An American's view of 'The Troubles'

[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.

[KafirChobee]

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.

[Duke of Gloucester]

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.

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.

[Slyspy]

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