An American's view of 'The Troubles'

What follows is my attempt to reconcile the viewpoint of many Americans of Catholic denomination, Irish by descent, have of the Ulster situation. I am no expert on Irish history and welcome corrections, enlightenment and the rest. I think for the purposes of this thread, we should all recognize and understand that the history we think we know is probably not 100% accurate. Where somebody raises a point we view to be incorrect, let's stick to debate on facts, not harsh words or personal attacks.

I was born and raised in an Catholic-American household in a small suburb of Boston. Dad was from an Italian enclave (North End), Mom was from one of the Irish enclaves (Brookline). (I was actually born in the city and lived there until I was 5). This was ground-zero for Americans of Irish descent (from here on out referred to as AOID, we're not Irish). My mother's family, every last one, was deeply imbued with the AOID view of the Troubles, i.e. the civil unrest in Northern Ireland. Like most young Catholic kids my age, I grew up thinking the British to be solely responsible and a detestable lot (sorry EA, Slyspy, et. al.) and felt bad that the poor, noble Catholics in Ulster were being oppressed by the invading British and their turncoat allies, the Irish Protestants.

Then a funny thing happened one day. I took an Irish literature course. The professor, from county Mayo mind you, spent the first two weeks of the class digging into history, so that we would have some perspective on what we were reading. And lo, the scales fell from my eyes. I am not about to play apologist for the British, the Orange order, the IRA, the IRB or pretty much anyone. I will however do my best to offer my view of the Troubles, for those who like me were raised in the mythology, and have yet to make the startling realization that at the end of the day, all were to blame.

-First, and foremost, and this is where so many Americans have a hard time:
English does not equal British!!! England does not equal the UK!!! Aka: The political history (I'll save the religion for later...) is rather complicated, but don't forget, in 1776, 1/3 of OUR nation took up arms as loyal subjects of the crown, and they viewed themselves every bit as 'American' as those fighting for independence.

-Second, the UK has a long and proud tradition of defending the rights of its citizens, regardless of where they reside, and regardless of the threats they face. In the case of Ulster, the British probably would have been happy to give the whole thing over to the Republic of Ireland in the early 70's. There's only one problem... a majority of those residing in Ulster wanted to remain part of the Union. The rest of the UK, while not desiring to get mired in a guerilla war, decided they must do what they must and protect the loyal subjects of the crown that were asking for protection (and ~51% of the population was asking for protection).

-Third, the English did not invade Northern Ireland. It had been held under the English monarchy since the days of the Normans. Were the Normans English? Well, they came from vikings, and they spoke French. The resident anglo-saxons certainly didn't welcome them as long-lost cousins. My point is that the 'invasion' dates back to a time before nationhood. So, how did Northern Ireland come to be? In the 1920 agreement hammered out by Michael Collins, the counties that voted to become part of the Republic left and formed the Republic of Ireland. The counties that voted to remain part of the Union stayed in the Union. This wasn't a matter of 'English ownership', no more than Connecticut owns Georgia. In fact, the British in allowing the ROI to form, showed a good deal more lattitude than the USA's government had 60 years prior.

-Now, there were two factions in the early ROI: there were those who believed in the compromise (under Michael Collins) and those who believed the entire island must move as one (Eamon DeValera's gang), all stay or all leave, and to them, it was all leave. And upon the declaration of the formation of the ROI, Ireland began it's first days of independence with a terrible, bloody, vicious civil war that pitted friends against friends, and literally brothers against brothers. The English actually played almost no role in this, this was Irish Catholic Republicans killing Irish Catholic Republicans. In the end, De Valera's side won, mainly due to the death of Michael Collins. There's some speculation that De Valera arranged for Collin's murder under the auspices of a peace negotation, but the evidence either way just isn't there. My point is, the Irish were fighting themselves from the get go over the issue of Ulster, and there's plenty of blame to be laid on both sides, Hollywood's opinion aside. However, the ROI adopted an official policy of seeking unification with Ulster. They were not however prepared to take military action to see it happen, they mainly sat back and made some strongly worded statements occassionally, usually come election time.

Now, the whole religious question...
How did Protestants wind up in Ulster?

-Many of them chose to convert to Anglicanism (known as the Church of Ireland within Ireland), in the days of Henry VIII and Elizabeth.
-Many were transplated Scots that were put there by the government of the UK with the idea that perhaps mixing the Scots and the Irish would settle both populations (much the same way mixing nitrogen and glycerine makes a nice soothing cocktail).
-And yes, Cromwell forcibly converted a bunch during the days of the English Civil War. But one has to realize, what happened in Ireland in the days of "To Hell or To Connacht" was on par, no worse no better than what was going on in England itself. To come out on the losing side in that war, to be a royalist town behind parlimentarian lines or vice versa, even for a few weeks, was a death sentence.

My point in all of this? The Protestants in Ulster are every bit as Irish as the Catholics there are. Ireland is a republic, yes, but it's also a cultural identity, regardless of one's political affinities. To claim that the Unionists aren't Irish is unfair. You can (and should) say that they're not Republicans, but that's not the same thing at all. One refers to a people, the other refers to a current government.

Typically, Protestants have tended to be Unionists and Catholics have tended to be Republicans. But some of the leading figures in the movement for Irish independence were in fact Protestant. Do a Wiki search on Wolfetone and tell me if you starting to get the picture. So the simple little fairy tale that we were told, that the English enslaved Ireland and stole Ulster away and robbed and tormented the Catholics... it's not so much untrue as very limited in scope and long outdated.

Overall fairly accurate encompassing most of the main points regarding the History of the Island of Ireland.
But, as with everything else in life it is a very very complex situation that sadly many people fail to grasp.

I will watch with interest.

Quote:

---

My point in all of this? The Protestants in Ulster are every bit as Irish as the Catholics there are. Ireland is a republic, yes, but it's also a cultural identity, regardless of one's political affinities. To claim that the Unionists aren't Irish is unfair. You can (and should) say that they're not Republicans, but that's not the same thing at all. One refers to a people, the other refers to a current government.

---

In the other thread that was my point. Their all Irish so the British are not protecting their citizens unlless you consider all Irish to be British. This truly as you say is where we americans get confused. What exactly is The British? Is it the English? Their system is so damn confusing.

British is some one from the British isles.

English is someone from the country England.

British = English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, the Falklands and so on as they are all part of the Union. The fact that some people may not want to be British is besides the point - they are until they aren't.

Quote:

---

British = English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, the Falklands and so on as they are all part of the Union. The fact that some people may not want to be British is besides the point - they are until they aren't.

---

Its still very confusing. Most americans think that British = English as they are the real seat of power and started the whole British thing. The rest of you poor souls are just semi independent nations it looks to me :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

In the other thread that was my point. Their all Irish so the British are not protecting their citizens unlless you consider all Irish to be British. This truly as you say is where we americans get confused. What exactly is The British? Is it the English? Their system is so damn confusing.

---

There is an entire group of Irish people that are citizens of the United Kingdom (not England) that wish to remain citizens of the United Kingdom. Their fellow citizens within the UK did their best to help see that their fellow citizens rights were protected.

Basically, think of Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh as a person from the areas of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales for a second (forget the political construct of nations for a second). In American translation, let's try an applachian hillbilly, a Great Plains farmer, a pacific surfer and a rocky mountain lumberjack. They're from different areas too, right? But they form one political union and all are citizens of the United States. Notice I did not use states explicitly. States are political entities and there is no political entity of 'England'. It's a cultural-geographic area, not a political reality (at least not at this time).

Now, the United Kingdom would be the equivalent of the United States. People from these various areas formed into a political union. Like us, they didn't want to lose their unique culture, so they kept the idea of being Irish, being English, being Scottish and being Welsh, but politically, they are united under in one kingdom, with one parliament and one monarch.

One of those groups decided they wanted out. Only not all of those people wanted out. Those that wanted to stay were concentrated in one area. So the political union (the UK) came together and came up with a compromise: those that lived in an area where a majority wanted to leave the union could. But those who lived in areas where the majority wanted to stay in the union could as well, more or less.

In American terms, imagine if Lincoln had granted the CSA it's independence, but insisted that Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, where a majority were in favor of federalism, had to stay in the United States. Now, imagine that the CSA is sympathetic to the slave holders in those three states that want to join the CSA, but they don't actually make a war with the USA to break them off. And then, the CSA supporters in those 3 states (who are a very large minority at the time) decide to start a guerilla war to drive the US army out. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's the best I can come up with.

Quote:

---

There is an entire group of Irish people that are citizens of the United Kingdom (not England) that wish to remain citizens of the United Kingdom. Their fellow citizens within the UK did their best to help see that their fellow citizens rights were protected.

---

Well first off you claim everyone in Ulster is Irish .I guess thats not really so then.

Quote:

---

2.4 Northern Ireland

Ireland was long considered a de facto province of England, a colonial possession dominated politically and militarily by its more powerful neighbour to the east. The English divided Ireland into counties for administrative purposes, introduced English law and established a Parliament in England and Ireland in 1297, within which only the Anglo-Irish were represented. By the fourteenth century Irish discrimination by the English had prompted widespread protests, which had resulted in a revival of the Irish language, law and culture, particularly as English power was seen to diminish. Yet, the recognition of Henry VIII as King of Ireland in 1541 led to the confiscation of monastic property and the isolation of would be rebels, many of whom had their lands confiscated. The beginnings of the Plantation of Ulster, the pronounced migration of Scots to the northern counties of Ireland, Ulster, dates from the beginning of the seventeenth century. Thus Ulster became a province dominated by Protestant, Scottish planters, while the native Irish, continuing to claim allegiance to the proscribed Catholic Church, became landless and displaced by the colonisers. The Plantation of Ulster can be considered as the starting point of an historical process which has resulted in the contemporary ‘troubles’ between Unionist and Republican, Protestant and Catholic..

---

It may not have been an invasion but it was certainly a hostile takeover. This is what I was always taught.

LINK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

In the other thread that was my point. Their all Irish so the British are not protecting their citizens unlless you consider all Irish to be British. This truly as you say is where we americans get confused. What exactly is The British? Is it the English? Their system is so damn confusing.

---

I don't why it should be confusing-just think of it in terms of states. The UK is just like The US, except instead of 50 states we have 4-England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Calling me, a Welshman, English, is as inaccurate as calling someone from New York State a Texan.

Quote:

---

I don't why it should be confusing-just think of it in terms of states. The UK is just like The US, except instead of 50 states we have 4-England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Calling me, a Welshman, English, is as inaccurate as calling someone from New York State a Texan.

---

Well you almost make sense. However if you call either a New Yorker or a Texan an American they probably wont get upset. Im sure there are many more Irishmen who dont like being reffered to as British. Isnt the reality that England conquered all those around her and then gave them independence to one degree or another? How long did it take the Irish to accept that they were British. Seems to me there has been a lot of screaming and crying over this matter. I wonder if the Irish would like to be a truly independent nation? What percentage of Irish would favor total independence?

The Republic is totally independent. Northern Ireland on the other hand operates under a devoluted government, and everyone in NI is British. Nationalists there may not want to remain British, but the other half (and it is a 50/50 split about) are Unionists and wish to remain British.

Do people in the UK then think of Northern Ireland as part of Britain? The official name is the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, right? I always thought you'd be either Irish (from the island of Ireland) or British (from the island of Great Britain). Anyone from Wales, England, or Scotland would be British, those from Northern Ireland part of the UK but not of Britain. Am I misunderstanding it?

Ajax

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Then there's also the overseas territories such as the Falklands and Gibraltar.

Britain itself is the island that is made up of England, Scotland and Wales. The British Isles are made up of Britain and Ireland as well as the few hundred small islands dotted around both.

Quote:

---

Do people in the UK then think of Northern Ireland as part of Britain? The official name is the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, right? I always thought you'd be either Irish (from the island of Ireland) or British (from the island of Great Britain). Anyone from Wales, England, or Scotland would be British, those from Northern Ireland part of the UK but not of Britain. Am I misunderstanding it?

---

Ill second that. :help:

Cue Pedantic interruption

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gawain of Orkney

How long did it take the Irish to accept that they were British.

---

My understanding of the terminology being used here has always been that British is a geographical term, meaning someone from the British Isles. The two main islands in this archipelago are Great Britain and Eire.

Its like calling the United States of America, America. Call a Canadian American and he'll tell you he's Canadian, but he's from North America, and henceforth can be accurately called an American. Or tell someone from England he's European - he'll deny it till his last breath, but any atlas will show you the truth of the matter.

The cause of contention was being a member of the United Kingdom, and a subject of that most terrible of tyrants, Elizabeth II. Although, god willing the recent peace agreement wil hold and they'll be no more troubles in the British Isles.

EDIT: Whoops, post mades whilst typing have rendered this obsolete.

The United Kingdom is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Great Britain refers to primarily to the largest of the British Isles, in which we find England, Wales and Scotland. However it is also used as an alternative to the UK and also a catch-all term in which case it would include our few remaining overseas territories (wherein the Great takes a sort of Imperial meaning rather than simply meaning "the biggest bit").

Northern Ireland is certainly part of the UK, although sometimes we who are not Irish wonder whether it has been worth the hassle!

As for the population of Northern Ireland, well, they are Irish. However they are also British. In fact a staunch Ulsterman would consider himself British before being Irish, and a Republican vice versa. The culture may be Irish but the nationality, you see, is British.

I will aslo Point out that People living in Northern Ireland are entitled to both British and Irish Citizenship or whichever one you are preferential to.

The Unionists see themselves as British (Even though they live on the Island of Ireland and are technically Irish but that is swept under the carpet :beam: ) as in a member of the UK. Nationalists see themselves as Irish Citizens and members of the Republic of Ireland.

The whole issue of British and British Isles is confusing, but generally Great Britain is seen as the main Island comprising England, Wales and Scotland.

Quote:

---

It may not have been an invasion but it was certainly a hostile takeover. This is what I was always taught.

---

It was a hostile takeover, but so was everything else throughout time. This occured not long after The Thirteen Colonies got planted and kicked out the Indians.
Life was different then, a main rule is never to apply today's morals to eras past.

The decendants have as much right to Live in Northern Ireland as the decendants of the Indiginous Irish.

Quote:

---

It was a hostile takeover, but so was everything else throughout time

---

Well Im a firm believer in that.

Quote:

---

Its like calling the United States of America, America. Call a Canadian American and he'll tell you he's Canadian, but he's from North America, and henceforth can be accurately called an American. Or tell someone from England he's European - he'll deny it till his last breath, but any atlas will show you the truth of the matter.

---

Or a Jew from Israel a Palestinian?:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gawain of Orkney

Or a Jew from Israel a Palestinian?

---

Touche! Assigning people an attitude/posistion/label because of geography is always a daft thing to do.

Politicians though have always had a hard time seeing that, which is why the crop of 19th century european empires died hard (to plagarise Bruce Willis).

Just to confuse our ex-colonial cousins a bit more, scratch under the surface and you will find more divisions.

I was born in Lancashire. That makes me a Lancastrian. However, the city I was born in, Manchester, also makes me a Mancunian. Now, Lancashire is in the north of England, so I consider myself to be a Northener.

So to take stock.

I am first a Mancunian. Then a Lancastrian. Then a Northerner.....and then an Englishman. After all that kurfuffle, I am British.

Trust me, living in Yorkshire, they, (the Tykes), think exactly the same.

Still when my missionary work is complete I will be allowed back over the border. :laugh4:

Ask anyone from the UK where they come from and I'll put money on it that they identify with their place of birth/residence first and county second, then the country.

Top thread DC :2thumbsup:

I'll return to the whole citizenship confusion in a second, but, on the troubles, there is a bit of recent history I would add.

Ulster was relatively peaceful from partition until the late 60s, had its own devloved parliament, and generally did not bother those of us on the bigger Island very much. Unfortunately, though, it should have done. The protestant majoriy used their majority to discriminate very severely indeed against the catholics, building up resentment. This, IIRC, lead to civil disobedience, which was seized on by one Rev Ian Paisley (and may there be an afterlife, just to wipe the smile from his face) to stir up protestant anger against the catholics in return.

Its a generally forgotten fact that troops were first deployed on the streets to prtotect the catholics from the protestants, as the police and civil institutions of NI could not be trusted to do so. In stead, they could be trusted to beat catholics up very severely, whenever they suggested alient popish practices like one man, one vote.

Alas, we didn't know as much then as we do now about using troops to quell civil disobedience, a few lads known as the IRA saw the chance to provoke things, and the rest, as they say, is history.

So, to be honest, although I am certainly happy to hear about ancient Irish history and the terrible things Cromwell did, where I think the UK is truly to blame is not sorting out Stormont (The NI legislature) between 1921 and 1960 something. The fact is the catholic population did not get much from the UK state and understandably looked elsewhere. You'd have thought we would have learnt from the potato famine but apparently not. But it was benign neglect rather than active malovelence.

As for the situation now, personally I think its daft to have one small island with two states and imagine they will merge at some point. I certainly don't regard my virility as an Englishman as depending on the six counties remaining in the union. (see my views on Scotland, raised to the power of ten)

Confusing citizenship bit: in a sense the UK and the republic have joint citizenship. Irish citizens have never been subject to any restrictions on moving to or working within the UK, and they have full rights to vote. (And I assume to stand in elections, although I'd have to check.) I believe the situation is the same in Ireland but I am not sure.

Quote:

---

which is why the crop of 19th century european empires died hard (to plagarise Bruce Willis).

---

Historical digression on/

Actually, you are plaigiarising Colonel Inglis, commanding officer of the 57th regiment of foot, at the battle of Albuhera in 1811. Shot in the thick of the battle he stayed with the regiment, calling on them to hold their position and shouting, "Die hard the 57th, die hard!", until he died himself. They held the position, but with casualties of 420 out of the 570 men in the ranks and 20 out of the 30 officers. The regiment was nicknamed the Die Hards by the rest of Wellington's army, and subsequently the army as whole.

No disrespect to Bruce but I think the 57th were harder than him.

/Historical digression off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

-Now, there were two factions in the early ROI: there were those who believed in the compromise (under Michael Collins) and those who believed the entire island must move as one (Eamon DeValera's gang), all stay or all leave, and to them, it was all leave. And upon the declaration of the formation of the ROI, Ireland began it's first days of independence with a terrible, bloody, vicious civil war that pitted friends against friends, and literally brothers against brothers. The English actually played almost no role in this, this was Irish Catholic Republicans killing Irish Catholic Republicans. In the end, De Valera's side won, mainly due to the death of Michael Collins. There's some speculation that De Valera arranged for Collin's murder under the auspices of a peace negotation, but the evidence either way just isn't there. My point is, the Irish were fighting themselves from the get go over the issue of Ulster, and there's plenty of blame to be laid on both sides, Hollywood's opinion aside. However, the ROI adopted an official policy of seeking unification with Ulster. They were not however prepared to take military action to see it happen, they mainly sat back and made some strongly worded statements occassionally, usually come election time.

---

If i remember correctly, the opposants to the partition lost the civil war and Collin's side won it. De Valera was latter elected president but this had nothing to do with civil war.

Just to confuse our poor American Bretheren further:

I was born in Devon but I am not a Devonian because by Parrents come from Hampshire and Surrey. Those in the South West are generally looked down upon as backwards yocals and it is not profitable to be too closely associated with the region in peoples minds.

On Topic: So far we've kept it simple, but the truth is that the Irish are all British. They just aren't all Crown Subjects (now more commonly termed citizens of the United Kingdom.)

As to the idea that England "invaded" or even "took over" the other countries this is true of Wales (never unifed beyond the life of one man and never a country) and Ireland but in fact the current monarchs are decended from the Scottish Royal House and the previous dynasty was in fact of WELSH lineage with no real connection to the Plantagenets at all.

The big thing to remember though is that we are a Union, not a country.

Nice going Don :2thumbsup:
A little thing though , people keep writing Ulster when they mean Northern Ireland .
Ulster contains 9 counties N.I. contains 6 .
which leads to .......

Quote:

---

One of those groups decided they wanted out. Only not all of those people wanted out. Those that wanted to stay were concentrated in one area. So the political union (the UK) came together and came up with a compromise: those that lived in an area where a majority wanted to leave the union could. But those who lived in areas where the majority wanted to stay in the union could as well, more or less.

---

which was a bit of a ballsup , more or less since the more or less included an economic provision which was used against some majorities wishes . Counties Tyrone and Fermanagh both had clear outright nationalist/republican majorities , most of Co.Armagh did as well , large areas of Co.Derry also had natoinalist/republican majorities including Derry city .
Northern Ireland could not be economically viable without these areas so "majority" wishes were overruled . Doing so led to lots and lots of problems(to put it mildly) .
Which (to veer ever so slightly off topic)people should consider next time they voice support for an independant Kurdistan ,given that the oil fields that such a state needs to be economically viable just happen to be in areas where they are not a majority .

Partition has never worked.

The idea of being British was invented by King James I to legitimize his crown after Queen Elizabeth I died he had been James VI of Scotland so he came up with idea of hey guys sure were all British and I am King of it ta da.

Quote:

---

If i remember correctly, the opposants to the partition lost the civil war and Collin's side won it. De Valera was latter elected president but this had nothing to do with civil war.

---

Indeed, militarily the Irish Civil War was a fairly comprehensive victory for the Irish Free State (the Pro-Treaty forces) and in fact the military leaders of both sides (Michael Collins and Liam Lynch) were both killed in the closing stages of the fighting. The actual number of casualites and combatants was low by the standards of other contemporary civil wars (much like the preceding War of Independence/Anglo-Irish War, it was very much a war of guerilla actions, assassinations, and urban fighting rather than large-scale pitched battles) Subsequently much of the Republican (Anti-Treaty) political wing, Sinn Fein, broke ranks and became the Fianna Fail part, led by de Valera, which did a lot better as a political party.

The wiki article on the conflict is pretty good as far as the facts go as far as I can see. Check it.

Also, the modern Republic of Ireland did not instantly come into being in the 1920's. A very simplified course of events would be that the War of Indepencence/Anglo-Irish War ended with the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which was understandably complicated and vague, but the simplest way to describe it would be that it removed Ireland from the UK (and thus, the direct control of Westminster) and made it more-or-less a British Dominion, like Canada or Australia. Its own parliament, generally control of its own affairs except for military and foriegn policy, the Monarch still head of state etc. However, they also provided the vocal Unionists in the North-East (There were unionists throughout Ireland of course, but only there, and in some isolated political seats such as Trinity College Dublin, were they a majority) with the right to opt-out and remain part of the UK, which they immediately did. The Civil War was not fought over the issue of Northern Ireland at all (no-one in "the South" believed the Ulster Unionists could be brought round to joining an all-Ireland state, though unfortunately some advocated violent coercion) but over whether the rest of Ireland should accept the Treaty and thus become a Dominion, or fight on for absolute independence (an oath of loyalty to the British King particularly rankled) The Pro-Treaty victory meant the end of fighting against the UK government, and what is now the Republic of Ireland was the Irish Free State, a British Dominion, for the next 25 years or so. They more or less ignored Britain during this time however, and dismantled the links with Britain piece by piece. De Valera, then Taoiseach (Prime Minister) created drafted a new Constitution in the 1937 which defined the nation more clearly and further distanced the Free State (Saorstát Éireann as he would have preferred) from the UK. The Republic of Ireland itself only came into being in 1949, and this final "divorce" with the UK was surprisingly amicable (George VI's telegram to the Irish president should be on the internet somewhere, I can't find it, but the language is interesting, a bit "good luck in the big wide world chaps sorry it didn't work out eh what")

The history of Ireland is pretty damned convoluted really, but that's a very good post DC. I know as an Irish person it can be awkward (and somewhat embarassing) to hear some Irish-Americans talking as if the whole country is under occupation from oppressive British garrison troops. Or serious news coverage of Northern Ireland describe Sinn Fein as "the Catholics" and the DUP as "the Protestants" as if it's the bloody Thirty Years' War. I'm glad to see people taking an interest in Irish history and attempting to understand the true story, which of course does not fit neatly into the world-view of one "side" or other. :book:

Antagonist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antagonist

Also, the modern Republic of Ireland did not instantly come into being in the 1920's. A very simplified course of events would be that the War of Indepencence/Anglo-Irish War ended with the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which was understandably complicated and vague, but the simplest way to describe it would be that it removed Ireland from the UK (and thus, the direct control of Westminster) and made it more-or-less a British Dominion, like Canada or Australia. Its own parliament, generally control of its own affairs except for military and foriegn policy, the Monarch still head of state etc.

---

And they had their say when there was a change in that head of state in 1937.

Abdication of H.M. King Edward VIII: Telegrams sent to UK High Commissioners in Commonwealth countries

Asked Dominions for informal views on the alternatives. Wrote similarly to President of Irish Free State. Summary at folio 3 - all reluctantly favour Abdication. Irish Free State initially in favour of marriage without succession but only on misunderstanding of position in the UK as regards divorce.

Of course even today the UK and Ireland are not entirely seperate, just ask Banquo who signed his commission.

wait...when did we start letting catholics in? Its funny Don, My family settled in the North Shore over 400 years ago as ardent anti-catholics, I guess we nevr understood the whole funny hat thing. Anyway they were as WASP as WASP can get I mean masnory know nothings the works. So all of you immagrants can probably trace your troubles back to me (Im not gonna aplogize) Now its ok seeing as my assorted aunts and uncles have maried out of Northern Euro-Protastent heritage (including me mum) The point is I've seen Brookline and South BOston and it really a trip. Pretty cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

The idea of being British was invented by King James I to legitimize his crown after Queen Elizabeth I died he had been James VI of Scotland so he came up with idea of hey guys sure were all British and I am King of it ta da.

---

Whilst I am sure that the notion was attractive to James I, Edward Longshanks and Athelstan had thought of it before; not to mention Claudius.

Irish people are not British. The nation is called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". But then, being British doesn't mean much anyway. I would consider myself to be Scottish, maybe the SNP will change things so that one day thats what I officially will be.

It doesn't matter if Irish people are not "British". The people of Northern Ireland chose to remain part of the UK, and so they have the right to do so. It cannot be claimed that the land belongs to Irish Catholics, who are no more Irish by ancestry than many of the Protestants there. They may claim the land was forcibly taken from them hundreds of years ago, but that is irrelevant now. What matters is that the people of Northern Ireland chose to remain part of the UK. The Scottish Kingdom of Dalriada was formed by Irish settlers hundreds of years ago, and that Kingdom went on to rule all of Scotland. It erased completely the once dominant Pictish culture. The Britons of Stratchclyde and the Angles of Lothian were oppresed for centuries. Yet people in the lowlands today don't talk of fighting against the Irish invaders. Many people in western Scotland seem to like to think they are Irish. The current inhabitants of Northern Ireland voted to remain in the Union, and so their wishes should be protected. With the recent talks that have been going on there, things are looking brighter for both Catholics and Protestants now anyway.

Great Britain being the big bit. Anyone who lives in these Islands is British, and that includes all the Irish. It has been fairly comprehensively proven that we are one people who just got our aristocracies replaced by different groups.

Talking about past invasions and land being taken is just divisive. Modern politicians use it to try and carve us up into different peoples. In reality life never really changed that much for the britons, they just had different rulers and administrations.

There were never more than 200,000 Saxons vs the 2,000,000 Britons in what is now England.

Quote:

---

Talking about past invasions and land being taken is just divisive. Modern politicians use it to try and carve us up into different peoples. In reality life never really changed that much for the britons, they just had different rulers and administrations.

---

Now if only people in the ME could learn this :laugh4:

It is not true that the people of the British Isles (not just Great Britain) have descended from one people. England has a largely Anglo-Saxon population, with some Norse influence in the north and more French influence in the south. In Scotland, the south-west was largely made up of Britons (as is Wales and Cornwall), and the south-east Angles. The north was dominated by the Picts. Meanwhile, Ireland consisted of Gaels, made up of a mixture of Basque settlers (Goidils) and Celtic settlers such as the Belgae.

Of course nowadays this should not cause divisions between these people. The cause of "The Troubles" was religiously based. Irish catholics against largely Irish protestants. Thankfully the worst of that is over, and their political leaders are beginning to co-operate again.

When you say "French" in the south, don't you mean Norman? I don't think the Franks actually made it into the British Isles very often, and as far as I know, Great Britain hasn't seen a land invasion since 1066. I'll be the first to admit I could be wrong on this, however. (I'm not talking about Bonnie Prince Charlie raising armies and returning, I'm talking about a foreign people moving in and changing the bloodlines).

Aside from which, I believe it's Philvps' point that while sure, there were anglo-saxons, they were a minority (just the one in charge). Yes, there were Vikings and Normans, but again, minorities. The largest component of the base population of England has come from the Britons, who like the Irish, the Dal Riada (Scots) and the Picts, were originally of Celtic descent. Correct Philyp?

Quote:

---

The Conquest of 1066 is considered the last invasion of the British Isles. But how did Britain defend her shores from subsequent foreign attackers such as Spain and France?

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...hreat_01.shtml

We've been invaded numerous times since 1066. For a more obscure one, google Mousehole, Cornwall.

Oh go-on then, I'll do it fer ya.

http://www.cornwalls.co.uk/Mousehole/

Some were more successful than others.

:egypt:

Wow It seems even the Brits cant agree :laugh4: You are ,I am not ,oh yes you are, oh no Im not.:help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...hreat_01.shtml

We've been invaded numerous times since 1066. For a more obscure one, google Mousehole, Cornwall.

Oh go-on then, I'll do it fer ya.

http://www.cornwalls.co.uk/Mousehole/

Some were more successful than others.

:egypt:

---

Wasn't there an American raid sometime after the War for Independence, when the raiders came to burn down the village, forgot to bring torches, and had to knock on a door and ask for a light from an English villager? Possibly the most farcical attempted sack ever.

Quote:

---

Possibly the most farcical attempted sack ever.

---

You havent seen me play football :laugh4:

Can I just make it clear I am not trying to suggest that the fact the British Isles are historically made up of different peoples should cause political divisions nowadays, its just a fact.

Some of the Britons in England were killed by the Anglo-Saxon invaders, the majority were forced into Cornwall, Wales, and lowlands Scotland. The modern English will be largely Anglo-Saxon blood. Also Norman would have been more accurate than French.

Sorry if this historical discussion is de-railing this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

Can I just make it clear I am not trying to suggest that the fact the British Isles are historically made up of different peoples should cause political divisions nowadays, its just a fact.

Some of the Britons in England were killed by the Anglo-Saxon invaders, the majority were forced into Cornwall, Wales, and lowlands Scotland. The modern English will be largely Anglo-Saxon blood. Also Norman would have been more accurate than French.

Sorry if this historical discussion is de-railing this thread.

---

I recently completed a semester of Anglo-Saxon studies at university in which one of the main points suggested was that there was NO anglo-saxon migration. We were of course invited to argue against this thesis, but I was kind of convinced that the Saxon invasion was like the Normans who came after them,

ie: the Saxon aristocracy brought enough men to overthrow the current Romano-British encumbents, and set up its own control structure.

A few centuries later the Normans did the same, but the people on the ground, who pay the taxes, and bow their heads at the fellow on the horse have stayed the same since the last ice age.

Didnt a lot of Vikings settle there?

What Irish Protestants? There never was, or has been. The Protestants are Scots that were sent there in the 1740's to solve the "Irish Problem" - in other words, murder the potato eaters. Isn't that the bit about Jacobites and such?

I mean, a part of my clan went there on the promise of lands - if they just murdered those there. They ended up siding on the downtrouden side, losing miserabley. Fleeing back to their castle (in Scotland), they saw what was coming - raided the family treasury and fled to the colonies in america.

Basically that's how my ancestors got here (a father and his 3 sons).

So, equating the Protestants of Ireland as being Irish is like equating the Blacks in america as being american aborigenes.

Britain has been hard pressed to give up their Empire, or address the problems of it. It maybe time for them to form the coalitions and create a states form of equality now. Had they begun it in 1770 - they'ld be the only superpower, after all there wouldn't be a USA 'cause they'ld have conceeded the necessity to share power. And allow those under them an equal vote.

Still, it is a terrible predicament for anyone that wishes to remain arrogant.

We in the USA got that problem now. Difference is we get the chance to lose ours every 4 years. Some of Ya'll ain't got over it in centuries.

Good luck with that,.

This thread delivers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

What Irish Protestants? There never was, or has been. The Protestants are Scots that were sent there in the 1740's to solve the "Irish Problem" - in other words, murder the potato eaters. Isn't that the bit about Jacobites and such?

---

The plantation of Ulster began in Elizabethan times - almost 200 years before your 1740. That means these people's ancestors arrived 400 years ago and even that is an over simplification. Many Irish Protestants would have converted from Catholicism in the intervening years and there will have been a lot of intermarriage. I think these Ulstermen are Irish enough - that's what they call themselves (although they cling to their Britishness too) and the Irish Republic think they are Irish as well. If not, why is their flag Orange? According to this notion there are very few Americans, Canadians and Australians. Whether they are indigenous or not is just as irrelevant for Ulster as it is for these three.

Quote:

---

Britain has been hard pressed to give up their Empire, or address the problems of it. It maybe time for them to form the coalitions and create a states form of equality now. Had they begun it in 1770 - they'ld be the only superpower, after all there wouldn't be a USA 'cause they'ld have conceeded the necessity to share power. And allow those under them an equal vote.

---

I don't think there is historical merit in any of this. Britain gave up its empire fairly rapidly in response to economic necessity. As for the idea that any part of the UK now is under represented - ridiculous (unless you mean England!). It is very tempting for Irish Americans to conflate the colonies bid for freedom with Irish Republicanism but there is no merit in it. Unlike the Americans, Ireland had its own parliament until 1801 and then equal representation in the UK parliament until 1922. You could make an argument that the modern difficulties in Ulster stemmed from them being given too much independence which the majority used to oppress the minority.

Quote:

---

We in the USA got that problem now. Difference is we get the chance to lose ours every 4 years. Some of Ya'll ain't got over it in centuries.

---

I know it is not written down but we do have a constitution and it is relatively easy to see that we too have elections.

Quote:

---

Still, it is a terrible predicament for anyone that wishes to remain arrogant.

---

I'd rather be arrogant than ignorant. (Is it arrogant to claim to be neither?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Whilst I am sure that the notion was attractive to James I, Edward Longshanks and Athelstan had thought of it before; not to mention Claudius.

---

Aethelstan never thought of a united British collective group. Simply an overlordship of the Islands of Britain. Same with Longshanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Ask anyone from the UK where they come from and I'll put money on it that they identify with their place of birth/residence first and county second, then the country.

---

I agree but I think this applies more when that person is resident in their country of origin.
I'm English and right now I live in Staffordshire, so when anyone asks where I'm from I say I was born in Chelmsford, Essex and grew up in near Banbury in Oxfordshire, but when I lived in Wales and subsequently Scotland then those places were forgotten and to me and the people around me I was simply English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

What Irish Protestants? There never was, or has been. The Protestants are Scots that were sent there in the 1740's to solve the "Irish Problem" - in other words, murder the potato eaters. Isn't that the bit about Jacobites and such?

So, equating the Protestants of Ireland as being Irish is like equating the Blacks in america as being american aborigenes

---

Since the Scots settlers were there a few hundred years before that, then surely having lived there for more than 500 years is enough for them to be called Irish? Otherwise, all Australians, Americans, Canadians are British. Considering the fact that the "Scots" were simply Irish settlers that settled in Dalriada in western Scotland not much more than 500 years before the first Scots settlers arrived in Ireland, if 500 years is not enough to change a peoples nationality then the "Scotti" tribe never became Scottish in the first place, they were still Irish by the time many of them left again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RabidGibbon

I recently completed a semester of Anglo-Saxon studies at university in which one of the main points suggested was that there was NO anglo-saxon migration. We were of course invited to argue against this thesis, but I was kind of convinced that the Saxon invasion was like the Normans who came after them,

ie: the Saxon aristocracy brought enough men to overthrow the current Romano-British encumbents, and set up its own control structure.

A few centuries later the Normans did the same, but the people on the ground, who pay the taxes, and bow their heads at the fellow on the horse have stayed the same since the last ice age.

---

However, if the anglo-saxon conquest was no different to the Normans, then why has the Celtic influence on the English language been extremely minor, with only a handful of loanwords? If, as you say, the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy merely supplanted the Britonnic one, why did the Saxon language not evolve to become a new fusion with the Celtic one, just as Norman French fused with Old English. Furthermore, if "the people on the ground, who pay the taxes, and bow their heads at the fellow on the horse have stayed the same since the last ice age", why are the overwhelming majority of place names of Anglo-Saxon origin? We know that the Norman population did not supplant the Saxon population of England, and they had a minor impact on place names, which is not the case with the Saxon invasion.

I also recall a study that showed a remarkable genetic similarity between Englanders and Dutch (who have some Saxon ancestry as well), wich wasn't the case with the Scots apparently.

Genetics suggests that in fact the English are largely decended from Saxon fathers and British mothers, where there is significant Saxon blood at all. As to the issue of why the Normans did not change the culture significantly.

They did, but unlike the Norse and Saxons they didn't mix and also unlike the Norse and Saxons they invaded a well run kingdom, not a collapsing Roman province. The evidence suggests that Britain was fragmented before the arrival of the Saxons. The Saxons started in East Anglia and worked west and North. It was a long process of pushing the Romano-British back or killing them off.

The Vikings did the same. Even today the difference North and South of the Danelaw is obvious and is reflected in language and place names.

Despite this the baseline population, which included slaves as well as freemen has remained largely unchanged since the last Ice Age and has withstood Celtic, Roman, Saxon and Norse invasions.

As far as Holland goes, remember that was once Celtic land as well. The same process likely happened there as well. There are genetic differences but the "Celtic Fringe" is in evidence in Devon as well as Cornwall. We're not all exactly the same and we have had different rulers but we're all part of the same family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The Vikings did the same. Even today the difference North and South of the Danelaw is obvious and is reflected in language and place names.

---

This is true. To Americans we speak pretty much alike, but put me and say EA together and the rage in accent would be obvious.

The flat vowel sounds prevelent in the north are directley influenced by the Viking language. Wheras the elogated vowel sounds from the south is typical Saxon influence.

Take the word bath for example. The southerners would pronounce is incorrectley and say barth. I, a northener, would use the correct inflection and prounce it bath.

That's right. Even the Queen can't speak proper English. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D Wilson
I agree but I think this applies more when that person is resident in their country of origin.
I'm English and right now I live in Staffordshire, so when anyone asks where I'm from I say I was born in Chelmsford, Essex and grew up in near Banbury in Oxfordshire, but when I lived in Wales and subsequently Scotland then those places were forgotten and to me and the people around me I was simply English.

---

You're right there. When I lived in Ayrshire I said that I was English, then Lancastrian, then Mancunian. I still felt inside it was the other way around though.

Quote:

---

prounce it bath.

---

Theres two ways to pronounce bath :help:

Quote:

---

Things have come to a pretty pass
Our romance is growing flat,
For you like this and the other
While I go for this and that,
Goodness knows what the end will be
Oh I don't know where I'm at
It looks as if we two will never be one
Something must be done:

Chorus - 1
You say either and I say either, You say neither and I say neither
Either, either Neither, neither, Let's call the whole thing off.

You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off

But oh, if we call the whole thing off Then we must part
And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart

So if you like pyjamas and I like pyjahmas, I'll wear pyjamas and give up
pyajahmas
For we know we need each other so we , Better call the whole off off
Let's call the whole thing off.


Chorus - 2
You say laughter and I say larfter, You say after and I say arfter
Laughter, larfter after arfter, Let's call the whole thing off,

You like vanilla and I like vanella, You saspiralla, and I saspirella
Vanilla vanella chocolate strawberry, Let's call the whole thing off

But oh if we call the whole thing of then we must part
And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart

So if you go for oysters and I go for ersters, I'll order oysters and cancel
the ersters
For we know we need each other so we, Better call the calling off off,
Let's call the whole thing off.


Chorus - 3
I say father, and you say pater, I saw mother and you say mater
Pater, mater Uncle, auntie, let's call the whole thing off.

I like bananas and you like banahnahs, I say Havana and I get Havahnah
Bananas, banahnahs Havana, Havahnah, Go your way, I'll go mine

So if I go for scallops and you go for lobsters, So all right no contest we'll
order lobseter
For we know we need each other so we, Better call the calling off off,
Let's call the whole thing off.

---

Great song by Louis Armstrong and many others.

I don't think the Americans here are quite confused enough yet, so I'll introduce the Isle of Man. A little off topic, but it's an interesting example of how loose the idea of Great Britain/the United Kingdom etc is.

The Isle of Man is part of Great Britain (because Elizabeth Windsor is our Head of State), but not the United Kingdom (because we are not governed by Westminster).

The Isle of Man is a Crown Dependancy, much like the British Virgin Islands or the Falklands. If we were invaded (don't laugh, I'm speaking hypothetically) the British army would have a duty to protect us, we have Elizabeth Windsor as our Head of State (though technically she should be refered to as the Lord of Mann, not the Queen - don't ask), and we speak English. But we set our own tax rates (which are way lower than the UK rates), make our own laws in our own government system (Tynwald is the oldest constant parliament in the world - the Isle of Man has enjoyed 1028 years of self rule since it was set up by the Vikings in 979AD) and have our own currency (the Manx pound is, however, worth exactly the same as the British pound, though it is not legal tender in the UK - though their money is acceptable here and some shops even take Euros 'cause we need the tourists' cash). Basically, we enjoy the best of both worlds - we are independant from the UK and the Westminster Government but have all the benefits and protection of being British. And we're not part of the EU. Bonus!

I would describe myself as Manx and British. I am very proud of being Manx, but would also call myself British.


More info on the Isle of Man -
IOM's main Wiki page, but you can follow lots of links. Written by the Government i think, and there's loads of info.
Tourist Guide
Homepage of the TT motorbike races - the best road race for bikes in the world (but an annual nightmare for Manx motorists)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axeknight

I don't think the Americans here are quite confused enough yet, so I'll introduce the Isle of Man. A little off topic, but it's an interesting example of how loose the idea of Great Britain/the United Kingdom etc is.

---

OK, but no-one mention Sark, for gawd's sake.

Sorry, checked it out - only 75-80% of the Irish were Catholic. Of course when Catholic lands are confisctate or divided up by the sons (or if one son turned Protestant - then he could claim it all) and not allowed to purchase additional lands. Some are going to change their religion for the convenience and benefits alloted - hey, does religion really matter? Regardless, Ireland has been a history of repression toward a religion. It is not one of Britains prouder moments.

Points of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_r...est_of_Ireland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1641
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwel...est_of_Ireland

And then there was the famine:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/famine/

Really curious about how well the Irish Catholics were treated? One might check out poverty houses - labor homes where Catholics could go to be slaves. First thing that was done, was to break the families up.

Thing is, this treatment went on well into to the 20th century.

Illegal to buy land in ones own country, because of religion? Sounds alot like some southern states and their treatment of blacks here 'til a few years ago.

Sorry, but the treatment of the Irish all depended on religion - or any created or imagined biase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

Really curious about how well the Irish Catholics were treated? One might check out poverty houses - labor homes where Catholics could go to be slaves. First thing that was done, was to break the families up.

---

If you don't go in with preconceived ideas, you'll find that the poor on the other side of the Irish sea were treated the same way. The Poor laws were passed, not to persecute the Irish who were suffering from famine, but to discourage the rural English from flocking to newtowns like Manchester. One can still find that kind of mentality in Tories today - don't make life easy for the poor, or they'll have no incentive to raise themselves up. Unfortunately for the Irish, since Ireland was part of the UK, laws passed to victimise the English poor also victmised the Irish poor, and since the latter had less to fall back on, they suffered far more from the effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

If you don't go in with preconceived ideas, you'll find that the poor on the other side of the Irish sea were treated the same way. The Poor laws were passed, not to persecute the Irish who were suffering from famine, but to discourage the rural English from flocking to newtowns like Manchester. One can still find that kind of mentality in Tories today - don't make life easy for the poor, or they'll have no incentive to raise themselves up. Unfortunately for the Irish, since Ireland was part of the UK, laws passed to victimise the English poor also victmised the Irish poor, and since the latter had less to fall back on, they suffered far more from the effects.

---

Actually I believe that is in one of the sites noted, but thank you for the summary. Thing is, I'm not sure the UK murdered a third of the British polulace, as Cromwell did the Irish. Or, allow a third to starve to death or flee to America (where as previously noted, they weren't all that welcome - but, they did overcome it = became cops).

My maternal grandmother's (note: Mom was adopted) father came to Kansas with his two brothers as indentured servants from England (1870's? or about). Fortunately for them the guy that bought them had died, and the town took them in as their own children. He became a newsman/photographer and even met Buffalo Bill and a bucha other wildmen.

Still, point is, I know things have never been good for the poor anywhere. That their suppression seems to be of the only interest to small minded men that feel it is neccessay to maintain their reign. As it always has been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

Actually I believe that is in one of the sites noted, but thank you for the summary. Thing is, I'm not sure the UK murdered a third of the British polulace, as Cromwell did the Irish. Or, allow a third to starve to death or flee to America (where as previously noted, they weren't all that welcome - but, they did overcome it = became cops).

My maternal grandmother's (note: Mom was adopted) father came to Kansas with his two brothers as indentured servants from England (1870's? or about). Fortunately for them the guy that bought them had died, and the town took them in as their own children. He became a newsman/photographer and even met Buffalo Bill and a bucha other wildmen.

Still, point is, I know things have never been good for the poor anywhere. That their suppression seems to be of the only interest to small minded men that feel it is neccessay to maintain their reign. As it always has been.

---

Read up on the origins of the Irish potato famine, and how it was made worse, not because we set out to harm the Irish, but because, as always, we paid too little attention to the province. Otherwise I'm afraid you're suckling on the propaganda of victimhood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

OK, but no-one mention Sark, for gawd's sake.

---

Hey, what's wrong with an off shore tax haven having its own off shore tax haven? :2thumbsup: Its Brecqhou that would really do their heads in. An off shore tax haven's off shore tax haven having its own off shore tax haven is just plain silly, and if the Americans ever find out that in 2007 we are still having feudal rebellions in the UK (oops, I mean the Duchy of Normandy) that will be our last remaining shred of credibility out of the window.

Oh, all right, if you insist: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/busin...446131,00.html

Quote:

---

Didnt a lot of Vikings settle there?

---

IIRC there was a viking kingdom around Dublin for a while, but even the Irish don't have such long memories as to have a thing against Norway. So far as I know... :laugh4:

Quote:

---

IIRC there was a viking kingdom around Dublin for a while, but even the Irish don't have such long memories as to have a thing against Norway. So far as I know...

---

I was speaking of England.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Read up on the origins of the Irish potato famine, and how it was made worse, not because we set out to harm the Irish, but because, as always, we paid too little attention to the province. Otherwise I'm afraid you're suckling on the propaganda of victimhood.

---

Know what, I did. There was even a link to that in my last post.

Maybe we ought to reclassify the potato famine as the first Katrina (natural disaster) - magnified by 1,000 times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I was speaking of England.

---

Oh, sorry. You mean the danelaw then. The north and west of England were indeed under Danish viking administration for quite some time (and of course Canute was king of England and of Denmark). The Viking kingdom of York features in some of the sagas (in Egil's saga Egil is shipwrecked in England and falls into the hands of his enemy, King Eric Bloodaxe of York, for instance.)

No one really knows how many Danes actually settled though, because genetically you can't distinguish between Danish and Anglo-Saxon heritage, for obvious reasons (ie we basically all came from the same place anyway). In the same way you can't trace any Norman ancestry, since they were originally Danes as well.

Norwegian and Danish vikings settled/conquered/looted all over the british isles. This includes founding cities, destroying cities, conquering the isle, looting monasteries, etc etc...

But what the vikings never did, was to settle there bigtime. There was never any big scale migration to the british isles, it was limited to invasion and setting up small trading settlements.

And as I'm far away from any irish with a fist, I can safely say that we did indeed found dublin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

Know what, I did. There was even a link to that in my last post.

Maybe we ought to reclassify the potato famine as the first Katrina (natural disaster) - magnified by 1,000 times.

---

I think the comparison with Katrina is helpful in understanding the nature of the potato famine. Both were natural disasters the actual causes of which could not be controlled. Both had a worse affect because of existing structural problems. In the case of Katrina these were much easier to see and put right before disaster struck. In both cases nothing was done. The government responses were inadequate caused more death and suffering and fueled resentment in the victims (if victims is an appropriate word). For both disasters the reasons for the poor response by Government included callousness, incompetence and prejudice. In the potato famine the prejudice was a far more important element than in New Orleans.

However all the legal penalties applied to Catholics had already been removed in 1829 (except the bar to graduating at Oxford or Cambridge - which also applied to Methodists, Presbyterians and other non-conformists - and marrying the heir to the throne). The legal framework under which the Catholic poor in Ireland were treated was the same as the framework under which they would have been treated in Islington. The problem was that when it became clear that framework could not cope with a disaster of that scale the Irish Sea and the idea that God was punishing Catholics for having the wrong religion (this view was held by some but not all in authority) made is too easy for people to deny that change was required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Aethelstan never thought of a united British collective group. Simply an overlordship of the Islands of Britain. Same with Longshanks.

---

I agree, but I think James Stuart was the same.

I suspect that famine relief would have been a rather innovative policy for governments of the time.

Not only was it novel it was used as a way to convert starving people to the protestant and presbyterian religons. If you have heard the term souper it came about becasue people were offered soup and bread if they would just convert. There are still some isolated west coast areas that have decsendants today

It is also a good idea to point out that while there is understandably anger at historical happenings Irish people are over it in the main. It can never fully be removed naturally its to big a part of Irish identity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

I suspect that famine relief would have been a rather innovative policy for governments of the time.

---

Ireland was producing enough food to feed the Irish. Unfortunately, it was only the richer landowners, who did not rely exclusively on a single crop (potato), who were able to survive the potato blight and were able to continue exporting produce. There was an argument at the time over whether or not the government should take action to stop this exporting of food from a province suffering from famine, but the Whig argument for free trade and minimal government intervention combined with the Tory favouring of rich landowners to result in little government action. Poor laws designed to discourage the English poor from migrating to the industrial towns meant the Irish poor had to give up everything in order to qualify for state aid, while those who tried to stick it out were persecuted by the rich, who wanted to consolidate their plots of land (see the Roman Republic and latifundiae). Faced with an untenable position, many Irish poor gave up on Ireland altogether and left for America. Only then did Westminster realise the extent of the problem, and take some much, much belated action to relieve the suffering.

If there are any lessons to be learnt from the Irish Potato Famine, it is that the rich and powerful will screw the poor and powerless any opportunity they get, and it's the government's duty to stop them.

Where my Mother comes from in Mayo the reminders of that calamity are everywhere East mayo got it bad. In Ireland there is not a single place that doesnt have its mass grave abandoned cottages and fields so subdivded because of unfair inheritance laws that you wonder how a sparrow could have lived on the produce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Where my Mother comes from in Mayo the reminders of that calamity are everywhere East mayo got it bad. In Ireland there is not a single place that doesnt have its mass grave abandoned cottages and fields so subdivded because of unfair inheritance laws that you wonder how a sparrow could have lived on the produce.

---

Wasn't it at least partly because potatoes could sustain more people from a limited area of land, leading to smaller subplots divided among larger families, and the subsequent collapse when that miracle crop died? The Chinese would probably have suffered the same problem when their rice crops failed, except their governments didn't have the same fetish for minimal intervention as British governments of that time did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Ireland was producing enough food to feed the Irish. Unfortunately, it was only the richer landowners, who did not rely exclusively on a single crop (potato), who were able to survive the potato blight and were able to continue exporting produce. There was an argument at the time over whether or not the government should take action to stop this exporting of food from a province suffering from famine, but the Whig argument for free trade and minimal government intervention combined with the Tory favouring of rich landowners to result in little government action. Poor laws designed to discourage the English poor from migrating to the industrial towns meant the Irish poor had to give up everything in order to qualify for state aid, while those who tried to stick it out were persecuted by the rich, who wanted to consolidate their plots of land (see the Roman Republic and latifundiae). Faced with an untenable position, many Irish poor gave up on Ireland altogether and left for America. Only then did Westminster realise the extent of the problem, and take some much, much belated action to relieve the suffering.

If there are any lessons to be learnt from the Irish Potato Famine, it is that the rich and powerful will screw the poor and powerless any opportunity they get, and it's the government's duty to stop them.

---

The situation is more complicated than you imply. At the start of the famine there was not enough food produced in Ireland to feed the population and at this stage Ireland imported more food than she exported. An article on the BBC site suggests that there was enough food in Ireland taking imports and production into account to feed everyone if it was properly distributed and it was a systemic failure to get the food to those who needed it that caused the horrendous loss of life.

The basis of the Poor Law which was meant to cope with such situations was that the help was local based upon a property tax. The famine did not affect every parish equally and those areas which had sufficient food were under no compulsion either legally or according to contemporary thought morally to give their surplus to other areas. In areas hit by famine landlords found themselves with unproductive and non-paying tenants whose presence made them liable for Poor Law taxes without providing them with any income to pay these rates. In a way they were forced to evict starving tenants in order to keep their own accounts in the black.

What was required was for the government to step in and organise and pay for the distribution of food and financial relief. However decisions were being made in London which was insulated from the problem and the moral and ethical outlook encouraged people to think that any intervention would be wrong as well as ineffective. It was, without doubt, one of the most shameful examples of callous mismanagement in British history but the roots of the problem lay in indifference, prejudice and lack of imagination rather than the simple greed you attribute it to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Wasn't it at least partly because potatoes could sustain more people from a limited area of land, leading to smaller subplots divided among larger families, and the subsequent collapse when that miracle crop died? The Chinese would probably have suffered the same problem when their rice crops failed, except their governments didn't have the same fetish for minimal intervention as British governments of that time did.

---

True the increase in population happened because of that but the sub division and I can be corrected on this came about because catholics were not allowed to pass on an entire estate to a single heir but had to subdivide it equally leading to smaller plots which meant potatoes were used more which meant more people which meant smaller plots again round and round and round

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

True the increase in population happened because of that but the sub division and I can be corrected on this came about because catholics were not allowed to pass on an entire estate to a single heir but had to subdivide it equally leading to smaller plots which meant potatoes were used more which meant more people which meant smaller plots again round and round and round

---

If you mean that the land had to be divided between all the sons, then from 1703 to 1778 this was true. Being pedantic, a Catholic man could leave his land to a single heir if he only had one son.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I am first a Mancunian. Then a Lancastrian. Then a Northerner.....and then an Englishman. After all that kurfuffle, I am British.

Ask anyone from the UK where they come from and I'll put money on it that they identify with their place of birth/residence first and county second, then the country.

---

au-contraire.

i was born, and have lived in various parts of england.
i have lived in africa as a child, and now reside in the principality of wales.

i have always been British, and will always will be british.

i have never associated with the town of my birth, nor too have i associated with historical political divisions such as lancastrians or yorkists, and care not about the north south divide. i have lived where i currently live for over 10 years, longer then i have ever resided elsewhere, but would never consider myself as 'from' here.

and while i accept that the UK is geographically associated with the continent of europe, i will never consider myself as a european!