English occupation of Ireland

[ulsterman88]

What in God's name does the EU have to do with Irelands borders. Countries like Germany or Poland can't be medling with Ireland.

I think thats the only thing i agree with you on.

But earlier you said that the irish hate the British monarch. Most of Irelands problems in the last 3 centuries have nothing to do with the Monarch. Instead it was the Irish parliament, dominated by Irish Anglicans of English and Irish descent, which oppressed catholics and the ulster scots population. And one of the irish peoples biggest moaning points is Cromwell, since when was this bugger working for the monarch, He was staunch supporter of republicanism.

And don't assume that the protestant people in northern ireland are English. WE ARE NOT ENGLISH, we are British and most of us are descendants of Scots settlers who came to North East ulster in the 16th Century to esape English interverence in their Presbyterian religion.

I also don't see why you would want 700,000 angry unionists on your hands most of whom would be willing to fight as paramilitaries. I think this is the main reason why the Irish government doesn't exactly push for a united ireland.

Well thats my rant finished, if anyone has any questions on the situation in Northern Ireland ask away

 

[pat4]

I think thats the only thing i agree with you on.

But earlier you said that the irish hate the British monarch. Most of Irelands problems in the last 3 centuries have nothing to do with the Monarch. Instead it was the Irish parliament, dominated by Irish Anglicans of English and Irish descent, which oppressed catholics and the ulster scots population.

And don't assume that the protestant people in northern ireland are English. WE ARE NOT ENGLISH, we are British and most of us are descendants of Scots settlers who came to North East ulster in the 16th Century to esape English interverence in their Presbyterian religion.

I was the one who said protestants don't call themselves English. I said they call themselves Ulstermen or British.

Ireland didn't have a Parliment from 1800 the act of Union in which the British flag got its red diagonil cross. Before 1794 the Irish Parliment couldn't make its own laws without the monarch agreeing to it. I didn't say the Irish blame the monarch for the oppression but rather hate the symbol of the crown and what it stands for, Imperialism, greed, tyrony, murders.

 

[bigfatron]

I was the one who said protestants don't call themselves English. I said they call themselves Ulstermen or British.

Ireland didn't have a Parliment from 1800 the act of Union in which the British flag got its red diagonil cross. Before 1794 the Irish Parliment couldn't make its own laws without the monarch agreeing to it. I didn't say the Irish blame the monarch for the oppression but rather hate the symbol of the crown and what it stands for, Imperialism, greed, tyrony, murders.

Before the end of the eighteenth century the British parliament couldn't make a law without the monarch's agreement either.

Ireland's tragedy was that it suffered the first great modern social disaster - the potato famine - and was the testing ground for what was acceptable under laissez-faire capitalism.

Until the Famine few people in educated circles in any country would have had a major problem with peasants starving when their crops failed, just as they had no problem with workers dying in mills, children working down mines,
navvies slaving til they dropped for pittance wages, or tens of thousands of workers living in typhoid-ridden slums in order to maximise the industrialising magnate's profits.

Such disdain wasn't about Irish and English, it was about poor and rich, the gentry and the commoner - the workhouse was the 'obligation of the indigent', the poor were responsiblke for their poverty, and that as that.

Few landlords - Catholic or Protestant - were local, and even of those that were, few cared about how their tenants suffered. Most high-tailed it to Dublin, Bath or London and worried about whether their estates' incomes would pay the interest on the money they had borrowed.

The tragedy of Irealand was the second wake up call to show what is required of a liberal democracy - the first was the abolition of slavery, and there followed social crusades to address sanitation, education, genuine democracy, etc.

I guess I don't think from what I have learned that an eighteenth century Irish smallholder was any more or less opressed than a Blackburn mill-hand or a Scottish crofter - life was pretty brutish for all. Each of them lived a precarious existence dependent on a single resource to support them - it was the bad luck of the Irish that their resource failed so spectacularly and so universally.

Just IMHO of course.
BFR

 

[pat4]

Ireland's tragedy was that it suffered the first great modern social disaster - the potato famine
BFR

Actually tecnically there was no famine in Ireland. A famine is when there is no food in the country. In Ireland there was plenty of food but rather give it to the poor the Landlords sold it to the English under pressure from Westminster of course. One of the greatest cruelties of all time. Destroyed the country up until the ninties. The west still hasn't recovered. The Gaeltachts are all but diminished. Saddening.

 

[Hotpoint]

Actually tecnically there was no famine in Ireland. A famine is when there is no food in the country. In Ireland there was plenty of food but rather give it to the poor the Landlords sold it to the English under pressure from Westminster of course. One of the greatest cruelties of all time. Destroyed the country up until the ninties. The west still hasn't recovered. The Gaeltachts are all but diminished. Saddening.

Actually in many ways it was a lack of pressure from Westminster that caused the problem. Initially the Tory Government under Robert Peel tried to alleviate the famine by shipping food aid to Ireland, repealing the Corn Laws and introducing public work programs so that people could earn money to support themselves but when the Whigs won the next election they considered this government intervention to be against the principles of laissez-faire and scrapped them.

 

[cubsfan6506]

It's not that we hate England we hate the monarch and what it stands for. Like a jew would hate anything which stood for Nazi'ism ( don't know about my spelling there ).

How dare you compare a monarch and the situation of the Irish and Hitler and the Jews.

The monarch has no real powers.

 

[cubsfan6506]

You Pat have a pretty weird idea comparing the monarchs to Hitler. Hitler Murdered more than the population of Ireland. If it werent for the british you would still be running around like Africa. Tribes and ethnic cleansing all over the place.

England has saved you from genocide.

 

[Plotinus]

Whether British monarchs of the past committed atrocities similar to those committed by Hitler is really completely irrelevant. Even if they did, what has the current monarch got to do with that? Irish people hating Elizabeth II because of what William III did is like Jews hating Angela Merkel for what Hitler did. The fact that someone occupies the same position is irrelevant; what matters is what their own views and actions are. And as far as I know, Elizabeth II has never done anything to oppress the Irish.

 

[Tboy]

I believe that if the Northern Irish want to stay separate from Ireland and remain part of Britain, that's their choice and things should stay that way. It's historically been that way, and many of the Northern Irish have a completely different identity to that of Ireland.

However, I still condemn the previous English invasions of Ireland, as they had no right and were bloody and foolish. Yet they were the mistakes of our ancestors, not us today, and if the Northern Irish wish to stay separate, I see no reason why they should be forced against their will to join a country they do not feel a part of.


EDIT:

You Pat have a pretty weird idea comparing the monarchs to Hitler. Hitler Murdered more than the population of Ireland. If it werent for the british you would still be running around like Africa. Tribes and ethnic cleansing all over the place.

England has saved you from genocide.

I'm not even going to comment on that, suffice to say you have a point that the monarchs were not psychopaths of their time. By today standards they would be, but in the medieval age killing, invading and murdering were standard practice. That was wrong, but they were nothing like Hitler.

The rest of what you said I cannot agree with, however.

 

[pat4]

I would like to comment on Saturdays game and what a momentous occasion it was at Croke Park. The response of the crowd to the English national anthem was unprecedented. But most important of all Ireland won by a record score.

 

[ulsterman88]

You Pat have a pretty weird idea comparing the monarchs to Hitler. Hitler Murdered more than the population of Ireland. If it werent for the british you would still be running around like Africa. Tribes and ethnic cleansing all over the place.

England has saved you from genocide.

Exactly Ireland was the most divided nation in Europe with no hope of unification or a bright future. If the English hadn't Anglicised Ireland then they probably would have continued in the pattern of division for centuries.

The idea of comparing the British Monarchy to Hitler is absurd. By 1710 the monarchy was second to Parliament who really ran things, creating a Constitutional Monarchy we have today in the UK. All of the events like bloody sunday in croke park and putting down United Irishmans rebellion etc.... were done by people acting under Parliaments orders not the Crowns.

 

[ulsterman88]

Whether British monarchs of the past committed atrocities similar to those committed by Hitler is really completely irrelevant. Even if they did, what has the current monarch got to do with that? Irish people hating Elizabeth II because of what William III did is like Jews hating Angela Merkel for what Hitler did.

Im curious, what you think William III did in Ireland? To my knowledge from A-level history, William was not sectarian no matter what nationalists or Unionists think, he fought his campaign in Ireland with an army made up of Catholics and Protestants reflecting his tolerance of all faiths. He didn't commit atrocities like in Irish propoganda and it wasnt' a campaign against Catholicism either like in Unionist propoganda, rather it was a war against the Irish and Old English aristocracy in order to safeguard the planted lands in Ulster.

After the campaign William took very little to do with Ireland as he was concerned with the war against Louis XIV in Europe, and he let the Irish Parliament take care of government, Ireland then entered a relatively peaceful period throughout his reign. Anglicans dominated the Irish Parliament, with Ulster-Scots and Catholics banned from voting. However this didnt represent Williams own views which were tolerant, Calvinist and frequently resulted in clashes with the Churh of England.

 

[bigfatron]

Im curious, what you think William III did in Ireland? To my knowledge from A-level history, William was not sectarian no matter what nationalists or Unionists think, he fought his campaign in Ireland with an army made up of Catholics and Protestants reflecting his tolerance of all faiths. He didn't commit atrocities like in Irish propoganda and it wasnt' a campaign against Catholicism either like in Unionist propoganda, rather it was a war against the Irish and Old English aristocracy in order to safeguard the planted lands in Ulster.

After the campaign William took very little to do with Ireland as he was concerned with the war against Louis XIV in Europe, and he let the Irish Parliament take care of government, Ireland then entered a relatively peaceful period throughout his reign. Anglicans dominated the Irish Parliament, with Ulster-Scots and Catholics banned from voting. However this didnt represent Williams own views which were tolerant, Calvinist and frequently resulted in clashes with the Churh of England.

There's a lot of truth to that - Ireland became involved as a French/Tory-Catholic English proxy battlefield against the protestant English majority, Connaught in particular being regarded as somewhere that would unflinchingly support the Catholic cause of James II.

AFAIK the war was conducted on both sides in keeping with the prevailing approach of the time - surrendering towns/garrisons were treated decently but any place that resisted was asking for a massacre once taken.

And also remember that the English protestants did have a genuine reason for fighting - in illustration, one of the French generals in the Boyne campaign was called the 'Butcher of Savoy' in regard to his punitive campaigns against Hugenots (French Protestants) in the regions adjoining Switzerland. It was not a good time to be Protestant and in Louis' sphere of influence.....

Anyway, QEII isn't descended from William III, she is descended from James I/IV's eldest grand-daughter!

 

[ulsterman88]

Thought i would hijack this thread to bring some good news about northern ireland (imagine that!!). Our two main and opposing parties (the DUP and Sinn Fein) have agreed to share power together, ending a long and drawn out peace process and hopefully bringing a stable future for Northern Ireland and all its people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6494599.stm

 

[GinandTonic]

They finally did sit down togeather. Well here's hoping.

 

[pat4]

Remember 7th September 05,
Northern Ireland 1 England 0
Remember 6th September 06,
Northern Ireland 3 Spain 2
David Healy for prime minister


I think its a good thing the north are getting decent results. Funny how the south have all premiership players and nearly drew with San Marino.

 

[El Justo]

Thought i would hijack this thread to bring some good news about northern ireland (imagine that!!). Our two main and opposing parties (the DUP and Sinn Fein) have agreed to share power together, ending a long and drawn out peace process and hopefully bringing a stable future for Northern Ireland and all its people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6494599.stm

 

[Plotinus]

Of course, the problem is selling the idea to their own supporters. What's tended to happen in the past is that the leaders of the main parties reach an agreement, which they can do because the leaders tend to be fairly moderate and able to compromise. But then the more extreme factions in their own parties rebel and refuse to have anything to do with it. The difference this time is that Ian Paisley is about as extreme as they come, so the fact that he has made such an agreement makes a big difference. But you can bet there will be many other die-hard Unionists and Republicans alike who won't want it. As soon as anyone makes a mistake somewhere down the line, the extremists on the other side will be up in arms, and then it's all over.

 

[El Justo]

i agree that the extreme factions may submarine the whole thing...but it seems like a good first step.

so do folks from the UK, Northern Ireland, and Ireland feel that it is too fragile?

or is there more hope here than in the past?

 

[GinandTonic]

Well there is always hope, but we seem to see the same patern again and again. When everyone's patience and even interest is exausted there is compromise. Then they play nice for a little until the next stumbling block where they all revert to the traditional pissing contest until the last min (eg when we threaten to cancel the cheques) when they agree to play nice again. And repeat.

I say lock the whole lot of em into a room and dont let them out until they have agreed policy. I would sugest we take the roof off after the first month, but the Unionists would doubtless regard that as a papist afectation.