The British Empire Thread

McArmalite · 13-02-2008 2:42pm

Quis Separabit wrote: »

Yes, the same famine which affected the north, but curiously the more organised Presbyterians in the north, many of whom had smaller plots of land to grow food on,less affection for drink, fewer children and tennants orgs survived it.

Well the mask would slip sooner or later, a true Paisleyite opinion - " the more organised Presbyterians in the north, many of whom had smaller plots of land to grow food on,less affection for drink, fewer children and tennants orgs survived it. " So now you know taigs, the inferior, backward, thick, dirty, lazy Irish Catholics are respondcible for their own destruction, especially their " affection for drink ". Spoken like a true unionist. Contrast that to the superior, industrial, hard working, crafty unionist race. Still true blue UDA billy boy, you cann't help having those opinions, after all, most of them concurred and often orginated from the 'mainland'. Isn't that right Fred, Croppyboy, Pathfinder etc ??

Quis Separabit wrote: »

Britain did not create slavery in Africa it was always there.

Britain actually led the way in abolishing it.

Did the republic not use "concentration camps"(an emotive term for temporary military camps with barbed wire, nothing like Nazi death camps) in the civil war ?

Never said britian created slavery, anyone knows the Romans etc were at it, but they undoubtably enslaved more poeple than any other state in histroy. No doubt about.

As for Britain actually led the way in abolishing it. "
* 1335 Sweden and Finland make slavery illegal
* 1588 Lithuania and Japan abolish slavery
* 1723 Russia abolishes slavery
* 1761 Portugal abolishes slavery

* 1772 Slavery declared illegal in England,

And it's completely beyond me why the brits applaud themselves for abolishing their own evil practice. I mean, it's like a theif starting to fell guilty about mugging an old lady's etc and saying, I'm going to stop it, and then proclaiming how fair minded and great he is ??

"The concentration camps in which Britain killed 27 000 Boer women and children(24000) during 1899 - 1902 ". http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm

Quis Separabit wrote: »

The reality is the wealth we have today, that inclues Ireland, has its origins in the global capitalist economy created by the empire. The modern stock markets whos function we rely on is a modern extension of this.

Our culture and economies are products of the British empire.

Britain led the way in bringing civilsation to places like India, pity the empire is still not around today, the world would be a much more stable place.

:D:D
As for unionism and economic development, I rememeber a quote of James Connolly - The relationship between unionism and britian is unlike any found in nature. It is a relationship where one type of parasite, breeds off another type of parasite.

Oh the Empire is finished no foreign lands to steal
But the greedy eyes of England are staring towards the seas
Two hundred miles from Donegal, there's a place that's called Rockall
And the groping hands of Whitehall are grabbing at its walls

Oh rock on Rockall, you'll never fall to Britain's greedy hands
Or you'll meet the same resistance that you did in many lands
May the seagulls rise and pluck your eyes and the water crush your shell,
And the natural gas will burn your ass and blow you to hell.

Eat you heart out Ian

Fratton Fred · 13-02-2008 2:52pm

McArmalite wrote: »

Never said britian created slavery, anyone knows the Romans etc were at it, but they undoubtably enslaved more poeple than any other state in histroy. No doubt about.

Other than your own prejudice, do you have anything to back that up, because I would have thought that Spain, France and the US would have had similar numbers of slaves.

Give me St George in my heart keep me singing
Give me St George in my heart I pray
Give me St George in my heart keep me singing
We Won't surrender to the IRA.

I'm sure I can find a load more, but lets refrain from quoting nationalist songs shall we, it is a bit pointless.

PDN · 13-02-2008 2:52pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The COI were only interested in giving food to starving Catholics if they renounced their faith, and joined the COI. To many people who were deeply religious at the time we have to remember, this would be seen as blasphemy and they would go to hell, so they would rather die instead.

While some Protestants carried out famine relief out of a desire to win converts, it is factually incorrect to say that the CoI were only interested in this.

Indeed, Richard Whately, CoI Archbishop of Dublin, specifically preached against such an attitude. He used the Good Samaritan as an example and argued that, as the Good Samaritan did not try to convert the man he helped, neither should the CoI attempt to convert those to whom they extended famine relief.

As always, history is composed of many people of differing motives and character - any attempt to oversimplify it into goodies versus baddies is bad history.

PDN · 13-02-2008 2:53pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Other than your own prejudice, do you have anything to back that up, because I would have thought that Spain, France and the US would have had similar numbers of slaves.

Imperial China?

McArmalite · 13-02-2008 3:10pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Other than your own prejudice, do you have anything to back that up, because I would have thought that Spain, France and the US would have had similar numbers of slaves.

Give me St George in my heart keep me singing
Give me St George in my heart I pray
Give me St George in my heart keep me singing
We Won't surrender to the IRA.

I'm sure I can find a load more, but lets refrain from quoting nationalist songs shall we, it is a bit pointless.

Well, now we know who get a belting from the Guards down at Lansdowne Road in 1995

Wolff · 13-02-2008 3:26pm

The oul chessnuts thread

Britain and the famine
Britain and the Death Camps in South Africa
Britain and the Slave Trade

Most British people I think would agree they could have done more for us in the famine so to keep dragging this one up time after time is lame in the extreme.

Death camps in South Africa - this one always plays well but whats less well known is the public outcry when details were published about conditions in the camps, back home in britain -the backlash lead directly to the end of the war.

Dont think the Germans had much of an outcry - oh thats right Irelands best pal at the time the German people didnt know what was going on.

I can picture the scene - truck rolls up to the street - all the jewish people loaded up and driven off never to be seen again - yep nothing wrong there.

Britain and the slave trade - yep again the british did terrible things as well here and it was a deadfull trade.. but to their credit they were among the first to outlaw it and actively police any slave trading around the empire.

And if i hear that crap about drogheda again ill scream - thats all a load of oul bollix

No they were not perfect and have done a lot of bad things in their history - but show me a country that hasnt.

But the republican crowd here live in a completely blinkered version of the past -

Britain has been around for nearly a thousand years - they must be doing something right - get over it

McArmalite · 13-02-2008 4:07pm

" The oul chessnuts thread

Britain and the famine
Britain and the Death Camps in South Africa
Britain and the Slave Trade

Most British people I think would agree they could have done more for us in the famine so to keep dragging this one up time after time is lame in the extreme.". It's a HISTORY forum, what the hell are people supposed to talk about. If you don't like the subject, don't read it.

" Death camps in South Africa - this one always plays well but whats less well known is the public outcry when details were published about conditions in the camps, back home in britain -the backlash lead directly to the end of the war. "
Death camps - ? The Oxford Dictionary defines concentration camp as: a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902; esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45.

The backlash DID NOT lead directly to the end of the war. The Boer War ended as the Boer men no longer had the heart to fight due to the immense death and suffering of their women and children in the concentration camps. They even feared that should the war continue, their'd be no future generation left such was the ferocity of the british. True their was an outcry among the british public AFTER the war, but it was unfortunately due to the fact that britian's misconduct had been kept form them during it. ( It should be pointed out most Irish people sympathised with the Boers, seeing them as a people oppressed by britian like themselves. )

"Dont think the Germans had much of an outcry - oh thats right Irelands best pal at the time the German people didnt know what was going on. I can picture the scene - truck rolls up to the street - all the jewish people loaded up and driven off never to be seen again - yep nothing wrong there. " Don't see why Nazi Germany is brought in as an excuse for britian's misconduct. Anyway, it's was conviently brushed under the carpet by the 'allies' that 1/2 a million German socialists, trade unionists, etc were taken and thrown into concentration camps before the war to die ( such policy's were secretly very populiar with the ruling class of in many countries across Europe ). I wonder if you, or indeed any one of us were present witnessing such events, would we have shouted stop ?? I'm sure the few who did found themselves been beaten to pulp and off to you know where. But then that's always a tatctic of your type, making hypocritical excuses like ' ah well, they weren't as bad as so and so'. But still they managed to achieve something the Nazi's couldn't, the extermination of a race of people - the Tasmanian aborigines.

"Britain and the slave trade - yep again the british did terrible things as well here and it was a deadfull trade.. but to their credit they were among the first to outlaw it and actively police any slave trading around the empire." As stated - And it's completely beyond me why the brits applaud themselves for abolishing their own evil practice. I mean, it's like a theif starting to fell guilty about mugging an old lady's etc and saying, I'm going to stop it, and then proclaiming how fair minded and great he is ??

"And if i hear that crap about drogheda again ill scream - thats all a load of oul bollix ". If i hear that crap about Enniskillen, Birmingham, Warrington etc, again ill scream - thats all a load of oul bollix.

"No they were not perfect and have done a lot of bad things in their history - but show me a country that hasnt....But the republican crowd here live in a completely blinkered version of the past - Britain has been around for nearly a thousand years - they must be doing something right - get over it....Britain has been around for nearly a thousand years - The United Kingdom of Great Britain, came into existence in 1707 by the merger of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, under the Acts of Union 1707, to create a single kingdom encompassing the whole of the island of Great Britain.

The brits and West brit crowd here live in a completely blinkered version of the past - get over it

Erin Go Brath · 13-02-2008 4:07pm

PDN wrote: »

While some Protestants carried out famine relief out of a desire to win converts, it is factually incorrect to say that the CoI were only interested in this.

Indeed, Richard Whately, CoI Archbishop of Dublin, specifically preached against such an attitude. He used the Good Samaritan as an example and argued that, as the Good Samaritan did not try to convert the man he helped, neither should the CoI attempt to convert those to whom they extended famine relief.

As always, history is composed of many people of differing motives and character - any attempt to oversimplify it into goodies versus baddies is bad history.

The CoI archbishop was surely duty bound to say these things, surely compassion should have been the most important thing especially from a man of God. I think the clergy both Catholic and Protestant let the people down for the most part during the famine. On the one hand you had a Protestant priest trying to convert dying Catholics with the promise of food, and on the other hand you had the Catholic priests telling them they'd go to hell if they accepted it.

Fratton Fred · 13-02-2008 4:13pm

McArmalite wrote: »

" The oul chessnuts thread

Britain and the famine
Britain and the Death Camps in South Africa
Britain and the Slave Trade

Most British people I think would agree they could have done more for us in the famine so to keep dragging this one up time after time is lame in the extreme.". It's a HISTORY forum, what the hell are people supposed to talk about. If you don't like the subject, don't read it.

" Death camps in South Africa - this one always plays well but whats less well known is the public outcry when details were published about conditions in the camps, back home in britain -the backlash lead directly to the end of the war. "
Death camps - ? The Oxford Dictionary defines concentration camp as: a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902; esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45.

The backlash DID NOT lead directly to the end of the war. The Boer War ended as the Boer men no longer had the heart to fight due to the immense death and suffering of their women and children in the concentration camps. They even feared that should the war continue, their'd be no future generation left such was the ferocity of the british. True their was an outcry among the british public but it was unfortunately due to the fact that britian's misconduct had been kept form them during the war.

"Dont think the Germans had much of an outcry - oh thats right Irelands best pal at the time the German people didnt know what was going on.
I can picture the scene - truck rolls up to the street - all the jewish people loaded up and driven off never to be seen again - yep nothing wrong there. " Don't see why Nazi Germany is brought in as an excuse for britian's misconduct. Anyway, it's was conviently brushed under the carpet by the 'allies' that 1/2 a million German socialists, trade unionists, etc were taken and thrown into concentration camps before the war ( such policy's were secretly very populiar with the ruling class of in many countries across Europe ). I wonder if you, or indeed any one of us were present witnessing such events, would we have shouted stop ?? I'm sure the few who did found themselves been beaten to pulp and off to you know where.

"Britain and the slave trade - yep again the british did terrible things as well here and it was a deadfull trade.. but to their credit they were among the first to outlaw it and actively police any slave trading around the empire." As stated - And it's completely beyond me why the brits applaud themselves for abolishing their own evil practice. I mean, it's like a theif starting to fell guilty about mugging an old lady's etc and saying, I'm going to stop it, and then proclaiming how fair minded and great he is ??

"And if i hear that crap about drogheda again ill scream - thats all a load of oul bollix ". If i hear that crap about Enniskillen, Birmingham, Warrington etc, again ill scream - thats all a load of oul bollix.

"No they were not perfect and have done a lot of bad things in their history - but show me a country that hasnt....But the republican crowd here live in a completely blinkered version of the past - Britain has been around for nearly a thousand years - they must be doing something right - get over it"

"Britain has been around for nearly a thousand years 2 - The United Kingdom of Great Britain, came into existence in 1707 by the merger of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, under the Acts of Union 1707, to create a single kingdom encompassing the whole of the island of Great Britain. It's parliament and government, based in Westminster in London.

The brits and West brit crowd here live in a completely blinkered version of the past - get over it

McArmalitre's view on Ireland, 3 True irishmen, 3,999,997 west brits who do not believe the same ****e he does:D

Fratton Fred · 13-02-2008 4:17pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The CoI archbishop was surely duty bound to say these things, surely compassion should have been the most important thing especially from a man of God. I think the clergy both Catholic and Protestant let the people down for the most part during the famine. On the one hand you had a Protestant priest trying to convert dying Catholics with the promise of food, and on the other hand you had the Catholic priests telling them they'd go to hell if they accepted it.

Don't forget the CoI is very different from the Presbytarian church. Presbytarians (Who have a fairly well known reverand leading one of the parties in Stormont) can be a lot more militant than the CoI, so it is not unreasonable to presume that the CoI were going following what the Archbishop was preaching, whilst the Presbytarians, a different form of protestantism entirely, were busy trying to convert catholics.

Erin Go Brath · 13-02-2008 4:37pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Don't forget the CoI is very different from the Presbytarian church. Presbytarians (Who have a fairly well known reverand leading one of the parties in Stormont) can be a lot more militant than the CoI, so it is not unreasonable to presume that the CoI were going following what the Archbishop was preaching, whilst the Presbytarians, a different form of protestantism entirely, were busy trying to convert catholics.

Not knowing a whole lot about the different flavours of Protestantism, i'd be inclined to agree anecdotally from what i hear that the Presbyterians would be more militant and anti-catholic than the other Protestant religions, but i'd be open to correction on that. Certainly Paisley has never hid his hatred of Catholics, openly preaching it to devoted Unionists hanging on his every bigotted word.

McArmalite · 13-02-2008 4:41pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

McArmalitre's view on Ireland, 3 True irishmen, 3,999,997 west brits who do not believe the same ****e he does:D

In your dreams Fred, in your dreams.

csk · 13-02-2008 4:42pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

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

Wolff · 13-02-2008 4:57pm

As Regards the Boer War - the treatment of the civilian population did lead directly to the end of the war - thats a fact (though some posters here wouldnt know one of them if it planted some semtex underneath them)

Who exposed the maltreatment - and who clamoured for the war to be stopped - the british themselves

Slave trading - who campaigned and stopped it - again the british themselves

As for converting to protestantism for food or whatever reason - catholic opression of protestants did the same and worse during the reformation

As for Enniskillen, Birmingham, Warrington etc they happened - the events described about Drogheda the supplies from the caliph etc did not happen

As for the 1/2 million comrades and socialists etc being carried off to concentration camps - didnt stop the IRA from climbing into bed with the nazis now either did it ?

England has been in existence for a thousand years - if it makes people happier

McArmalite · 13-02-2008 6:17pm

"As Regards the Boer War - the treatment of the civilian population did lead directly to the end of the war - thats a fact (though some posters here wouldnt know one of them if it planted some semtex underneath them)..... and who clamoured for the war to be stopped - the british themselves "

It was the Boer men "who clamoured for the war to be stopped", it was they who accepted the terms dictated by britain, it was the boers who laid down their arms, not the british ya plank :rolleyes:. The treatment of the civilian population did notlead directly to the end of the war, though it was a commendable factor, it was NOT the main factor. Just as Tony and co. ignored british public opinion of going to war due to the so called weapons of mass destruction, the conservative govt. of that day carried on regardless. Indeed, half way thru the war, in the 1900 UK general election, there was much enthusiasm for the war at this point, the Conservative govt. been returned. The main factor was the Boer men no longer had the heart to fight due to the immense death and suffering of their women and children in the concentration camps -
"thats a fact", just accept it.

" Who exposed the maltreatment ...... Slave trading - who campaigned and stopped it - again the british themselves " Ah yes, the 'thick plank' is back to square one, here we have to go again :rolleyes: - it's completely beyond me why the brits applaud themselves for abolishing their own evil practice. I mean, it's like a theif starting to fell guilty about mugging an old lady's etc and saying, I'm going to stop it, and then proclaiming how fair minded and great he is ??

As for Enniskillen, Birmingham, Warrington etc they happened - the events described about Drogheda the supplies from the caliph etc did not happen The events described about Enniskillen, Birmingham, Warrington did not happen. Enniskillen - brits exploded bomb not the IRA who had left the area, Warrington - warning that had been given by Provos ignored ( not for the first time ), Birmingham - regretful incident due to vandalism of two sets of phones the IRA unit had checked out earlier to phone warnings.

"As for the 1/2 million comrades and socialists etc being carried off to concentration camps - didnt stop the IRA from climbing into bed with the nazis now either did it ?" The world's awareness about Nazi concentration camps did not become known well into the war, the IRA, (who ironically fought against fascism in Spain, including the nazi's there), accepted weapons from the Germans on the principle of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. As far as I know, they didn't march anyone off to a nazi concentration camp with them, although if you were to listen to people like you, you think they did, they just used them on the occupation forces of our country - a noble cause. As for nazi's and beds, well, britian and the USA were happy to provide them for many escaped nazi's didn't they ?? People in glass houses etc, etc.

I hope that puts you straight. Please don't come back repeating the same rubbish as your last two postings :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred · 13-02-2008 6:35pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Not knowing a whole lot about the different flavours of Protestantism, i'd be inclined to agree anecdotally from what i hear that the Presbyterians would be more militant and anti-catholic than the other Protestant religions, but i'd be open to correction on that. Certainly Paisley has never hid his hatred of Catholics, openly preaching it to devoted Unionists hanging on his every bigotted word.

to put it simply, if you are a Christian, but not a catholic or Orthodox then you are a protestant. This is why I don't like the term, it is very broad and can almost be used as an insult. You get one extreme Protestant like Paisley who is a Presbytarian minister and all "Proddies" are suddenly anti Catholic which simply isn't true. Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans etc are all very different.

I don't know a great deal about unionists or orangemen, but I believe most are Presbytarian, which has (I believe) it's roots in the Scottish farming coimmunities. I remember a quote about the Presbytarian settlers in Ireland and the US that they could farm sheep with a bible in one hand and a shotgun in the other.

That said, Presbytarians are usually about as religious as your average Irish Catholic these days!

Wolff · 13-02-2008 7:52pm

ya plank

the 'thick plank' is back to square one

Well argued...

As for the IRA the defenders of Democarcy in spain - fighting the nazis all over the world..dont make me laugh - you are contradicting yourself now, if nobody knew about concentration camps until well into the war where does this fit in

"it's was conviently brushed under the carpet by the 'allies' that 1/2 a million German socialists, trade unionists, etc were taken and thrown into concentration camps before the war to die ( such policy's were secretly very populiar with the ruling class of in many countries across Europe"

So you are saying the allies didnt know about the camps till well into the war now ?

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

me wonders...and as for slavery the only people who bring it up are rabid british hating types who forget to mention the abolishment as well - the british i think dont dwell on it .

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

also another thing nice about britain is its democracy - who ever voted for the IRA ? oh thats right, they use force to impose their will .

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

Most of the nazis were involved in rocket development or counter soviet involvment so they served a purpose

Dont remember Ireland doing anything to help in the war effort - oh thats right we signed the book of condolenses - for Hitler, oh well every little helps

purple'n'gold · 13-02-2008 10:24pm

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

QUOTE=csk;55130090]Actually most of them did have a problem with it. Even the ones who joined the British Army. The above statement is pure lies on your part.[/QUOTE]

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

csk · 13-02-2008 10:51pm

double post

csk · 13-02-2008 10:52pm

purplengold wrote: »

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

QUOTE=csk;55130090]Actually most of them did have a problem with it. Even the ones who joined the British Army. The above statement is pure lies on your part.

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

:D Dude are you serious?

PDN · 14-02-2008 12:07pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

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

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

Fratton Fred · 14-02-2008 12:12pm

PDN wrote: »

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

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

I stand corrected, thank you for pointing that out.

purple'n'gold · 14-02-2008 1:49pm

csk wrote: »

:D Dude are you serious?

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

Erin Go Brath · 14-02-2008 3:21pm

purplengold wrote: »

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

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

Fratton Fred · 14-02-2008 3:32pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

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

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

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

purple'n'gold · 14-02-2008 3:40pm

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

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

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

brianthebard · 14-02-2008 4:04pm

csk wrote: »

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

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

McArmalite · 14-02-2008 4:08pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fratton Fred · 14-02-2008 4:19pm

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

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

Erin Go Brath · 14-02-2008 4:23pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

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

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

The British Empire Thread

Comments