classes were Irish but they weren't, they were foreign. So they were never going to be accepted as our own ruling class. There was always a yearning to be self determined in the Irish psyche which I don't think has been completely fulfilled.

I agree totally, I would be the same. I'm not trying to jusify anything, just get a possible explanation.

Hagar wrote:

Good question, I would say the Irish were different because we are Irish not British. We are not a subject Nation and never accepted it even under force of arms. I somehow don't think that anyone English will ever understand the difference. You are not used to the idea that we are different and can't come to terms with that reality. Why did the Scots and the Welsh allow the English to rule them? Why did they ever stop trying to regain their independence? Personally I think it's shameful that they didin't. I think Britishness is nothing more than a term to indicate subjugation to England.

Maybe you are right, but what is British, I'm not British, I'm English, a Scotsman is Scottish and we are all very different. I think Subjugation is a bit of a strong word, there are many Scots and Welsh who found life as part of Britain very beneficial and Scotland in particular played a very major part in building the empire. If you ever visit the Caribbean you will find many references to Scotland, including a lot of scottish surnames (And irish as well). As to why they didn't push for independence earlier, who knows, maybe they were too busy colonising the world to worry about their own country.

Hagar wrote:

Bear in mind the strugle between the English Monarchy and the Catholic Church only came about because Henry VIII wanted a son by a wife who couldn't give him one so he invented a new religion for a whole country to let him go through six wives in his quest for an heir.

Agreed, although one of his major gripes was more to do with the interference of Rome in the way he ran his country. This key issue is one which I believe led to the majority of the oppression in Ireland. Not so much a dislike of Catholics, Catholics in Britain didn't experience the prolonged level of oppression that they did in Ireland, however, the Catholic Church has had a far bigger influence here than Britain and I think that the conflict between Rome and the monarchy spilled over into ireland.

brianthebard · 09-02-2007 2:03pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

Sorry, I wasn’t directing that at you, it was a general question.

When I say Working class, what I mean are peasants. Through out history, pretty much globally, the ruling “Classes” have kept peasants down in order to protect their wealth, what is viewed in Ireland as British oppression, could it not just be the ruling class trying to exploit more of the poor people for their own good, but given some form of spin by those who stood up against it? Creating a nationalist fervour when it was as much a socialist issue.

Its true, the ruling classes will only look after their own needs. Hence you don't see working class interests being discussed until socialist parties start bringing their problems to the government. I think you will have to refer to a period before I can start to talk bout nationalism and socialist issues and the like. Seeing as we are dealing with a broad topic (800 years :rolleyes: ) A lot of things change over that period.

What I am trying to get at, is pretty much what ArthurF asked, why was Ireland so different? Why did Scotland and Wales accept “Britishness” and not Ireland?

*breathes in* A long and complicated issue. I already addressed Wales' union with England. Its important to note that Wales became "british" before reformation, and generally by choice. In contrast Scotland only joined the Union in 1707. Before that the Stuarts had ruled Scotland and England, as distant relatives of Elizabeth, but in the end Scotland, like Ireland was forced into Union to an extent. Also, Scotland didn't really accept Britishness, there were several uprisings over the years. However there is a closer connection between Calvinist Scotland and Anglican England, so religion wasn't as much of an issue in this case.

In Ireland neither of these situations happened. Ireland was planted forcefully, although obviously the Pale had existed for some time. There was no real reformation in Ireland, so it continued to be a Catholic country for longer than Wales and Scotland. This led to tension, although by the Act of Union religion would no longer be the same issue that it had been. Plus in 1707 there had been attempts to reconcile both the Scottish church and the Anglican Church, which smoothed out some of the issues between the two. This didn't happen to the same extent in Ireland. (Of course it is arguable how important this is)

Maybe, what was originally a medieval “Class” struggle evolved into a race/religious one. Also, add in the influence on the Catholic Church in Ireland, which has, for a long time been at logger heads with the British Monarchy and you get this boiling pot which turned out the way it did?

I may be well off the mark, but look forward to debating the above.

I'm not comfortable using the term class struggle in a medieval context. Please expand on this point though, I'm not sure if it is valid but I'd like to know what you mean. Also pre-famine the Catholic Church didn't exert as much influence as one may believe. the church was generally quite poor in Ireland (it was a poor country after all) and one of the reasons reformation didn't work was that Henry VIII couldn't strip monastries of money in the way he had in England, and without that cash he couldn't set up a new church.

brianthebard · 09-02-2007 2:06pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

Agreed, although one of his major gripes was more to do with the interference of Rome in the way he ran his country. This key issue is one which I believe led to the majority of the oppression in Ireland. Not so much a dislike of Catholics, Catholics in Britain didn't experience the prolonged level of oppression that they did in Ireland, however, the Catholic Church has had a far bigger influence here than Britain and I think that the conflict between Rome and the monarchy spilled over into ireland.

I'm sorry that's simply not true. Catholics in England were treated worse than Irish Catholics in many cases, and couldn't hold seats in Parliament until Catholic Emancipation, same as Irish Catholics. The only reason it appears that they weren't oppressed for as long is because they were dealt with more systematically in England.

Fratton Fred · 09-02-2007 2:32pm

brianthebard wrote:

I'm sorry that's simply not true. Catholics in England were treated worse than Irish Catholics in many cases, and couldn't hold seats in Parliament until Catholic Emancipation, same as Irish Catholics. The only reason it appears that they weren't oppressed for as long is because they were dealt with more systematically in England.

I should have emphasised the word prolonged, I know they were treated as badly, I have visit the stately homes and seen the priest holes, heard the stories of Catholics being hidden, almost akin to Jews being hidden in Amsterdam. what I was trying to say, albeit badly, was that the oppression of Catholics in Ireland outlasted that in Britain.

brianthebard · 09-02-2007 2:46pm

Again that would come down to what is oppression? English Catholics couldn't hold seats in parliament until Catholic Emancipation, the same as Irish Catholics, so the same thing happening there. I can't think of any other examples of specific attempts to oppress catholics after the Religious wars. Perhaps the penal laws, but i'd have to read over them again.

LordSutch · 09-02-2007 6:10pm

I realise that I am being a little trite 'with this particular post' compared to some of my learned posters on this subject, but are we getting any closer to the (800 years of oppression)? fair enough, some of the gaps have been filled-in, but even then, there are still questions about the specific oppression of the 'Irish' by the 'English' and I think it is beginning to look more like the oppression of Catholics by the ruling classes? & not just Irish Catholics (or am I mistaken)?

Some previous poster said that if I really wanted to find out, then I should go to a library (fair enough) but surely other posters would also like to read about the 800 years too?

I am not being smart, I really wanna know How & Why 'The English' got away with this for 800 years .................... Or is it possible that the 800 years is a bit of a Colouful & Mythical jibe at our neighbours

Erin Go Brath · 12-02-2007 12:23pm

You raise some interesting points there ArthurF.

I can assure you though the 800 years of oppression is not a mythical jibe as you put it!

Since the Norman Invasion from England (1169) onwards theres largely been a mistrust of the Crown in Ireland.

The major conflict between Britain and Ireland did exist before, but really only escalated in any major way from the 1500s/1600s onwards. Ireland werent happy but went along with British rule without major sustained resistance, until the Protestant reformations. When England had its first Protestant King was really the straw that broke the camels back, as I see it. The problem being Irish people were unwilling to be ruled by a Protestant King, more specifically were unwilling to take the Oath of Allegiance, and the Oath of abjuration. England relentlessly enforced the oath of abjuration across the land, forcing Catholics to abandon their faith in exchange for keeping their property and possessions. In these dark and treacherous times Catholic priests were imprisoned or executed without question. It would be blasphemous for any Catholic person to accept the King of England as head of the Church instead of the Pope, and many people would have thought they'd go to hell when they died if they did.

Ireland had 6 armed rebellions in the 300 years prior to gaining independence. While it was about independence, and gaining soverignity, it was also a religious war. England tried to enforce the Protestant religion, Ireland refused to accept it. That certainly sparked a lot of the conflict!!!

LordSutch · 12-02-2007 2:21pm

But were the Normans 'The English'?

Hagar · 12-02-2007 2:47pm

AFAIK the Normans came from Normandy in Northern France, at the time that bit of real estate was ruled by England so I suppose Norman troops were used as "cannon-fodder" to save the real English troops. A long standing tradition I believe.

Erin Go Brath · 12-02-2007 5:29pm

Hagar wrote:

AFAIK the Normans came from Normandy in Northern France, at the time that bit of real estate was ruled by England so I suppose Norman troops were used as "cannon-fodder" to save the real English troops. A long standing tradition I believe.

You're right about that Hagar.

King Henry II (King of England at the time) was a French-speaking Norman much preoccupied with controlling his French territories. However, he had contemplated an invasion of Ireland as early as 1155, with the approval of the only English Pope.

Hagar · 12-02-2007 6:34pm

Well to be honest I did have a bit of insider knowledge on that last one.
You see I'm not really a Viking at all, I'm a Norman of the DeBurgh family.

My Family Crest and History

So I suppose after all 288 posts I'll own up. It was me and mine.

Now get over it lads.

Close the thread and move on before I'm forced to oppress you all a bit more.

brianthebard · 12-02-2007 10:20pm

ArthurF wrote:

But were the Normans 'The English'?

Absolutely not in my opinion. They were French first and English second. Personally I can't accept reference to English oppression before Henry VIII. Plus as I have said countless times on this thread, the Normans did not oppress the Irish. Invaded, killed, took land, yes. But then they assimiliated and became Irish. Because that's what people did in that period of history. It isn't until Henry VII's time (who wasn't very successful in Ireland anyways) that we see nations attempting to conquer another nation. When people refer to 800 years and cite the Normans as an example of oppression, they are completely ignoring the actions of the Normans (Irish lords invaded other clans lands, and took land in just the same way) but they are also applying a 21st century sense of imperialism on a society in which imperialism did not exist. That is one of my biggest gripes with the 800 years line. (Perhaps I should have put it like that from the start)

Fratton Fred · 13-02-2007 9:48am

Erin Go Brath wrote:

You're right about that Hagar.

King Henry II (King of England at the time) was a French-speaking Norman much preoccupied with controlling his French territories. However, he had contemplated an invasion of Ireland as early as 1155, with the approval of the only English Pope.

so it was the fault of the English, because they allowed themselves to be invaded by the French and then let the French go on and conquer Ireland.

what inconsiderate bastards those English are;)

Erin Go Brath · 13-02-2007 10:40am

Hagar wrote:

Well to be honest I did have a bit of insider knowledge on that last one.
You see I'm not really a Viking at all, I'm a Norman of the DeBurgh family.

My Family Crest and History

Well, of all the treachery

You lot have been here since the 12th century, I guess that makes you Irish at this stage. Myself and a few of the other orignal Gaelic settlers (We're getting old at this stage) will have a word to sort this out.

brianthebard · 13-02-2007 3:00pm

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Well, of all the treachery

You lot have been here since the 12th century, I guess that makes you Irish at this stage. Myself and a few of the other orignal Gaelic settlers (We're getting old at this stage) will have a word to sort this out.

Why makes you think your family is an "original Gaelic settler" family?:rolleyes:

LordSutch · 13-02-2007 4:13pm

Now we are making progress, thanks mostly to post #289 by Brianthebard amongst others.

The 800 years of 'English' oppression is beginning to look a lot more complicated now ..........

800 years

Comments