An American's view of 'The Troubles'

[Duke of Gloucester]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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?

[InsaneApache]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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

[Pannonian]

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.

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Possibly the most farcical attempted sack ever.

You havent seen me play football

[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.

[RabidGibbon]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Didnt a lot of Vikings settle there?

[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?

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,.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

This thread delivers.

[Duke of Gloucester]

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.

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.

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.

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?)

[Incongruous]

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.

[Dave1984]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[King Henry V]

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.

[Kralizec]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[InsaneApache]

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.

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

prounce it bath.

Theres two ways to pronounce bath

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.

[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.

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)

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[KafirChobee]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[KafirChobee]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.